[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 7 (Friday, January 12, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S485-S501]
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.
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. (By 46 yeas to 51 nays (Vote No. 5),
Senate earlier failed to table the amendment.)
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. 14 (to amendment No. 3), to protect
individuals from having their money involuntarily collected
and used for lobbying by a labor organization.
Vitter/Inhofe modified 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.
[[Page S486]]
Gregg amendment No. 17 (to amendment No. 3), to establish a
legislative line item veto.
Ensign amendment No. 24 (to amendment No. 3), 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.
Ensign modified amendment No. 25 (to amendment No. 3), 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.
Cornyn amendment No. 26 (to amendment No. 3), to require
full separate disclosure of any earmarks in any bill, joint
resolution, report, conference report or statement of
managers.
Cornyn amendment No. 27 (to amendment No. 3), to require 3
calendar days' notice in the Senate before proceeding to any
matter.
Bennett (for McCain) amendment No. 19 (to amendment No. 4),
to include a reporting requirement.
Bennett (for McCain) amendment No. 28 (to amendment No. 3),
to provide congressional transparency.
Bennett (for McCain) amendment No. 29, to provide
congressional transparency.
Lieberman amendment No. 30 (to amendment No. 3), to
establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity.
Bennett/McConnell amendment No. 20 (to amendment No. 3), to
strike a provision relating to paid efforts to stimulate
grassroots lobbying.
Thune amendment No. 37 (to amendment No. 3), to require any
recipient of a Federal award to disclose all lobbying and
political advocacy.
Stevens amendment No. 40 (to amendment No. 4), to permit a
limited flight exception for necessary State travel.
Feinstein/Rockefeller amendment No. 42 (to amendment No.
3), 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.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 10
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the consideration en bloc of amendment No. 1 and amendment
No. 10, and the time until 9:50 a.m. shall run concurrently on both
amendments, with the time equally divided between the two leaders or
their designees.
Who yields time?
Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum
call be put in place with the time charged equally against each side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KERRY. 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. 1, as Modified, to Amendment No. 3
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1, please.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself,
Mr. Salazar, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Pryor, proposes
an amendment numbered 1, as modified, to amendment No. 3.
Mr. KERRY. 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, as modified, is as follows:
(Purpose: To amend title 5, United States Code, to deny Federal
retirement benefits to individuals convicted of certain offenses, and
for other purposes)
At the end, add the following:
TITLE--CONGRESSIONAL PENSION ACCOUNTABILITY
SEC. __1. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Congressional Pension
Accountability Act''.
SEC. __2. DENIAL OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS.
(a) In General.--Section 8312(a) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1), by
striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting
``; or'', and by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) was convicted of an offense described in subsection
(d), to the extent provided by that subsection.''; and
(2) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A), by
striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) and
inserting ``; and'', and by inserting after subparagraph (B)
the following:
``(C) with respect to the offenses described in subsection
(d), to the period after the date of conviction.''.
(b) Offenses Described.--Section 8312 of such title 5 is
amended by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e),
and by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) The offenses to which subsection (a)(3) applies are
the following:
``(1) An offense within the purview of--
``(A) section 201 of title 18 (bribery of public officials
and witnesses); or
``(B) section 371 of title 18 (conspiracy to commit offense
or to defraud United States), to the extent of any conspiracy
to commit an act which constitutes an offense within the
purview of such section 201.
``(2) Perjury committed under the statutes of the United
States or the District of Columbia in falsely denying the
commission of any act which constitutes an offense within the
purview of a statute named by paragraph (1), but only in the
case of the statute named by subparagraph (B) of paragraph
(1).
``(3) Subornation of perjury committed in connection with
the false denial or false testimony of another individual as
specified by paragraph (2).
An offense shall not be considered to be an offense described
in this subsection except if or to the extent that it is
committed by a Member of Congress (as defined by section
2106, including a Delegate to Congress).''.
(c) Absence From United States to Avoid Prosecution.--
Section 8313(a)(1) of such title 5 is amended by striking
``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at
the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting ``or'', and by
adding at the end the following:
``(C) for an offense described under subsection (d) of
section 8312; and''.
(d) Nonaccrual of Interest on Refunds.--Section 8316(b) of
such title 5 is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of
paragraph (1), by striking the period at the end of paragraph
(2) and inserting ``; or'', and by adding at the end the
following:
``(3) if the individual was convicted of an offense
described in section 8312(d), for the period after the
conviction.''.
SEC. __3. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.
The Constitutional authority for this title is the power of
Congress to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper
as enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the United States
Constitution, and the power to ascertain compensation for
Congressional service under Article I, Section 6 of the
United States Constitution.
SEC. __4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This title, including the amendments made by this title,
shall take effect on January 1, 2009 and shall apply with
respect to convictions for offenses committed on or after the
date of enactment of this Act.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time is
divided up now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 7 minutes on the Senator's side.
Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, my amendment is cosponsored by Senator Salazar,
Senator Ben Nelson, and Senator Pryor, and it is based on a bill
Senator Salazar and I introduced that we hope will go some further
distance in this effort we are engaged in now with ethics reform to
reestablish the trust of the American people in their Government in
Washington.
We do this by an effort to prevent Members of Congress who betray
that trust from receiving their pensions. This is plain deterrence. It
is an effort to try to make it clear there are serious consequences to
betraying that trust.
In a sense, the trust is larger than perhaps the day-to-day
relationship of most citizens in this country to the law. We take a
special oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
But, more importantly, when people elect you to high Federal office, or
any office, they are putting a special kind of trust in you to
represent their lives, their interests, their values--indeed, the
highest level of aspiration of values that we all share in this
country.
So this is done because there is something that grates in the notion
that you can put the public's trust and the public's business up for
sale and then walk away and have the people whom you betrayed turn
around and pay for you to be able to have for the rest of your life a
fat pension because of the level of service you had reached at their
trust.
Let me be very specific about this. A few years ago, Congressmen
Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham sat down at a cozy meeting with some
lobbyists and he proceeded to betray the public trust.
[[Page S487]]
He used his official congressional stationary to draft a series of quid
pro quo deals.
Let me show you this blowup of the stationary itself: Here is the
congressional seal. Here is Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham's name. Here is a
list of the amounts of millions of dollars: $16 million; ``BT''--that
is ``boat''--``140''--that was $140,000--$17 million; an additional
$50,000; $18 million, $50,000. Once they paid about $340,000. The price
of this service went down, and he charged only $25,000 for each million
dollars of contract that he would award.
He was convicted of collecting approximately $2.4 million in homes,
yachts, antique furnishings, and other bribes--including a Rolls
Royce--from defense contractors. This disgraceful conduct--which is
beyond the comprehension of any Member of this institution--earned him
8 years and 4 months in a Federal prison, and it has required him to
also pay the Government $1.8 million in penalties but also some back
taxes.
But under today's rules, the American taxpayer is going to continue
to pay a Federal pension that is out of the reach of any American
taxpayer, and that is disgraceful. Right now, only a conviction for a
crime against the United States, such as treason or espionage, would
cost a Member of Congress their pension. So we set a standard for the
pension being held accountable, but it is only for two things. Surely
we ought to put this moral bar higher than that.
Most Americans do not get a $40,000 a year pension. Those who abuse
the public trust should not be allowed to exploit the Federal system at
taxpayers' expense. The American people cannot afford to spend millions
on pensions for politicians who steal from them. More importantly,
Congress cannot afford to have a standard where it is willing to
forgive and forget and betray that trust.
I have shown what the ``bribe menu'' was, which is a pretty
extraordinary menu. Unfortunately, Congressman Cunningham was not
alone. Last November, Representative Bob Ney resigned from the House of
Representatives after pleading guilty to conspiracy and making false
statements. In a plea agreement, former Representative Ney acknowledged
taking trips, tickets, meals, and campaign donations from Mr. Abramoff
in return for taking official actions on behalf of Abramoff clients.
In March 2002, Representative Ney inserted an amendment in the Help
America Vote Act to lift an existing Federal ban against commercial
gaming by a Texas Native American tribal client of Abramoff. In return,
Representative Ney received all-expenses-paid and reduced-price trips
to Scotland to play golf, a trip to New Orleans to gamble, and a
vacation in Lake George--all courtesy of Mr. Abramoff.
Another former Congressman, Jim Traficant, currently enjoys a lavish
taxpayer-funded lifetime pension worth an estimated $1.2 million,
despite being thrown out of Congress and sent to jail.
So these examples are just three of at least 20 former lawmakers who
were convicted of serious crimes and are still receiving a taxpayer-
funded pension, some as high as $125,000 a year.
As I said earlier, we should hold ourselves to the highest standards.
The principle is a simple one: Public servants who abuse the public
trust and are convicted of ethics crimes should not collect taxpayer-
financed pensions. This should serve, hopefully, as a bold deterrent
that when any Member comes in here, they know they are putting their
lives at greater risk than just the penalty they might pay on a short-
term basis for their particular transgression.
This amendment denies Federal pensions--as soon as is legally
possible--to Members of Congress who are convicted of white-collar
crimes, such as bribery of public officials and witnesses, conspiracy
to defraud the United States, perjury in falsely denying the commission
of bribery or conspiracy, and subornation of perjury committed in
connection with the false denial or false testimony of another
individual.
It is my understanding there is some concern among a couple of
Members about how this legislation might affect innocent spouses and
children of Members of Congress who lose their pensions as a result of
this legislation. Obviously, we are trying to set up an adequate
deterrent to prevent people from that in the first place.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. But after the legislation is enacted, the Member will
still receive a refund of all of their personal contributions--those
will not be taken away--into either the Federal Employees Retirement
System or the Civil Service Retirement System, and they will retain all
the benefits from the Thrift Savings Plan.
Also, the payment of spousal benefits is permitted in forfeiture
cases when the Attorney General determines that the spouse cooperated
with Federal authorities in the conduct of a criminal investigation.
This can significantly improve our Government by the way business is
done. I hope my colleagues will join overwhelmingly in voting to
prohibit sending pension checks to criminals. This amendment is a step
in the right direction.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of
the amendment introduced by Mr. Kerry and Mr. Salazar. I strongly
encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
When the ethics reform process began last year, I was quick to point
out that, for the most part, our laws had worked the way we intended.
Today, Jack Abramoff, Bob Ney, and Duke Cunningham have all been found
guilty of the crimes they committed and have been punished accordingly.
Last year, when we held our hearing in the Rules Committee, I remarked
that Capitol Hill must be the only place in the world where, if someone
breaks the law, we rush to change the law.
Well in this case, we have an opportunity to add to the law to
correct a significant shortcoming. We take away the retirement benefits
of those Members of Congress who violate the public trust by committing
crimes while in office.
It is often said, ``If you do the crime, you do the time.'' Well, it
seems that if you are a former Congressman or Senator, you do the
crime, do the time, and continue to collect Federal retirement benefits
paid for by the American taxpayer. That just doesn't seem right to me.
This amendment, the Congressional Pension Accountability Act, will
bar Members of Congress from receiving taxpayer-funded retirement
benefits after they have been convicted of bribery, conspiracy,
perjury, or other serious ethics offenses. If we are serious about
cleaning up Congress, we should approve this amendment and put our
money where our mouth is--by saying that the public, who are the
primary victims of crimes committed by elected officials, should not be
required to pay benefits for those who are convicted of a breach of the
public's trust.
I strongly believe that all Members of Congress must be held to the
highest ethical standards and those who violate the public trust must
be held accountable for their actions. I urge my colleagues to support
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from
Massachusetts. I think this is an excellent amendment. I think it is
long overdue. I am very hopeful it will pass the Senate this morning.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the majority has expired.
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be laid aside so I can call up four amendments to the pending
substitute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 31, 32, 33, and 34
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the four amendments--Nos. 31, 32, 33,
and 34--are at the desk and I call them up at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments en bloc.
[[Page S488]]
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes
amendments, en bloc, numbered 31, 32, 33, and 34 to amendment
No. 3.
Mr. FEINGOLD. 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, en bloc, are as follows:
amendment no. 31
(Purpose: To prohibit former Members of Congress from engaging in
lobbying activities in addition to lobbying contacts during their
cooling off period)
On page 50, line 25, strike ``1995.'';'' and all that
follows through page 51, line 12, and insert the following:
``1995.
``(3) Members of congress and elected officers.--Any person
who is a Member of Congress or an elected officer of either
House of Congress and who, within 2 years after that person
leaves office, knowingly engages in lobbying activities on
behalf of any other person (except the United States) in
connection with any matter on which such former Member of
Congress or elected officer seeks action by a Member,
officer, or employee of either House of Congress shall be
punished as provided in section 216 of this title.''.
(3) in paragraph (6)--
(A) by striking ``paragraphs (2), (3), and (4)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (2)'';
(B) by striking ``(A)'';
(C) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(D) by redesignating the paragraph as paragraph (4); and
(4) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (5).
(c) Definition of Lobbying Activity.--Section 207(i) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) the term `lobbying activities' has the same meaning
given such term in section 3(7) of the Lobbying Disclosure
Act (2 U.S.C. 1602(7)).''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (b)
shall take effect 60 days after the date of enactment of this
Act.
amendment no. 32
(Purpose: To increase the cooling off period for senior staff to 2
years and to prohibit former Members of Congress from engaging in
lobbying activities in addition to lobbying contacts during their
cooling off period)
On page 17, line 15, strike ``1 year'' and insert ``2
years''.
On page 50, line 25, strike ``1995.'';'' and all that
follows through page 51, line 12, and insert the following:
``1995.
``(3) Members of congress and elected officers.--Any person
who is a Member of Congress or an elected officer of either
House of Congress and who, within 2 years after that person
leaves office, knowingly engages in lobbying activities on
behalf of any other person (except the United States) in
connection with any matter on which such former Member of
Congress or elected officer seeks action by a Member,
officer, or employee of either House of Congress shall be
punished as provided in section 216 of this title.'';
(3) in paragraph (6)--
(A) by striking ``paragraphs (2), (3), and (4)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (2)'';
(B) by striking ``(A)'';
(C) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(D) by redesignating the paragraph as paragraph (4); and
(4) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (5).
(c) Definition of Lobbying Activity.--Section 207(i) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) the term `lobbying activities' has the same meaning
given such term in section 3(7) of the Lobbying Disclosure
Act (2 U.S.C. 1602(7)).''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (b)
shall take effect 60 days after the date of enactment of this
Act.
AMENDMENT NO. 33
(Purpose: To prohibit former members who are lobbyists from using gym
and parking privileges made available to Members and former Members)
On page 10, line 9, strike ``Leader.''.'' and insert the
following: ``Leader.
``3. A former Member of the Senate may not exercise
privileges to use Senate or House gym or exercise facilities
or member-only parking spaces if such Member is--
(1) a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal;
or
(2) in the employ of or represents any party or
organization for the purpose of influencing, directly or
indirectly, the passage, defeat, or amendment of any
legislative proposal.''.
AMENDMENT NO. 34
(Purpose: To require Senate campaigns to file their FEC reports
electronically)
At the end of subtitle A of title II insert the following:
SEC. 225. ELECTRONIC FILING OF ELECTION REPORTS OF SENATE
CANDIDATES.
(a) In General.--Section 304(a)(11)(D) of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(11)(D)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(D) As used in this paragraph, the terms `designation',
`statement', or `report' mean a designation, statement, or
report, respectively, which--
``(i) is required by this Act to be filed with the
Commission; or
``(ii) is required under section 302(g) to be filed with
the Secretary of the Senate and forwarded by the Secretary to
the Commission.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 302(g)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 432(g)(2)) is amended by inserting ``or 1
working day in the case of a designation, statement, or
report filed electronically'' after ``2 working days''.
(2) Section 304(a)(11)(B) of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(11)(B)) is amended by inserting
``or filed with the Secretary of the Senate under section
302(g)(1) and forwarded to the Commission'' after ``Act''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to any designation, statement, or report required
to be filed after the date of enactment of this Act.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to very briefly discuss the
amendments I have offered. I will be happy to debate them more fully at
the appropriate time if necessary. All of these amendments are drawn
from the bill I introduced this week with Senators Obama, Lieberman,
and Tester, S. 230. I believe that several of the amendments have the
support of the majority leader, but for a variety of reasons, they were
not included in the substitute that is now before the body. I again
thank him for his support of strong lobbying and ethics reform, and I
look forward to the Senate's consideration of these amendments.
My first amendment, amendment 31, changes the universe of activities
that former Members of Congress can engage in during their cooling off
period after they serve in this body. Currently, they cannot personally
lobby their former colleagues. This amendment states in addition they
may not engage in lobbying activities, which is a defined term in the
Lobbying Disclosure Act. They must refrain from running the show behind
the scenes. They won't be able to strategize with and coordinate the
lobbying activities of others who are trying to influence the Congress.
Members who have just left Congress should not be capitalizing on the
clout, access, and experience they gained here to lobby their
colleagues, whether they are doing the lobbying themselves or
instructing others.
My next amendment, amendment 32, is the same as the revolving-door
amendment that I just described but also extends the ``cooling-off
period'' for senior staff from one to two years. Under the bill, the
``cooling off period'' for Members of Congress is increased from 1 to 2
years. I believe that just as one year is not an adequate ``cooling off
period'' for Senators, and the bill reflects that, it is not adequate
for senior staff. Staff, of course, can lobby the other body after they
leave, and my amendment would not subject them to the same lobbying
activities prohibition that it seeks to apply to former Members. It
simply will make them wait 2 years to lobby this body after they leave
the Senate.
My next amendment, No. 33, ends Senate gym and parking privileges for
former Members of Congress who are lobbyists. The underlying bill
terminates floor privileges for Members turned lobbyists, and we should
finish the job by making sure that other special privileges aren't
available to these lobbyists just because they used to serve here.
My next amendment, No. 34, will finally bring Senate campaigns into
the 21st century by requiring Senate candidates to file their FEC
disclosure reports electronically. This amendment mirrors a bill that
I, along with Senators Cochran, McCain, and 20 of our colleagues from
both sides of the aisle, introduced on Tuesday.
These amendments, along with amendments that have been offered by my
partners on S. 230, Senators Lieberman and Obama, and another to be
offered by the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, will get us closer to
completing the job of improving this bill and making it a product that
we can be proud of. More importantly, we can make this a product that
the American people will accept as real change. We are headed in the
right direction on this bill, with the substitute
[[Page S489]]
and the Reid amendment on gifts, travel, and corporate jets. But we
need to keep pressing for the best reform possible. These amendments
are offered for that purpose, and I urge the Senate to adopt them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The majority leader.
Amendment No. 1, as Modified
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the hour of 9:50 having arrived, I ask
unanimous consent that voting commence.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to yielding back the time?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
1, as modified, offered by the Senator from Massachusetts.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are
necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh) and the
Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton) are absent on official business.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator
from New York (Mrs. Clinton), and the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin)
would each vote ``yea.''
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator
from Colorado (Mr. Allard), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback),
the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman), the Senator from New Mexico
(Mr. Domenici), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Colorado (Mr.
Allard) and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman) would have voted
``aye.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 8 Leg.]
YEAS--87
Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Brown
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--13
Allard
Bayh
Biden
Boxer
Brownback
Clinton
Coleman
Dodd
Domenici
Hagel
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
The amendment (No. 1), as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 10
Mr. REID. Madam President, we yield back our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has 1 minute.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, this amendment is very simple and
straightforward. It simply raises penalties with regard to lobbyists
not following the lobbyist disclosure law. The maximum penalty would be
$200,000. No. 1, that is the maximum. No. 2, they have an opportunity
to cure the problem, so that would only be achieved in very serious,
very egregious cases. No. 3, we raise the penalties on public
officials. I think it is very appropriate that we set these new
penalties, particularly considering the money made in lobbying. I
commend it to your attention. Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an amendment
by myself and the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Pryor, No.
2, be called up and passed by voice vote at this time. There will be no
speeches.
I call up amendment No. 2.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BENNETT. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object,
but there is a Senator who wants to check in on this amendment, and so
I am protecting his rights. I ask that we voice vote this amendment
after the next vote.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, that is fine with the Senator from
Vermont.
Mr. BENNETT. I do not object, but there is a Senator who wants to
take a look at this amendment and has asked that I preserve his rights.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask for the regular order.
Mr. BENNETT. It is the pending amendment after this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Louisiana, amendment No. 10.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are
necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh) and the
Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton) are absent on official business.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), and the
Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) would each vote ``yea.''
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent. The Senator
from Colorado (Mr. Allard), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback),
the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman), the Senator from New Mexico
(Mr. Domenici), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 6, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 9 Leg.]
YEAS--81
Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Brown
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Isakson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--6
Coburn
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Lott
Roberts
NOT VOTING--13
Allard
Bayh
Biden
Boxer
Brownback
Clinton
Coleman
Dodd
Domenici
Hagel
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
The amendment (No. 10) was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. I call for the regular order with respect to amendment No.
4.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
[[Page S490]]
Amendment No. 4, as Modified
Mr. REID. I send the amendment to the desk for a modification,
incorporating the language of the McCain amendment No. 19.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 4), as modified, is as follows:
Strike sections 108 and 109 and insert the following:
SEC. 108. BAN ON GIFTS FROM LOBBYISTS AND ENTITIES THAT HIRE
LOBBYISTS.
Paragraph 1(a)(2) of rule XXXV of the Standing Rules of the
Senate is amended by--
(1) inserting ``(A)'' after ``(2)''; and
(2) adding at the end the following:
``(B) A Member, officer, or employee may not knowingly
accept a gift from a registered lobbyist, an agent of a
foreign principal, or a private entity that retains or
employs a registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign
principal, except as provided in subparagraph (c).''.
SEC. 109. RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYIST PARTICIPATION IN TRAVEL
AND DISCLOSURE.
(a) Prohibition.--Paragraph 2 of rule XXXV is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (a)(1), by--
(A) adding after ``foreign principal'' the following: ``or
a private entity that retains or employs 1 or more registered
lobbyists or agents of a foreign principal'';
(B) striking the dash and inserting ``complies with the
requirements of this paragraph.''; and
(C) striking clauses (A) and (B);
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (a)(2) as subparagraph
(a)(3) and adding after subparagraph (a)(1) the following:
``(2) Notwithstanding clause (1), a reimbursement
(including payment in kind) to a Member, officer, or employee
of the Senate from an individual other than a registered
lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal that is a private
entity that retains or employs one or more registered
lobbyists or agents of a foreign principal for necessary
transportation, lodging, and related expenses for travel to a
meeting, speaking engagement, factfinding trip or similar
event in connection with the duties of the Member, officer,
or employee shall be deemed to be a reimbursement to the
Senate under clause (1) if it is, under regulations
prescribed by the Select Committee on Ethics to implement
this clause, provided only for attendance at or participation
for 1-day at an event (exclusive of travel time and an
overnight stay) described in clause (1). Regulations to
implement this clause, and the committee on a case-by-case
basis, may permit a 2-night stay when determined by the
committee to be practically required to participate in the
event.'';
(3) in subparagraph (a)(3), as redesignated, by striking
``clause (1)'' and inserting ``clauses (1) and (2)'';
(4) in subparagraph (b), by inserting before ``Each'' the
following: ``Before an employee may accept reimbursement
pursuant to subparagraph (a), the employee shall receive
advance authorization from the Member or officer under whose
direct supervision the employee works to accept
reimbursement.'';
(5) in subparagraph (c)--
(A) by inserting before ``Each'' the following: ``Each
Member, officer, or employee that receives reimbursement
under this paragraph shall disclose the expenses reimbursed
or to be reimbursed and authorization (for an employee) to
the Secretary of the Senate not later than 30 days after the
travel is completed.'';
(B) by striking ``subparagraph (a)(1)'' and inserting
``this subparagraph'';
(C) in clause (5), by striking ``and'' after the semicolon;
(D) by redesignating clause (6) as clause (7); and
(E) by inserting after clause (5) the following:
``(6) a description of meetings and events attended; and'';
(6) by redesignating subparagraphs (d) and (e) as
subparagraphs (f) and (g), respectively;
(7) by adding after subparagraph (c) the following:
``(d) A Member, officer, or employee of the Senate may not
accept a reimbursement (including payment in kind) for
transportation, lodging, or related expenses under
subparagraph (a) for a trip that was planned, organized, or
arranged by or at the request of a registered lobbyist or
agent of a foreign principal, or on which a lobbyist
accompanies the Member, officer, or employee on any segment
of the trip. The Select Committee on Ethics shall issue
regulations identifying de minimis activities by lobbyists or
foreign agents that would not violate this subparagraph.
``(e) A Member, officer, or employee shall, before
accepting travel otherwise permissible under this paragraph
from any person--
``(1) provide to the Select Committee on Ethics a written
certification from such person that--
``(A) the trip will not be financed in any part by a
registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal;
``(B) the source either--
``(i) does not retain or employ registered lobbyists or
agents of a foreign principal and is not itself a registered
lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal; or
``(ii) certifies that the trip meets the requirements
specified in rules prescribed by the Select Committee on
Ethics to implement subparagraph (a)(2);
``(C) the source will not accept from any source funds
earmarked directly or indirectly for the purpose of financing
the specific trip; and
``(D) the trip will not in any part be planned, organized,
requested, or arranged by a registered lobbyist or agent of a
foreign principal and that the traveler will not be
accompanied on any segment of the trip by a registered
lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal, except as permitted
by regulations issued under subparagraph (d), and
specifically details the extent of any involvement of a
registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal; and
``(2) after the Select Committee on Ethics has promulgated
regulations mandated in subparagraph (h), obtain the prior
approval of the committee for such reimbursement.'';
(8) by striking subparagraph (g), as redesignated, and
inserting the following:
``(g) The Secretary of the Senate shall make all advance
authorizations, certifications, and disclosures filed
pursuant to this paragraph available for public inspection as
soon as possible after they are received.''; and
(9) by adding at the end the following:
``(h)(1) Not later than 45 days after the date of adoption
of this subparagraph and at annual intervals thereafter, the
Select Committee on Ethics shall develop and revise, as
necessary--
``(A) guidelines on judging the reasonableness of an
expense or expenditure for purposes of this clause, including
the factors that tend to establish--
``(i) a connection between a trip and official duties;
``(ii) the reasonableness of an amount spent by a sponsor;
``(iii) a relationship between an event and an officially
connected purpose; and
``(iv) a direct and immediate relationship between a source
of funding and an event; and
``(B) regulations describing the information it will
require individuals subject to this clause to submit to the
committee in order to obtain the prior approval of the
committee for any travel covered by this clause, including
any required certifications.
``(2) In developing and revising guidelines under clause
(1)(A), the committee shall take into account the maximum per
diem rates for official Government travel published annually
by the General Services Administration, the Department of
State, and the Department of Defense.
``(3) For purposes of this subparagraph, travel on an
aircraft operated or paid for by a carrier not licenced by
the Federal Aviation Administration to operate for
compensation shall not be considered a reasonable 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.''.
(b) Reimbursement for Noncommercial Air Travel.--
(1) Charter rates.--Paragraph 1(c)(1) of rule XXXV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate is amended by adding at the end
the following: ``Fair market value for a flight on an
aircraft operated or paid for by a carrier not licensed by
the Federal Aviation Administration to operate for
compensation or hire, excluding an aircraft owned or leased
by a governmental entity or by a Member of Congress or a
Member's spouse (including an aircraft owned by an entity
that is not a public corporation in which the Member or
Member's spouse has an ownership interest, provided that the
Member does not use the aircraft anymore than the Member's or
spouse's proportionate share of ownership allows), shall be
the pro rata share of the fair market value of the normal and
usual charter fare or rental charge for a comparable plane of
comparable size (as determined by dividing such cost by the
number of members, officers, or employees of the Congress on
the flight).''.
(2) Unofficial office accounts.--Paragraph 1 of rule
XXXVIII of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(c) For purposes of reimbursement under this rule, fair
market value of a flight on an aircraft operated or paid for
by a carrier not licensed by the Federal Aviation
Administration to operate for compensation or hire, shall be
the pro rata share of the fair market value of the normal and
usual charter fare or rental charge for a comparable plane of
comparable size (as determined by dividing such cost by the
number of members, officers, or employees of the Congress on
the flight).''.
(3) Candidates.--Subparagraph (B) of section 301(8) of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (42 U.S.C. 431(8)(B))
is amended by--
(A) in clause (xiii), striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in clause (xiv), striking the period and inserting ``;
and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following :
``(xv) any travel expense for a flight on an aircraft that
is operated or paid for by a carrier not licensed by the
Federal Aviation Administration to operate for compensation
or
[[Page S491]]
hire, but only if the candidate, the candidate's authorized
committee, or other political committee pays--
``(I) to the owner, lessee, or other person who provides
the airplane the pro rata share of the fair market value of
such flight (as determined by dividing the fair market value
of the normal and usual charter fare or rental charge for a
comparable plane of appropriate size by the number of
candidates on the flight) by not later than 7 days after the
date on which the flight is 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.''.
(4) Rules committee review of travel allowances.--Not later
than 90 days after the enactment of this Act, the Senate
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Legislative
Branch, in consultation with the Committee on Rules and
Administration of the Senate, shall consider and propose, as
necessary in the discretion of the subcommittee, any
adjustment to the Senator's Official Personnel and Office
Expense Account needed in light of the revised standards for
reimbursement for private air travel required by this
subsection, and any modifications of Federal statutes or
appropriations measures needed to accomplish such
adjustments.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect 60 days after the date of enactment of this
Act.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I think I have just revised my amendment
to the substitute in a number of significant ways. This bill started
bipartisanly by introduction. The minority leader and I jointly offered
a substitute amendment as well. I want to keep this process bipartisan,
so I am adopting a number of changes that reflect input and ideas from
the Republicans and Democrats, and that is what is in this
modification.
First, I have adopted an idea from the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr.
Inhofe, to make sure it is clear that the new rules on private jets do
not apply to Members who fly their own planes. Senator Inhofe has flown
a one-engine plane all around the world, literally, and he flies back
and forth to Oklahoma on a frequent basis. I think this is an important
amendment and a fair amendment.
Second, I have adopted an idea from the Senator from Arizona, the
senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, to add a reporting requirement
when Senators fly on private jets. Now, when people pay the charter
rate, they will have to file that. I think that was the law before, but
it really doesn't matter. It is something that I think will make things
more clear.
Third, I have adopted an idea from a bipartisan amendment suggested
by Senator Feingold that instructs the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Subcommittee to review the impact on the new rule on
private jets on Members' travel spending. I think that is extremely
important because the subcommittee is going to have to take a look at
how this impacts States differently. If you are from the State of Rhode
Island or Delaware, you don't have much of a problem flying around
because you can drive around. But if you are from the State of Alaska,
the State of Montana, the State of Nevada, Colorado, some of these very
large area Western States, it is a problem. So I commend Senator
Feingold for being thoughtful in this regard.
Madam President, on another issue, I also want to say that I have
spoken to Senator DeMint on his earmarking proposal. We had a number of
good conversations. I have spoken to the Republican leader. We
prepared--and I have given a copy of the amendment to Senator DeMint--a
second-degree amendment which would strengthen the DeMint amendment
that we talked about on the Senate floor yesterday. What our second
degree would do would strengthen the definition of targeted tax
benefits. Certainly, we want to make it one that is understandable, not
rigid and narrow, and I have talked to the Senator from South Carolina
about this.
Also, on the same piece of paper I gave the Senator from South
Carolina, I have explained to my friend, Senator DeMint, that we want
to make sure the Duke Cunningham exception is in place. What
Congressman Cunningham did is, he had earmarks in that bill, but he
never mentioned the entity that got the money. What we would do is, in
this amendment, you can't write your way around it. We think our
suggestion to Senator DeMint to strengthen his amendment is certainly
something we need to do. You can't write your way around giving money
to corporation X. If it limits that, it has to be listed.
Also, importantly, we have added a strengthening provision in the
proposed second-degree amendment to list earmarks on the Internet 48
hours before. Now, I have told Senator DeMint if he wants to make this
part of his amendment, fine. If he wants us to offer the second degree,
we will do that. I told him if he has any suggestions that he feels
would improve what we are trying to do, we are agreeable to take a look
at that. He has suggested that he wants a vote on that. We also want a
recorded vote. I think that is important. So I hope we can work
something out.
What I would like to do is have a number of votes set for Tuesday
evening. After these agreed-upon votes on amendments, then we would
move to invoke cloture on the airplane amendment and then, after that,
on the substitute. I hope we can work on a bipartisan basis in the next
hour or so to set up some votes that would occur before cloture on
those matters about which I have spoken.
Yesterday was a rather difficult day, as some days are. There was a
lot of confusion as to what people were trying to accomplish. I think
that perhaps we should have given a little more time for explanations.
We tend to get in a hurry sometimes when we shouldn't be. We tend to
spend a lot of time doing things that accomplish nothing, and a lot of
times limit time on things that do matter. So, personally, for the
majority, we probably could have done a little better job of giving
opportunities for people to speak. No one came forward wanting to
speak, so that is a pretty good sign that people are ready to vote. But
I think realistically maybe they were not.
But regardless of that, we are where we are, and we are going to try
to move forward in a reasonable manner in the next 2 hours and complete
this bill some time next week, we hope.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The remarks of Mr. McConnell are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. McCONNELL. 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. VITTER. Madam 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. Madam President, I ask for the regular order with regard
to a Vitter amendment, amendment No. 9. I send a modification to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not possible to call for the regular
order for that amendment at this time because under the regular order
the majority leader has called for the regular order for another
amendment.
Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent to go to regular order for
amendment No. 9 for the exclusive purpose of sending a modification to
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I will
not object, but I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator finishes
his amendment, I be given unanimous consent to return to amendment No.
11.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. VITTER. Reserving the right to object, and I will not, I will
simply slightly expand my unanimous consent request to ask for up to 5
minutes to speak, and I offer that unanimous consent request. I
certainly have no objection to the other business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 9 to Amendment No 3, as Further Modified
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I send the modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
[[Page S492]]
The amendment (No. 9), as further modified, is as follows:
On page 19, line 19, strike ``(b) In this'' and insert the
following:
``(b) Members and employees on the staff of a Member
(including staff in personal, committee, and leadership
offices) shall be prohibited from having any official contact
with any spouse of a Member who is a registered lobbyist
under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, or is employed or
retained by such a registered lobbyist.
``(c) The prohibition in subparagraph (a) shall not apply
to the spouse of a Member who was serving as a registered
lobbyist at least 1 year prior to the election of that Member
to office or at least 1 year prior to their marriage to that
member.
``(d) In this''.
Mr. VITTER. I want to spend a few minutes regarding this general
debate to say I hope that we have, in the rest of this debate, an
adequate opportunity to debate and address and vote on some of the key
issues that are and should be at the center of this discussion. I think
there is now a rush to cloture, quite frankly--specifically to cut off
the opportunity to vote on some amendments. I hope we do not do that.
I commend the majority leader for the suggestion that we are going to
have votes on many significant amendments on Tuesday. I ask him that
that list be very inclusive, to include all significant amendments in
which either side of the aisle is interested. I specifically highlight
three.
One is the DeMint amendment, and I appreciate the words of the
majority leader regarding working with Senator DeMint on that
amendment. I fully support that amendment. Much more importantly, that
amendment has proved to have majority support on the floor of this
body. There was a motion to table, and it lost. So that amendment has
majority support, and clearly we need to vote and pass that amendment.
It has already been proven that it has majority support.
The second amendment I would highlight is a Judd Gregg amendment with
regard to spending and earmarks and waste. Again, that is very much at
the heart of this discussion. Earmarks--earmark abuse, what that does
to spending, how it inflates it--have been part of the abuses,
unfortunately, that have come to light in the last several years. So
that is absolutely at the heart of this debate. A lot of Members of the
Senate are interested in that amendment, so we need a debate and a vote
on that amendment.
Third, I would highlight my own amendment which I just modified, and
that has to do with spouses of Members of the Senate lobbying. Again,
this debate, this bill, is about two things: ethics and lobbying. I
don't know how you come up with any argument that the issue of spouses
lobbying, gaining unusual access, having the opportunity of being a
conduit for large amounts of money to be deposited in the family bank
account of Members from special interests, isn't at the heart of that
debate. That is at the heart of the lobbying issue. That is at the
heart of the ethics issue. It is foursquare in the center of this
debate, and certainly we need an adequate debate and a vote on that
idea.
I urge all Senators to support a full and open debate and a full and
open airing and voting on important amendments, including but not
limited to those three. I very much look forward to that next week. I
certainly hope cloture is not invoked in an attempt, as many of us
fear, frankly, to cut off certain significant and relevant amendments.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. VITTER. Certainly.
Mr. DURBIN. I am not finding fault with the Senator from Louisiana,
but the fact is, we do not have a copy of the modification. The reason
I raise that is later I am going to suggest a change in the Senate
rules so that when you file an amendment or modification, copies will
be given to both the ranking member and the Chair on the floor, as is
the custom and rule of the House. That is a good way to make sure there
is knowledge of what is being considered and debated as promptly as
possible.
Going to the substance of the matter, does the Senator's modification
change the original language in his amendment which makes this
provision on spousal lobbying retroactive, not prospective? In other
words, if there is some Member on either side of the aisle today who
has a spouse lobbying at the Federal level, it is my understanding that
the Senator would prohibit that in his original amendment unless that
spouse was lobbying a year before the marriage or a year before the
first election of Congress. Does the modification change that in any
respect?
Mr. VITTER. No, it doesn't. I will tell you exactly what it does.
First of all, I appreciate the question. Certainly I am eager to give
the Senator and all Members a copy of it, which I will do immediately,
and that will be well before any full debate and vote. But let me use
the opportunity to explain what the modification does.
The modification is very simple. It moves the provision to the Senate
rules, and it makes it apply to lobbying Members of the Senate only. I
did the modification for one reason and one reason only--not because I
think that limitation excluding activity on the House side is better
but because it makes it germane to the bill and therefore guarantees me
a vote.
So, to go to the question, the provision--it is only about lobbying
the Senate. But in that context, there is an exclusion if the spouse
lobbyist was an active lobbyist a year or more before the marriage or
the first election. But there is no grandfathering clause other than
that. I hope that answers the question of the Senator.
Mr. DURBIN. It does. I would like to ask the Senator from Louisiana,
in the spirit of your amendment, would you consider an amendment which
would make the 2-year prohibition on lobbying also retroactive, so that
Senators who have not lobbied previously would be prohibited from
lobbying for 2 years and it would be retroactive as well?
Mr. VITTER. I will be happy to consider that idea. I am not going to
change my amendment to include that because I think it would lose votes
from our amendment and I want first of all to pass my amendment, but I
am completely open to that discussion and that idea. Without making a
final decision, I am completely open to supporting that on the floor of
the Senate if somebody were to bring it forward.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has been so modified.
The Senator from Illinois.
Amendment No. 44 to Amendment No. 11
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, pursuant to the unanimous consent
request, it is my understanding that we now return to the DeMint
amendment No. 11.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise to offer a second-degree
amendment to the DeMint amendment No. 11 which I send to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes amendment
numbered 44 to DeMint amendment No. 11.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To strengthen earmark reform)
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted insert the
following:
SEC. 103. CONGRESSIONAL EARMARK REFORM.
The Standing Rules of the Senate are amended by adding at
the end the following:
RULE XLIV
earmarks
``1. It shall not be in order to consider--
``(a) a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee
unless the report includes a list, which shall be made
available on the Internet to the general public for at least
48 hours before consideration of the bill or joint
resolution, of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits,
and limited tariff benefits in the bill or in the report (and
the name of any Member who submitted a request to the
committee for each respective item included in such list) or
a statement that the proposition contains no congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits;
``(b) a bill or joint resolution not reported by a
committee unless the chairman of each committee of
jurisdiction has caused a list, which shall be made available
on the Internet to the general public for at least 48 hours
[[Page S493]]
before consideration of the bill or joint resolution, of
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and limited
tariff benefits in the bill (and the name of any Member who
submitted a request to the committee for each respective item
included in such list) or a statement that the proposition
contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or
limited tariff benefits to be printed in the Congressional
Record prior to its consideration; or
``(c) a conference report to accompany a bill or joint
resolution unless the joint explanatory statement prepared by
the managers on the part of the House and the managers on the
part of the Senate includes a list, which shall be made
available on the Internet to the general public for at least
48 hours before consideration of the conference report, of
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and limited
tariff benefits in the conference report or joint statement
(and the name of any Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner,
or Senator who submitted a request to the House or Senate
committees of jurisdiction for each respective item included
in such list) or a statement that the proposition contains no
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited
tariff benefits.
``2. For the purpose of this rule--
``(a) the term `congressional earmark' means a provision or
report language included primarily at the request of a
Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator
providing, authorizing or recommending a specific amount of
discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other
spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee,
grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an
entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or
Congressional district, other than through a statutory or
administrative formula-driven or competitive award process;
``(b) the term `limited tax benefit' means--
``(1) any revenue provision that--
``(A) provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion,
or preference to a particular beneficiary or limited group of
beneficiaries under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
``(B) contains eligibility criteria that are not uniform in
application with respect to potential beneficiaries of such
provision; or
``(2) any Federal tax provision which provides one
beneficiary temporary or permanent transition relief from a
change to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
``(c) the term `limited tariff benefit' means a provision
modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
in a manner that benefits 10 or fewer entities.
``3. A Member may not condition the inclusion of language
to provide funding for a congressional earmark, a limited tax
benefit, or a limited tariff benefit in any bill or joint
resolution (or an accompanying report) or in any conference
report on a bill or joint resolution (including an
accompanying joint explanatory statement of managers) on any
vote cast by another Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner.
``4. (a) A Member who requests a congressional earmark, a
limited tax benefit, or a limited tariff benefit in any bill
or joint resolution (or an accompanying report) or in any
conference report on a bill or joint resolution (or an
accompanying joint statement of managers) shall provide a
written statement to the chairman and ranking member of the
committee of jurisdiction, including--
``(1) the name of the Member;
``(2) in the case of a congressional earmark, the name and
address of the intended recipient or, if there is no
specifically intended recipient, the intended location of the
activity;
``(3) in the case of a limited tax or tariff benefit,
identification of the individual or entities reasonably
anticipated to benefit, to the extent known to the Member;
``(4) the purpose of such congressional earmark or limited
tax or tariff benefit; and
``(5) a certification that the Member or spouse has no
financial interest in such congressional earmark or limited
tax or tariff benefit.
``(b) Each committee shall maintain the written statements
transmitted under subparagraph (a). The written statements
transmitted under subparagraph (a) for any congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits
included in any measure reported by the committee or
conference report filed by the chairman of the committee or
any subcommittee thereof shall be published in a searchable
format on the committee's or subcommittee's website not later
than 48 hours after receipt on such information.''.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, yesterday there was a debate about the
disclosure of earmarks. It was an interesting debate, and Senator
DeMint and Senator Coburn of Oklahoma offered an amendment.
I felt that amendment had several flaws in it. The purpose of my
second-degree amendment is to address those flaws. It does not go to
the heart of their argument about expanding the number of earmarks that
would be subject to disclosure. In fact, if anything, it expands the
number of earmarks subject to disclosure.
My amendment would strengthen the DeMint amendment in three ways: It
retains the Reid-McConnell bipartisan language in the underlying bill.
The DeMint amendment No. 11 now pending does not go far enough in terms
of covering so-called targeted tax benefits. A lot of attention has
been given to Duke Cunningham, the former Congressman from California,
who was steering Department of Defense funds to certain contractors and
benefiting from it personally. He paid dearly for this transgression
and is currently in prison. That is an example of an egregious abuse of
the appropriations process.
We understand, as well, there are decisions made by Congress outside
of the appropriations process which can be just as beneficial, if not
more profitable, to individuals and businesses. One of the categories
would be in the area of targeted tax credits. However, it could be
others, as well.
Even though my amendment does not go to this issue, consider the fact
that the asbestos legislation pending before Congress 2 years ago would
have benefited one of the corporations from Illinois to the tune of $1
billion had it passed. That figure was arrived at not by myself or
anyone in Congress but, rather, by those who filed the annual report
for that corporation. So you can understand that decisions made in the
Senate and the House of Representatives can have a direct positive
financial impact on businesses and individuals.
As we go after earmarks and try to change those because of the Duke
Cunningham scandal and others, we should also be mindful of the fact
that other decisions made by Congress can be just as beneficial, if not
more so. They cry for transparency, too. Unfortunately, the underlying
DeMint amendment has a restrictive view of targeted tax credits.
The Senator from South Carolina has said he has agreed to language
considered by the House. In all honesty, as good as they are in the
House of Representatives, what I am offering may be an improvement.
Senator DeMint's amendment covers revenue-losing provisions only that
provide tax benefits to 10 or fewer beneficiaries or contain
eligibility criteria that are not the same for other potential
beneficiaries. This unnecessarily limits the definition of revenue-
losing provisions instead of all revenue provisions. My amendment
corrects this.
The DeMint amendment also allows for a loophole. Someone could easily
write a provision that affects 11, 15, or 50 beneficiaries and be
exempt from the disclosure requirements of the DeMint amendment. The
Reid-McConnell definition, which I include in my second-degree
amendment, 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. We do not
come up with a number--10 beneficiaries, 20 beneficiaries--but, rather,
keep it in the category of a tax benefit that is clearly designed to
help a limited group of taxpayers of a certain number compared with
others. This is a more flexible and more realistic standard to be
applied than the language currently in the DeMint bill.
Moreover, the Reid-McConnell language is for the language that they,
in fact, created. It is language that Senator Judd Gregg, former
chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget, included in his line-
item veto bill. Senator Gregg has found what I think is a sensible
definition we ought to use and adopt as part of our reform and ethics
changes we are currently debating. My amendment retains the concept of
Reid-McConnell language, amends the DeMint provision to remove the
limitation of ``10 or fewer beneficiaries'' and would cover ``any
revenue provision that provides a Federal tax deduction, credit,
exclusion, or preference, to a particular beneficiary or a limited
group of beneficiaries.''
Finally, under the DeMint amendment, information about earmarks must
be posted 48 hours after it is received by the committee. In the case
of a fast-moving bill, it is possible that the information would be
made public only after a vote on the relevant bill containing the
earmarks. So there is a weakness in the DeMint language when it comes
to this public disclosure. On the other hand, in the interest of full
disclosure, the Reid-McConnell language requires the earmark disclosure
information be placed on the Internet, available to the public 48 hours
before
[[Page S494]]
consideration of the bills or reports that contain the earmarks.
Senator DeMint's amendment does not have a similar provision. My
amendment retains the stronger Reid-McConnell earmark disclosure
language.
These are three important changes necessary to improve the DeMint
amendment. As I noted yesterday, there are some positive elements of
the DeMint amendment. In some instances it does not go far enough. I
question the whole notion that committee report language should be
treated the same as bill language. Those who have gone through the
basics of legislation understand that bill language can be a law.
Committee report language is never going to be a law. It is only a
recommendation. Having said that, though, I don't address that issue in
any way at all.
I urge my colleagues to support my secondary amendment to the
underlying DeMint amendment. I believe it strengthens the DeMint
amendment. I urge the DeMint amendment, with these changes, be agreed
to, as well.
Amendment No. 36 to amendment No. 3
At this point I ask unanimous consent to set aside this pending
amendment and call up amendment No. 36 which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an
amendment numbered 36.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent 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 that amendments and motions to recommit with
instructions be copied and provided by the clerk to the desks of the
Majority Leader and the Minority Leader before being debated)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. AMENDMENTS AND MOTIONS TO RECOMMIT.
Paragraph 1 of rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate
is amended to read as follows:
``1. (a) An amendment and any instruction accompanying a
motion to recommit shall be reduced to writing and copied and
provided by the clerk to the desks of the Majority Leader and
the Minority Leader and shall be read before being debated.
``(b) A motion shall be reduced to writing, if desired by
the Presiding Officer or by any Senator, and shall be read
before being debated.''.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I welcome you to the Senate. I am glad
you are presiding. I will describe one of the procedures in the Senate
I discovered when I came over from the House that I did not understand.
It is the fact that an amendment filed at the desk by a Member is then
taken to the corridor, to a copy machine, copies are made and then
brought back to the floor. Sometimes these amendments are large.
Sometimes it takes a while to get copied. In the meantime, the debate
is underway. So for those who want to engage in a real deliberation and
debate, there is a mystery quality here for minutes, sometimes longer.
You wait until you get a copy of the amendment.
There has to be a better way. The better way is obvious. Members who
bring modifications to the floor should bring three copies, at least--
one copy for the clerk, one copy for the Republican side, and one copy
for the Democratic side--so that as they are filed, each side has the
language in front of them. As the Senator who is moving the amendment
is making the argument, those who want to follow the amendment have at
least one copy on each side of the aisle to look at. That is the only
way to have a meaningful debate.
There is a way to change this which is clumsy and awkward. As you
probably heard me suggest earlier, I asked unanimous consent to suspend
the reading of the amendment. I could have allowed them to read the
amendment and hear it firsthand. But I think it is more valuable to
have it in writing and have it in front of you.
I have suggested this change in the Senate rules since I arrived 10
years ago. It turns out to be one of the biggest challenges I have
faced in the Senate, to have two additional copies of the amendment
come to the Senate floor. This is a venerable institution. It prides
itself on deliberation, but we operate in Senate years, as opposed to
real years, or dog years, and sometimes things take a lot longer than
they should, so I am offering this amendment.
I have already spoken to the ranking member, Senator Bennett, about
it. I have not spoken to Senator Feinstein, the chairman of the Rules
Committee. I hope it is the kind of noncontroversial amendment that
makes life easier here, but, more importantly, will lead to a debate
which, in fact, would be more meaningful.
I am going to, at some point, ask this be agreed to. I hope my
colleagues will consider supporting it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have been in the Senate a little bit
longer than the Senator from Illinois but long enough to discover that
the Senate and its rules are superbly constructed to deal with the
problems of the 19th century. I think perhaps we should recognize that
we have moved beyond the 19th century into the 21st.
I cannot speak for any member of my caucus, but I will be happy to
support this particular rule change. I think of all of the things that
have been proposed, this is perhaps the most benign.
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.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Mr. President.
Iraq
Mr. President, I want to briefly address the ethics bill before this
Congress, but before I do that, I want to discuss an issue of paramount
importance to my State, in light of the President's recent address, and
that is the war in Iraq.
Sending more American troops is not the change of course the people
of Minnesota and the American people called for in this past election,
and it is not the change of course our military forces deserve.
We learned this week that 3,000 of the 22,000 troops added for the
escalation are from Minnesota's National Guard. These Minnesota
soldiers have already served honorably and well. They and their
families were told they would be coming home in March. And I just
talked to General Shellito, who heads up the National Guard in
Minnesota. He said the hardest thing for them is they have been hanging
on--in his words: ``hanging on''--through March. And now they are
extended well into the summer.
These brave soldiers will be thrust even more deeply into the midst
of Iraq's civil war. Haven't we asked our soldiers and their families
to sacrifice enough?
The great burden on Minnesota and the rest of the country should
remind us that what is needed is a surge in diplomacy and not a surge
in troops.
With that, Mr. President, I would like to turn to the issue of ethics
reform. I thank Senator Reid and the other Senators for their
leadership and for making ethics reform a real priority for this
Congress.
When I arrived in Washington last week, we pulled up in our family
Saturn, loaded with my husband's college dishes and a shower curtain I
found in the basement from 1980. But we brought a little more than
dishes and a shower curtain. We, also, brought a commitment for change,
something the people of our State--Democrats, Independents, and
Republicans, from Worthington to Moorhead to Duluth to Rochester--
called for very clearly and loudly in November.
We also brought a Minnesota moral compass, grounded in a simple
notion of Minnesota fairness--a notion that all people should be on
equal footing in the Halls of Congress. But they cannot be on equal
footing when their elected representatives are selling their votes for
trips to Scotland or stashing away cash in the freezer. They cannot be
on
[[Page S495]]
equal footing unless this new Congress delivers real, meaningful ethics
reform.
Ethics reform is an issue of great importance to the people of my
State. Wherever I went, Minnesotans told me this was the kind of change
that they wanted to see in Washington.
It is not an abstract political science issue. It affects real people
in the real world. And today it comes out of the political science
classrooms and into the Halls of Congress.
Ethics is woven into the very fabric of how our Government does
business. Ethics reform goes to the very heart of our democracy, to the
public trust and respect that is essential to the health of our
constitutional system.
Recent scandals have cast a shadow over the legitimacy of the laws
and policies that come out of Washington. The American public's
receding faith in the integrity of our legislative process means that
ethics reform is now central to every public issue that we will
consider whether it is energy policy, health care reform, fiscal
reform, or even homeland security.
The ability of Congress to deal credibly and forthrightly with these
other issues depends on reforming our own ethical rules.
The long-term challenges that we face in this country are enormous.
They include high energy prices and a growing dependency on foreign
oil, health care costs that have spiraled out of control, global
warming that threatens the future of our environment and our economy, a
mounting national debt, and a growing middle-class squeeze.
I believe that there are solutions to these challenges. While not
always immediate, these solutions are within our grasp. We can achieve
energy independence by investing smartly and having some guts to take
on the oil companies. We can get this country back on the right fiscal
track and move forward to more affordable health care. We can deliver
much needed and long overdue relief to the middle class. These are the
things the people of Minnesota sent me to Washington to fight for. They
sent me here because they have not yet seen the bold change of
direction that we need to make these solutions happen. Instead, they
have seen a Washington that too often serves big special interests at
the expense of the middle class.
As a prosecutor, I learned firsthand how the well-connected and
powerful do not face the same challenges as middle-class families.
Every day, I would go into our courthouse in Minnesota with a mission
to treat people the same no matter where they came from. When we
prosecuted a wealthy, well-connected person for a white-collar crime,
the courtroom was packed with his friends. I would get all kinds of
calls. One of my favorites was, ``I know he stole $400,000 from a
mentally disabled woman, but he is such a good guy; he shouldn't go to
prison.''
But when we prosecuted someone who was poor or middle class, they
were lucky if their mom could take the day off from work to stand
behind them in the courtroom. My job was to even the playing field and
to treat people the same no matter where they came from and who they
knew.
That is still my job, and it is the job of this Congress. With that
in mind, we need to change business as usual. Business as usual has
created a playing field tilted toward special interests and against the
middle class.
When our energy policy is drafted in secret meetings with the oil
companies, we all end up paying more at the pump because they have
failed to invest in renewable energy. When our health care legislation
is written by the drug companies, we pay more because they have banned
negotiation on prices. The people of this country know corruption when
they see it. They saw this last November who was benefiting and who was
getting hurt.
Business as usual doesn't only generate bad policy and wasteful
spending, it also erodes public trust in the integrity of our
Government institutions, our elected leaders, and the law-making
process itself.
We the American people know what we want from Washington. It is this:
a Government that is focused on doing what is best for our Nation and
on securing a better and more prosperous future for the people.
There are so many people of good faith on both sides of the aisle who
want to see this happen. Like me, they want to solve the great
challenges of our day and to restore public faith in our Government.
They know, as I do, that General Omar Bradley was right back in 1948
when he said that ``we need to start steering our ships by the stars,
instead of the lights of each passing ship.''
The new leadership that took the helm last week has already begun
that change in course. They have introduced the ethics reform package
at issue today as the very first bill to be considered by the new
Senate.
It has been an honor to work with Senator Reid and with colleagues
such as Senators Feingold and Obama, and with a great class of freshmen
that includes the Presiding Officer, as well as Senator Tester who is
here with me today, who share a passion for ethics reform. I am also
pleased by the bipartisan support for this bill.
The proposals being offered will strengthen the original S. 1 in a
number of important areas, including stricter travel rules, enhanced
lobbying disclosure requirements, tougher restrictions on the revolving
door between Capitol Hill and lobbying firms, and additional earmarking
reform.
It is also my understanding that the Senate will thoughtfully address
methods to improve ethics enforcement in debates and hearings over the
next few months. Speaking as a former prosecutor, I have expressed to a
number of Senators the great value of strong, sensible enforcement.
I am particularly gratified to see Senator Reid's amendment No. 4
contain improvements to the Senate gift and meal rules. Under current
law, anyone, including a lobbyist, is permitted to buy a gift or a meal
for a Senator or a staff member up to a certain dollar amount. We need
to make sensible changes to current law.
A decade ago, the Minnesota Legislature passed a strong, clear rule
in this area. Lobbyists and those who employ them cannot give gifts or
meals to State or local officials, subject to very limited exceptions
that were meant to be just that--limited exceptions. For more than 10
years, our State officials have abided by these rules, which are rooted
in Minnesota values. I followed them as county prosecutor, and the
results have been greater fairness in our democratic process and
greater faith in our Government.
A rule banning gifts and meals from both lobbyists and those who hire
lobbyists worked in Minnesota, and it can work in Washington, DC.
I want to make clear that my support for this rule is no reflection
on my colleagues who have humbled me with their good faith, honor, and
integrity since I arrived in Washington. Instead, I support it because
the urgency of our need to restore public faith in Government has
convinced me that clear, bright line rules are best. Such rules don't
impose unreasonable constraints and do not adversely affect citizens'
rights to petition their Government. But it does send a strong, clear
message and an important signal to the American people that we are
focused solely on representing their interests.
Last week at my swearing in a number of people and Senators from both
sides of the aisle came up to me remembering the great Senators who
have come to Washington from the State of Minnesota. It is humbling to
follow in the footsteps of people such as Hubert Humphrey and Walter
Mondale and Paul Wellstone. I was reminded many times this past week of
the great things they did and said.
On Humphrey's gravestone, there is an inscription, a quote from
Humphrey himself. It says:
I have enjoyed my life, its disappointments outweighed by
its pleasures. I have loved my country in a way that some
people consider sentimental and out of style. I still do. And
I remain an optimist with joy, without apology about this
country and about the American experiment in democracy.
Like Humphrey, Mr. President, I, too, remain an optimist about this
grand experiment in democracy. I remain an optimist because the people
in my State and across the country have spoken up for change. I remain
an optimist because the people in this Chamber are devoted to getting
things done, and getting them done the right way. I remain an optimist
because this American experiment in democracy has worked best when we,
the American people, without apology, have demanded accountability.
[[Page S496]]
This past November was one of those times. The American people spoke
out for change. We need to answer them.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 to Amendment No. 2
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk and ask
unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.
Mr. President, if I may clarify this, one of the amendments is a
second degree to the Leahy amendment currently pending. The other is a
separate, freestanding first-degree amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment
numbered 45.
The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment
numbered 46 to amendment No. 2.
The amendments are as follows:
Amendment No. 45
(Purpose: To require 72 hour public availability of legislative matters
before consideration)
On page 7, line 13, strike ``conference report unless such
report'' and insert ``legislative matter unless such
matter''.
On page 7, line 16, strike ``48'' and insert ``72.''
amendment no. 46
(Purpose: To deter public corruption)
On page 4, after line 5, add the following:
(e) Deterring Public Corruption.--
(1) Application of mail and wire fraud statutes to licences
and other intangible rights.--Sections 1341 and 1343 of title
18, United States Code, are each amended by striking ``money
or property'' and inserting ``money, property, or any other
thing of value''.
(2) Venue for federal offenses.--
(A) Venue includes any district in which conduct in
furtherance of an offense takes place.--Subsection (a) of
section 3237 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, an offense
against the United States may be inquired of and prosecuted
in any district in which any conduct required for, or any
conduct in furtherance of, the offense took place, or in
which the offense was completed.''.
(B) Conforming amendments.--
(i) Section heading.--The heading for section 3237 of title
18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 3237. Offense taking place in more than one
district''.
(ii) Table of sections.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 211 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended so that the item relating to section 3237 reads as
follows:
``3237. Offense taking place in more than one district.''.
(3) Theft or bribery concerning programs receiving federal
financial assistance.--Section 666(a) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``of $5,000 or more''
and inserting ``of $1,000 or more'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``of $5,000 or more'' and
inserting ``of $1,000 or more''; and
(C) in the matter following paragraph (2), by striking
``ten years'' and inserting ``20 years''.
(4) Penalty for section 641 violations.--Section 641 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``ten
years'' and inserting ``20 years''.
(5) Bribery and graft.--Section 201 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (b)--
(i) by striking ``fifteen years'' and inserting ``30
years''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following: ``If the official
act involved national security, the term of imprisonment
under this subsection shall be not less than 3 years.''; and
(B) in subsection (c), by striking ``two years'' and
inserting ``10 years''.
(6) Making rico maximum conform to bribery maximum.--
Section 1963(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``20 years'' and inserting ``30 years''.
(7) Increase of maximum penalties for certain public
corruption related offenses.--
(A) Solicitation of political contributions.--Section
602(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``3 years'' and inserting ``10 years''.
(B) Promise of employment for political activity.--Section
600 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking
``one year'' and inserting ``10 years''.
(C) Deprivation of employment for political activity.--
Section 601(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``one year'' and inserting ``10 years''.
(D) Intimidation to secure political contributions.--
Section 606 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``three years'' and inserting ``10 years''.
(E) Solicitation and acceptance of contributions in federal
offices.--Section 607(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by striking ``3 years'' and inserting ``10
years''.
(F) Coercion of political activity by federal employees.--
Section 610 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``three years'' and inserting ``10 years''.
(8) Addition of district of columbia to theft of public
money offense.--Section 641 of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by inserting ``the District of Columbia or''
before ``the United States'' each place that term appears.
(9) Additional rico predicates.--Section 1961(1) of title
18, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by inserting ``section 641 (relating to embezzlement or
theft of public money, property, or records,'' after ``473
(relating to counterfeiting),''; and
(10) Additional wiretap predicates.--Section 2516(1) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (c), by inserting ``section 641 (relating
to embezzlement or theft of public money, property, or
records,'' after ``section 224 (relating to bribery in
sporting contests),'';
(B) in paragraph (r), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(C) by redesignating paragraph (s) as paragraph (t); and
(D) by inserting after paragraph (r) the following:
``(s) a violation of section 309(d)(1)(A)(i) or 319 of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971; or''.
(11) Clarification of crime of illegal gratuities.--
Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 201(c)(1) of title 18,
United States Code, are each amended by inserting ``the
official position of that official or person or'' before
``any official act''.
(12) Amendment of the sentencing guidelines relating to
certain crimes.--
(A) Directive to sentencing commission.--Pursuant to its
authority under section 994(p) of title 28, United States
Code, and in accordance with this section, the United States
Sentencing Commission forthwith shall review and amend its
guidelines and its policy statements applicable to persons
convicted of an offense under sections 201, 641, 666, and
1962 of title 18, United States Code, in order to reflect the
intent of Congress that such penalties be increased in
comparison to those currently provided by guidelines and
policy statements.
(B) Requirements.--In carrying out this subsection, the
Commission shall--
(i) ensure that the sentencing guidelines and policy
statements reflect Congress' intent that the guidelines and
policy statements reflect the serious nature of the offenses
described in subparagraph (A), the growing incidence of such
offenses, and the need for an effective deterrent and
appropriate punishment to prevent such offenses;
(ii) consider the extent to which the guidelines may or may
not appropriately account for--
(I) the potential and actual harm to the public and the
amount of any loss resulting from the offense;
(II) the level of sophistication and planning involved in
the offense;
(III) whether the offense was committed for purposes of
commercial advantage or private financial benefit;
(IV) whether the defendant acted with intent to cause
either physical or property harm in committing the offense;
(V) the extent to which the offense represented an abuse of
trust by the offender and was committed in a manner that
undermined public confidence in the Federal, State, or local
government; and
(VI) whether the violation was intended to or had the
effect of creating a threat to public health or safety,
injury to any person or even death;
(iii) assure reasonable consistency with other relevant
directives and with other sentencing guidelines;
(iv) account for any additional aggravating or mitigating
circumstances that might justify exceptions to the generally
applicable sentencing ranges;
(v) make any necessary conforming changes to the sentencing
guidelines; and
(vi) assure that the guidelines adequately meet the
purposes of sentencing as set forth in section 3553(a)(2) of
title 18, United States Code.
(13) Clarification of definition of official act.--Section
201(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``any decision'' and all that follows through
``profit'' and inserting ``any decision or action within the
range of official duty of a public official''.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a moment
before he speaks?
Mr. ENSIGN. Yes.
Amendment No. 40 Withdrawn
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have tried to work out a problem
dealing with our State regarding aircraft. It is my understanding that
the agreed to
[[Page S497]]
amendment has been modified. Apparently, the decision of the majority
is that we should use more taxpayer money to meet our needs. I am not
going to persist in my attempt to work out our problems in this manner.
It is my understanding that somebody talked about my jet amendment.
It had nothing to do with jets until I modified it to accommodate some
of the problems of majority members. I withdraw amendment No. 40.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
Honoring Champions of Equality
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, on January 15 we honor the legacy of a man
who gave his life in the struggle for equality. Dr. Martin Luther King
read the words to our Nation's Declaration of Independence and worked
to ensure that they were lived that way:
All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable rights . . .
Throughout history we have been fortunate to have leaders of
unbelievable character and vision, such as Dr. King, who rose in power
and worked to change the course of history. Today I want to talk about
the legacy of Dr. King and another champion of human rights, William
Wilberforce.
In 1790, the transatlantic slave trade was thriving. The economic
development of Europe was fueled by the trading in enslaved Africans,
an incredibly profitable business at that time. Conditions for slaves
were horrific--from being kidnaped by foreigners speaking an unknown
language, being chained up and forced into unfathomable conditions for
the torturous trip from Africa, to finally being sold into a lifetime
of slavery--if they survived--in a strange land.
Witnesses to and survivors of these atrocities shared their stories
with the small, but dedicated, bands of abolitionists who worked
tirelessly to rid the world of this shameful slave trade.
In the late 1700s, they found their voice in William Wilberforce, a
member of the British Parliament. In 1789, Wilberforce laid out the
case against slavery with eye witness and survivor accounts of the
brutality inflicted on slaves. He told his fellow legislators:
Having heard all of this, you may choose to look away, but
you can never say again that you did not know.
For two decades, William Wilberforce fought with every fiber of his
being to abolish the slave trade. It was not easy going up against
those who made a fortune off of this trade. Many felt the economy and
England would crumble without the slaves. Vilified and ridiculed,
Wilberforce refused to give up the fight against the fierce proslavery
forces. Wilberforce introduced motions to abolish slavery in every
single session of Parliament. In 1807, his legislation to abolish the
slave trade finally passed. Wilberforce continued his fight until his
health could no longer take it. In 1833, a bill passed giving all
slaves in the British Empire their freedom. William Wilberforce passed
away 3 days later.
More than a century later, across the Atlantic, a young Black pastor
from Atlanta, Georgia, was sharing his dream for a united, multiracial
America. It was Dr. King's eloquence, intense spirit, and vision that
lifted him to lead our civil rights movement at a pivotal time. He said
that ``Life's most persistent and nagging question is, what are you
doing for others?'' and he challenged citizens to make the answer
count.
While his life was cut tragically short, Dr. King's work to bring
equality for all has become part of the fabric of our maturing Nation.
William Wilberforce and Dr. Martin Luther King are two men who rose
to extraordinary levels of public service by embracing their faiths and
working to correct a great abuse of human rights. They each served
mankind in a way that very few others have. Yet, the lesson we learn
from their life stories is that we all have that spark of greatness. It
is our choice whether we stand on the sidelines while others light the
way or step forward and ignite our own passion to make a difference in
this world.
The path to righting an injustice is full of obstacles and risks. Dr.
King lost his life and left behind a widow and four young children on
his mission to leave them a better world. William Wilberforce faced
defeat after defeat with his unpopular legislation to abolish slavery.
In fact, his abolition bill was defeated 30 times over the course of 20
years, but he continued the fight, and his eventual victory has been
called one of the turning events in world history.
I chose to talk about Dr. King and William Wilberforce today because
they are truly remarkable people whose stories I believe inspire others
to action.
Neither Dr. King nor William Wilberforce embarked on their careers
knowing that they would become giants of history. They sought to make a
difference in whatever capacity they could. It is a lesson from which
we should all learn.
After all, while Dr. King and William Wilberforce made tremendous
progress in eliminating slavery and empowering equality, there is still
much work to be done. Racial division and the violence that Dr. King
preached against have not disappeared from our country, and slavery
worldwide is a bigger problem today than it was in 1790. There are
actually more slaves today than there were seized from Africa in four
centuries of the transatlantic slave trade.
It is appalling, but it gives us the opportunity to ask that question
Dr. King and William Wilberforce would have easily been able to answer:
What are you doing for others?
I was able to recently watch the screening of a movie about William
Wilberforce called ``Amazing Grace.'' I had actually started learning
about and admiring William Wilberforce several years ago, so I was
thrilled that his life and impact would be documented and shared this
way. The movie shows that while William Wilberforce was the voice and
face behind the effort to abolish the slave trade, there were many
people who inspired him to take action in the first place.
There was John Newton who was William Wilberforce's childhood pastor.
Newton was at one time a slave trader. It was from a sea voyage during
which he nearly died that he went on to write the hymn ``Amazing
Grace.'' Newton convinced William Wilberforce to stay in politics in
order to make a difference, and he provided his confession as a slave
trader for Wilberforce to use in his appeals for abolition.
There was also his friend William Pitt who went on to become the
youngest Prime Minister of England. Pitt pushed Wilberforce to continue
as a public servant and encouraged him to lead the abolition movement.
There were many other characters who played a role in William
Wilberforce's involvement and eventual success in abolishing slavery.
While they may not be the names we often read about in history books,
their impact was tremendous.
Former Chaplain of the Senate Lloyd John Ogilvie once said:
You may only be able to make a small difference, but that
does not relieve you of the responsibility to make that
difference.
When he says ``You may only make a small difference,'' I think he was
encouraging people to try to make any difference, whatever difference
they were called to make. They may think that it would only be a small
difference, but in reality, it is history that will make that
determination.
I talked earlier about how shameful it is that there are more slaves
around the world today in 2007 than there were during the 400-year
period of the transatlantic slavery movement. I applaud a campaign
called The Amazing Change. They highlight the work of groups continuing
William Wilberforce's work to abolish slavery and make a better world.
The campaign is motivating young people across the country to get
involved and to make a difference, and there are many causes such as
this that need advocates and supporters. Whether it is volunteering in
your own community to help abused children or working to help cure
cancer, spreading the word about the atrocities in Darfur, find your
passion and use it to leave this world a better place.
Ultimately, this is the message of Dr. King and William Wilberforce:
Do something for others.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
[[Page S498]]
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Tribute to Lamar Hunt
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, first, I rise today to pay tribute to a much
loved sportsman, businessman, civic leader, and family man, Lamar Hunt,
best known as founder and owner of the Kansas City Chiefs, who,
regrettably, passed away on December 13 of complications related to
prostate cancer. Some might be surprised to learn that Kansas City was
Lamar Hunt's adopted town, not his hometown. Born in Arkansas and
raised in Texas, Lamar began his journey to Kansas City in 1959, when
the National Football League unwisely turned down his request for a new
franchise in Dallas. If you can't join 'em, beat 'em, to turn a cliche
on its head.
Shut out of the NFL, Lamar Hunt decided to create another football
league. He found seven other men as passionate about football as he
was, and together they created the American Football League, the AFL.
At the time, theirs was considered a risky venture. They called
themselves ``the foolish club'' and located their teams in Midwestern
and Southern cities, places without a history of professional football.
It has been said that leaders are visionaries with a poorly developed
sense of fear and no concept of the odds against them. Lamar was such a
leader and he fit that description.
He was certainly visionary. His leadership in creating and expanding
the American Football League helped professional football gain a
nationwide following before merging to become today's NFL.
I think he did understand the odds against him. He did not let them
get in the way. He stuck with his plan for a new football league and
succeeded. He first located his franchise in Dallas. In 1963, he moved
the Dallas Texans to Kansas City, where they became the Chiefs.
Lamar Hunt coined the term ``Super Bowl'' and was on hand to see the
Chiefs win Super Bowl IV. Unfortunately, our Chiefs have not won a
Super Bowl since, but Lamar never gave up on his team and neither will
we, the fans.
Lamar Hunt was a true entrepreneur, willing to take calculated risk
on investments that would benefit the larger community. Since the
1960s, the Hunt family has been instrumental in the growth and
development of Kansas City from a frontier town to a world-class city.
The Hunts have contributed to the Kansas City economy through Hunt
Midwest Enterprises, which, among other ventures, developed Worlds of
Fun and Oceans of Fun, two recreational theme parks that draw hundreds
of thousands of visitors each year.
While he is best known for his love for professional football, Lamar
Hunt was deeply involved in other sports. He was a part owner of the
Chicago Bulls, he founded World Championship Tennis in 1969, and he
spearheaded the development of soccer as a professional sport in the
United States. He owned two Major League Soccer teams.
While successful, Hunt remained modest. He never thought of himself
as a the Chief's owner. He preferred the term ``founder.''
As he told Joe Posnanski of the Kansas City Star:
To me, every Chief's fan has ownership in the team. They
are just as invested emotionally as I am. I was able to bring
the team to Kansas City, but it is Kansas City's team.
In fact, since Mr. Hunt's death, the Star has run several stories,
including examples of his love for players, coaches, and fans as
individuals. Hall of Fame linebacker Bobby Bell remembered him, saying:
He's a guy who never valet parked his car unless they
absolutely made him.
Chief's tight end Fred Arbanas recalled that Hunt, himself, served
the team food and drinks and picked up trash on the plane to road
games. He is said to have given the widow of an employee killed in a
construction accident a book of blank checks bearing his signature.
Despite struggling with cancer for 8 years, Lamar kept a strenuous
schedule right until the very end. The last time I saw him was in
November, during the Governor's Cup game, where the Chiefs played
against the St. Louis Rams in St. Louis. The Chief's pulled out a 31-
to-7 win. At that game, his illness had necessitated a car for
transportation, but it had not affected his good nature, his
friendliness or his optimism for his beloved Chiefs.
In an era of rapid change and turnover in the sports world, Lamar
Hunt stood apart. He remained owner of the Chiefs, or founder of the
Chiefs, for more than 40 years, from 1963 until his death. He invested
in the lives of people in his adopted town, and the benefits of those
investments will be felt for generations to come.
More than 1,000 fans have signed the Kansas City Star's online
guestbook for Lamar Hunt, praising him for his honesty and sincerity,
his class and his countless contributions to the Chiefs, to football,
and to Kansas City.
While his family and friends will miss Lamar very much, they can take
heart in the tremendous legacy he left. I know his son Clark will
continue to lead the Chiefs with the same love for the game and
business sense his father had. We will always remember fondly Lamar
Hunt.
Iraq
Mr. President, my colleagues and our staffs, people need to know
about the worldwide threat hearing we had at an open session of the
Intelligence Committee yesterday. In that hearing, we asked the
Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the CIA, the general
in charge of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Mr. Fort of the State
Department's INR, and Director Bob Mueller of the FBI what their
assessment was of the situation in Iraq.
Very simply, they said that, while it is not certain by any means,
they believe the leadership of Iraq has bought into the concept
announced by the President as a result of his telephone call from Prime
Minister Malaki that Iraq is going to take over the responsibility for
quelling the insurgency, the sectarian violence, and they will devote
their own resources, heavily, into Baghdad, with district units headed
by generals, brigades in each area supported by American troops on a 3-
to-1 ratio, Iraqi to American.
While this by no means is sure to work, and recent actions do not
suggest it is a very strong bet, they believe it has apparently the
best chance to succeed.
In addition, since there was another idea on the table, I asked what
would happen if we withdrew immediately, or within a very short
timetable of 2 to 3 months, and the Director of National Intelligence
and the Director of the CIA, first, said a precipitous withdrawal would
bring about a collapse of the Government; that al-Qaida would establish
a beachhead and a sanctuary in Iraq for the purpose of promoting the
worldwide caliphate that it supports. That was the Director of National
Intelligence, who, also, was joined by the Director of the CIA, General
Hayden, who said if we withdraw, it would empower the jihadists to gain
a safe haven, which would have a tremendous impact on the region. There
would be a tremendous impact because they could be in control of the
oil-rich Iraqi resources, and it would further empower Iran.
In summary, he said three things very unfortunate would be likely to
occur.
No. 1, more innocent Iraqi civilians would die in sectarian violence.
No. 2, there would be a safe haven for al-Qaida and its cooperating
entities--a goal that has been stated by the leader of al-Qaida, Osama
bin Laden, and his second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
And third, this would very likely bring about regionwide conflicts
because with the Shia in control in Iraq in the current Government,
with the numbers they have, Iran has shown a very great interest and
has been too actively involved in Iraqi matters already. Iran and its
Shias, if they came in and heaped great losses on the Sunnis, could
expect that Sunni neighbors in the region would respond to the threats
of the Iraqi Shia, as the Iranians, and the danger of a tremendous
conflict throughout that region would occur.
So I appreciate the opportunity to address the Senate on these
matters. I think all Senators need to know the seriousness of this
issue, the reasons why I believe the President's option that he
[[Page S499]]
announced the night before last is the best option.
Amendments Nos. 48, 49, 50, and 51, En Bloc, to amendment No. 3
Now, Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Coburn, I ask unanimous
consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside in order to
call up amendments Nos. 48 through 51 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 Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Mr. Coburn,
proposes amendments, en bloc, numbered 48, 49, 50, and 51 to
amendment No. 3.
The amendments, en bloc, are as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 48
(Purpose: To require all recipients of Federal earmarks, grants,
subgrants, and contracts to disclose amounts spent on lobbying and a
description of all lobbying activities)
On page 38, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
SEC. 223. LOBBYING DISCLOSURE AND PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF
FORMS FILED BY RECIPIENTS OF FEDERAL FUNDS AND
CONTRACTS.
(a) Lobbying Disclosure.--Section 1352(b)(2) of title 31,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) an itemization of any funds spent by the person for
lobbying on a calendar year basis.''.
(b) Public Availability.--Section 1352(b) of title 31,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(7) Declarations required to be filed by paragraph (1)
shall be made available by the Office of Management and
Budget on a public, fully searchable website that shall be
updated quarterly.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect 6 months after the date of enactment of
this Act.
AMENDMENT NO. 49
(Purpose: To require all congressional earmarks requests to be
submitted to the appropriate Senate committee on a standardized form)
At the end of subtitle A of title II, insert the following:
SEC. 225. SUBMISSION OF EARMARKS ON A UNIFORM FORM.
(a) In General.--Each Member of the Senate shall submit any
request for--
(1) an appropriations earmark to the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate;
(2) a tax benefit earmark to the Committee on Finance of
the Senate; and
(3) any other earmark to the appropriate committee of
jurisdiction.
(b) Uniform Form.--
(1) In general.--Each request for an earmark under
subsection (a) shall be submitted on a standardized form.
(2) Rules committee.--The form described in paragraph (1)
shall be developed by the Committee on Rules and
Administration of the Senate.
(3) Required content.--The form described in paragraph (1),
shall at a minimum, include the following:
(A) The name of the Member requesting the earmark.
(B) The name of each entity that would be the recipient of
the earmark, including the name of the parent entity of such
recipient, if such recipient is owned by another entity. If
there is no specifically intended recipient, then the form
shall require the Member to identify the intended location or
activity that will benefit from the earmark. In the case of
an earmark that contains a limited tax or tariff benefit, the
Member shall identify the individual or entity reasonably
anticipated to benefit from the earmark (to the extent known
by the Member).
(C) The amount requested in the earmark.
(D) The Department or agency from which the amounts
requested in the earmark are expected to be provided (if
known by the Member).
(E) The appropriations bill from which the amounts
requested in the earmark are expected to be provided (if
known by the Member).
(F) A description of the earmark, including its purpose,
goals, and expected outcomes.
(G) The location and address of each entity that would be
the recipient of the earmark and the primary location of the
activities funded by the earmark, including the State, city,
congressional district, and country of such activities.
(H) Whether the earmark is funding an ongoing or a new
activity or initiative and the expected duration of such
activity or initiative.
(I) The source and amount of any other funding for the
activity or initiative funded by the earmark, including any
other Federal, State, local, or private funding for such
activity or initiative.
(J) Contact information for the entity that would be the
recipient of the earmark, including the name, phone number,
postal mailing address, and email for such entity.
(K) If the activity or initiative funded by the earmark is
authorized by Federal law. If so, the Member shall provide
the public law number and United States Code citation for
such authorization.
(L) The budget outline for such activity or initiative
funded by the earmark, including--
(i) the amount needed to complete the activity or
initiative; and
(ii) whether or not the Member, the spouse of the Member,
an immediate family member of the Member, a member of the
Member's staff, or an immediate family member of a member of
the Member's Senator's staff has a financial interest in the
earmark.
(4) Public accountability.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 7 days after the date that
a request for an earmark is submitted under this section, the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate shall make the
request available to the public on the Internet website of
such committee, without fee or other access charge, in a
searchable, sortable, and downloadable manner.
(B) Recordkeeping.--The Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate shall maintain records of all requests made available
under subparagraph (A) for a period of not less than 6 years.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Earmark.--The term ``earmark'' means--
(A) a provision or report language included primarily at
the request of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or
Senator providing, authorizing or recommending a specific
amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority,
or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan
guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with
or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or
Congressional district, other than through a statutory or
administrative formula-driven or competitive award process;
(B) any revenue-losing provision that--
(i) provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or
preference to 10 or fewer beneficiaries under the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986; and
(ii) contains eligibility criteria that are not uniform in
application with respect to potential beneficiaries of such
provision;
(C) any Federal tax provision which provides one
beneficiary temporary or permanent transition relief from a
change to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
(D) any provision modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States in a manner that benefits 10 or fewer
entities.
(2) Immediate family member.--The term ``immediate family
member'' means the son, daughter, stepson, stepdaughter, son-
in-law, daughter-in-law, mother, father, stepmother,
stepfather, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother, sister,
stepbrother, or stepsister of a person.
AMENDMENT NO. 50
(Purpose: To provide disclosure of lobbyist gifts and travel instead of
banning them as the Reid/McConnell substitute proposes)
Strike section 108 and insert the following:
SEC. 108. DISCLOSURE FOR GIFTS FROM LOBBYISTS.
Paragraph 1(a) of rule XXXV of the Standing Rules of the
Senate is amended--
(1) in clause (2), by striking the last sentence and
inserting ``Formal record keeping is required by this
paragraph as set out in clause (3).''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(3)(A) Not later than 48 hours after a gift has been
accepted, each Member, officer, or employee shall post on the
Member's Senate website, in a clear and noticeable manner,
the following:
``(i) The nature of the gift received.
``(ii) The value of the gift received.
``(iii) The name of the person or entity providing the
gift.
``(iv) The city and State where the person or entity
resides.
``(v) Whether that person is a registered lobbyist, and if
so, the name of the client for whom the lobbyist is providing
the gift and the city and State where the client resides.
``(B) Not later than 30 days after the adoption of this
clause, the Committee on Rules and Administration shall, in
consultation with the Select Committee on Ethics and the
Secretary of the Senate, proscribe the uniform format by
which the postings in subclause (A) shall be established.''.
Strike section 109 and insert the following:
SEC. 109. DISCLOSURE OF TRAVEL.
Paragraph 2 of rule XXXV of the Standing Rules of the
Senate is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h)(1) Not later than 48 hours after a Member, officer,
or employee has accepted transportation or lodging otherwise
permissible by the rules from any other person, other than a
governmental entity, such Member, officer, or employee shall
post on the Member's Senate website, in a clear and
noticeable manner, the following:
``(A) The nature and purpose of the transportation or
lodging.
``(B) The fair market value of the transportation or
lodging.
``(C) The name of the person or entity sponsoring the
transportation or lodging.
``(D) The city and State where the person or entity
sponsoring the transportation or lodging resides.
``(E) Whether that sponsoring person is a registered
lobbyist, and if so, the name of the client for whom the
lobbyist is sponsoring the transportation or lodging and the
city and State where the client resides.
[[Page S500]]
``(2) This subparagraph shall also apply to all
noncommercial air travel otherwise permissible by the rules.
``(3) Not later than 30 days after the adoption of this
subparagraph, the Committee on Rules and Administration
shall, in consultation with the Select Committee on Ethics
and the Secretary of the Senate, proscribe the uniform format
by which the postings in clauses (1) and (2) shall be
established.''.
AMENDMENT NO. 51
(Purpose: To prohibit Members from requesting earmarks that may
financially benefit that Member or immediate family member of that
Member, and for other purposes)
On page 18, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
SEC. 116. PROHIBITION ON FINANCIAL GAIN FROM EARMARKS BY
MEMBERS, IMMEDIATE FAMILY OF MEMBERS, STAFF OF
MEMBERS, OR IMMEDIATE FAMILY OF STAFF OF
MEMBERS.
Rule XXXVII of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``15. (a) No Member shall use his official position to
introduce, request, or otherwise aid the progress or passage
of a congressional earmark that will financially benefit or
otherwise further the pecuniary interest of such Member, the
spouse of such Member, the immediate family member of such
Member, any employee on the staff of such Member, the spouse
of an employee on the staff of such Member, or immediate
family member of an employee on the staff of such Member.
``(b) For purposes of this paragraph--
``(1) the term `immediate family member' means the son,
daughter, stepson, stepdaughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law,
mother, father, stepmother, stepfather, mother-in-law,
father-in-law, brother, sister, stepbrother, or stepsister of
a Member or any employee on the staff (including staff in
personal, committee and leadership offices) of a Member; and
``(2) the term `congressional earmark' means--
``(A) a provision or report language included primarily at
the request of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or
Senator providing, authorizing or recommending a specific
amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority,
or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan
guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with
or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or
Congressional district, other than through a statutory or
administrative formula-driven or competitive award process;
``(B) any revenue-losing provision that--
``(i) provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion,
or preference to 10 or fewer beneficiaries under the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986; and
``(ii) contains eligibility criteria that are not uniform
in application with respect to potential beneficiaries of
such provision;
``(C) any Federal tax provision which provides one
beneficiary temporary or permanent transition relief from a
change to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
``(D) any provision modifying the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States in a manner that benefits 10 or
fewer entities.''.
Mr. DORGAN. I voted to table the Vitter amendment, No. 6, to S. 1,
the ethics bill, because it should properly be offered to the campaign
finance bill when it comes to the floor of the Senate. The majority
leader has said he will bring a campaign finance bill through the
committee and to the floor later this year.
Because there have been some abuses in this area, I support a change
in the rules related to political committees employing family members,
and I expect to be supportive of these types of reforms when campaign
finance reform is voted on this year. At that time, the relevant
committee on this matter will have had the opportunity to consider this
issue and recommend the best way to correct these abuses.
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. NELSON of Nebraska. 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. 47 to Amendment No. 3
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an
amendment to further increase transparency and ensure accountability
with respect to earmarks. I call up amendment No. 47 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Nelson] proposes an
amendment numbered 47 to amendment No. 3.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. 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 help encourage fiscal responsibility in the ear-marking
process)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. ENCOURAGING FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY IN THE EARMARKING
PROCESS.
(a) In General.--If an entity is properly awarded an
earmark as defined in section 103, the entire amount of the
earmark shall be transferred to the entity to be expended for
the essential governmental purpose of the earmark.
(b) Agency Prohibition.--Earmarked funds shall not be spent
by the authorizing department or agency (unless specifically
authorized in the section of the appropriations bill or
report containing the earmark) and shall instead be returned
to the Treasury for the purposes of deficit reduction.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I am concerned about the abuse
of the earmark process, and I applaud the bipartisan efforts of the
majority and minority leaders in crafting the earmark reforms in the
underlying bill. I strongly support improving transparency and
accountability in the appropriations process. I believe Members should
certainly be required to disclose and justify their earmarks. My
amendment takes this notion one step beyond by ensuring that earmarked
funds are spent only for the stated purpose for which they are approved
by the Senate.
The amendment simply states:
If an entity is properly awarded an earmark, the entire
amount of the earmark shall be transferred to the entity to
be expended for the essential government purpose of the
earmark.
If the entity doesn't spend the entire amount of the earmark, my
amendment requires the excess funds to be returned to the Treasury for
the purposes of deficit reduction. That is all this does.
Some Senators may ask, Why is such an amendment necessary? I think
many of my colleagues in the Senate would be quite surprised to learn
that all too often, after going through the process of earmarking funds
for the benefit of their constituents, the earmarked funds are, on some
occasions, spent by someone else once the bill leaves the Senate. The
earmarked funds are going to be spent as the Senate intended. In
reality, however, a portion of earmarked funds may sometimes be
reallocated to other purposes by the agency tasked with delivering the
funds to the intended recipient. Unfortunately, I have discovered this
practice of ``skimming,'' as I call it, where the agency simply skims a
portion off the top of the earmarks. It is fairly common, and in many
cases it simply is not authorized by law.
Last year, with the help of the Congressional Research Service, I
asked the 15 Cabinet-level departments to help me understand how this
process works, what happens with the funding once Congress approves an
earmark. Only 12 departments responded, and the responses varied
widely. Some said they do not skim from the earmarks at all; however,
some said they skim 2 to 3 percent off the top of the earmark without
authority by law. In some instances, the agencies did cite a statutory
authority for the skimming, but in others it looks as if the skimming
was done without express authority to do so. Alarmingly, one agency
replied only with this statement:
The magnitude of your request outstrips our ability to
provide you with the extensive amount of data that you
desire.
I found not only skimming in some cases, but there was stiffing when
you asked for information as well.
The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse. Yet sometimes
the executive branch sees fit to spend congressionally approved earmark
funds for their own purposes. That is simply wrong under any set of
circumstances. From a constitutional standpoint, from a fiscal
responsibility standpoint, and from a practical standpoint, the
executive branch should not be able to redirect earmarked funds unless
specifically authorized to do so in that earmark. There shouldn't be an
ongoing authority to do that with every earmark without the authority
established by Congress. And if that authority has been established by
law, I believe we ought to reconsider it because it should be on an
earmark-by-earmark basis. If they want their budget to include a
certain amount of money above
[[Page S501]]
where they are at the moment, let them come to the budgeting process
and make their request just like everyone else has to for the budgeting
process here in Congress.
The earmark reforms in this bill are important, and we shouldn't
allow the executive branch to undermine them. We owe it to our
constituents to make sure earmarks are carried out as intended by this
body in accordance with our earmarks disclosure rules.
To conclude, this amendment simply reinforces the earmark reforms in
a very straightforward way. It will ensure that earmarks are only spent
for the stated purpose for which they were approved. It will put an end
to unaccountable skimming of earmarks and require that any unspent
earmarked funds will be used for deficit reduction.
This amendment protects our constituents and the American taxpayer.
It strengthens the underlying bill by providing a guarantee that
earmarks will be spent only as the Senate intends, for the purpose for
which they were approved, in accordance with the earmark reforms. I
believe the underlying bill is incomplete without my amendment, and I
urge my colleagues to adopt it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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 that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________