[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 16, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S550-S571]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2007
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 1 p.m.
having arrived, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1, which the
clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1) to provide greater transparency to the
legislative process.
Pending:
Reid amendment No. 3, in the nature of a substitute.
Reid modified amendment No. 4 (to amendment No. 3), to
strengthen the gift and travel bans.
DeMint amendment No. 11 (to amendment No. 3), to strengthen
the earmark reform.
DeMint amendment No. 12 (to amendment No. 3), to clarify
that earmarks added to a conference report that are not
considered by the Senate or the House of Representatives are
out of scope.
DeMint amendment No. 14 (to amendment No. 3), to protect
individuals from having their money involuntarily collected
and used for lobbying by a labor organization.
Vitter/Inhofe further modified amendment No. 9 (to
amendment No. 3), to prohibit Members from having official
contact with any spouse of a Member who is a registered
lobbyist.
Leahy/Pryor amendment No. 2 (to amendment No. 3), to give
investigators and prosecutors the tools they need to combat
public corruption.
Gregg amendment No. 17 (to amendment No. 3), to establish a
legislative line item veto.
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. 28 (to amendment No. 3),
to provide congressional transparency.
[[Page S551]]
Bennett (for McCain) amendment No. 29 (to amendment No. 3),
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.
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.
Feingold amendment No. 31 (to amendment No. 3), to prohibit
former Members of Congress from engaging in lobbying
activities in addition to lobbying contacts during their
cooling off period.
Feingold amendment No. 32 (to amendment No. 3), 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.
Feingold amendment No. 33 (to amendment No. 3), to prohibit
former Members who are lobbyists from using gym and parking
privileges made available to Members and former Members.
Feingold amendment No. 34 (to amendment No. 3), to require
Senate campaigns to file their FEC reports electronically.
Durbin modified amendment No. 44 (to amendment No. 11), to
strengthen earmark reform.
Durbin amendment No. 36 (to amendment No. 3), 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.
Cornyn amendment No. 45 (to amendment No. 3), to require
72-hour public availability of legislative matters before
consideration.
Cornyn amendment No. 46 (to amendment No. 2), to deter
public corruption.
Bond (for Coburn) amendment No. 48 (to amendment No. 3), to
require all recipients of Federal earmarks, grants,
subgrants, and contracts to disclose amounts spent on
lobbying and a description of all lobbying activities.
Bond (for Coburn) amendment No. 49 (to amendment No. 3), to
require all congressional earmark requests to be submitted to
the appropriate Senate committee on a standardized form.
Bond (for Coburn) amendment No. 50 (to amendment No. 3), to
provide disclosure of lobbyist gifts and travel instead of
banning them as proposed.
Bond (for Coburn) amendment No. 51 (to amendment No. 3), to
prohibit Members from requesting earmarks that may
financially benefit that Member or immediate family member of
that Member.
Nelson (NE) amendment No. 47 (to amendment No. 3), to help
encourage fiscal responsibility in the earmarking process.
Reid (for Feingold/Obama) amendment No. 54 (to amendment
No. 3), to prohibit lobbyists and entities that retain or
employ lobbyists from throwing lavish parties honoring
Members at party conventions.
Reid (for Lieberman) amendment No. 43 (to amendment No. 3),
to require disclosure of earmark lobbying by lobbyists.
Reid (for Casey) amendment No. 56 (to amendment No. 3), to
eliminate the K Street Project by prohibiting the wrongful
influencing of a private entity's employment decisions or
practices in exchange for political access or favors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I was proud to join my friend and
colleague from South Carolina, Senator DeMint, in offering an amendment
that would simply place in the Senate bill the very sensible language
regarding earmarks that the House of Representatives has already
included. Speaker Pelosi and her colleagues are rightly proud of the
very clear definition of earmarks they have included in that
legislation that will help to identify spending measures and highlight
them so we can have the kind of debate and sort of public scrutiny we
should expect and, indeed, welcome, into the appropriations and
legislative process.
I was a little bit surprised, however, to find the resistance that
was voiced last week, but I understand now that has all been worked out
and that a second-degree amendment will be offered by Senator Durbin as
a collaborative effort and a demonstration of bipartisan cooperation on
something where there ought to be bipartisan cooperation, certainly on
the matter of ethics, that will provide for greater transparency and
increases public availability of earmark-related information.
This is good news for all who wish to see greater fiscal
responsibility and accountability. Increased transparency for earmarks
is something we ought to embrace and it ought to create in us the
ability to discern much better than we have been what kind of spending
is in the general welfare of the American people and why that kind of
spending is absolutely necessary.
Of course, there are those--and I am one of them--who think the
Federal Government spends way too much taxpayer money. Our Government
was founded as a limited Government with delegated powers. But over the
last 220 or so years of our Nation's history, it has been a history of
the Federal Government gradually ``filling the field'' to the detriment
of State and local government and of the individual freedom by
taxpayers, voters, and citizens.
While I applaud amendment No. 26, I think we need to do even more. We
can add greater sunshine and clarity on the earmark process by adopting
an amendment which I offered last week as well. The current bill
requires that all future legislation include a list of earmarks as well
as the names of the Senators who have requested them. My amendment
would add what may seem like a minor addition but one that would
require that the budgetary impact for each earmark also be included, as
well as a requirement that the total number of earmarks and their total
budgetary impact be identified and disclosed.
What happens now is that it takes some time for the staff of this
body to compile the information contained in bills, and literally we
are passing appropriations bills chock-full of earmarks, and we do not
have a clue, because we will not have had a chance to read it and
consider it in advance, what the total sum of those earmarks is and how
they impact the budget. Perhaps the top line itself is disclosed but
not how that money is actually broken down and spent.
Oftentimes, bills are hundreds of pages long, with earmarks buried in
them. It is not uncommon for appropriations, particularly Omnibus
appropriations bills, to go into the thousands-of-pages or more in
number. Of course, often this is at the end of a legislative period,
and there are hours, maybe, or even only minutes to review them.
The goal of my amendment is that when we consider legislation, we
have a summary document showing the details, including the costs, of
earmarks in legislation--and this is the novelty--before we consider
the legislation, before we actually vote on it, not after we have
already voted and it is too late to do anything about it but before. It
serves the very important purpose of added transparency and, indeed,
the accountability that goes along with it.
I would assume those who have asked for earmarks to be included are
proud of them. They feel like they are meritorious. They feel like they
can be defended. Well, unfortunately, the very process by which those
earmarks are added defeats that kind of transparency and
accountability, which is why I believe we need this additional step.
Furthermore, if we create, by adoption of this amendment, a fixed
baseline from which we can proceed in the future to allow the American
public, as well as our staff, to analyze more thoroughly these
earmarks, I think we would have created at least a knowledge base that
will allow us to make better decisions going forward.
Consider that the Congressional Research Service each year conducts a
study to identify the earmarks in each bill. Through that study, one
can see that both the total number of earmarks and the total dollar
value of those earmarks--surprise, surprise--have grown significantly
over the last decade.
For example, the total number of earmarks increased almost fourfold
from 1994 to 2005. Furthermore, the total cost of those earmarks
increased by a factor of 100 percent. And the numbers appear to be even
higher for 2006.
Let me list some of the earmarks that have been included. And we will
start with 2007, to give you a flavor of what I am talking about, and
the reason why there ought to be greater transparency.
Now, I am not suggesting we limit earmarks. I am considering we ought
to make them transparent and obvious. And then I think the benefits of
open Government and the kind of scrutiny that will follow will have the
beneficial
[[Page S552]]
impact I think we would all hope for and certainly my constituents
would hope for, when they worry that we are spending money for
inappropriate purposes and in too large amounts, to their detriment.
For example, in January 2007--excuse me. This must have been in last
year's appropriations bill--an earmark for $725,000 for the Please
Touch Museum. I am not sure what the Please Touch Museum is, but I
think it would be beneficial for the sponsor of that earmark to be
identified, and it would be beneficial for it to be described how that
promotes the general welfare of the American people and why it is
justified, taking that $725,000 out of the pockets of taxpayers and
putting it in the treasury of the Please Touch Museum.
Then there is the $250,000 appropriations for the Country Music Hall
of Fame. I happen to be a country music fan, but even I would wonder
how that promotes the general welfare, to take money out of the
taxpayer's pocket and put it in the treasury of the Country Music Hall
of Fame. I think it bears some scrutiny, some explanation. Maybe there
is an explanation, but I have to be honest, I cannot think of one now
that would justify transferring the money from the taxpayer's pocket
and justifying a Federal appropriation for the Country Music Hall of
Fame.
And just so the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame is not left out, there is a
$200,000 earmark for that; then the Aviation Hall of Fame, $200,000;
the Grammy Foundation, $150,000; the Coca-Cola Space Science Center for
$150,000; $150,000 for a single traffic light in Briarcliff Manor, NY.
I am not sure why that is a Federal responsibility. In fact, I would
think by its description it is not; it is a local responsibility. That
cost ought to be borne by the local taxpayer, not the Federal taxpayer
through the earmark process--here again, something that cries out for
greater accountability through greater transparency.
Then there is the $100,000 earmark for the International Storytelling
Center. I am not sure why the Federal taxpayer should have to pay for
that. It may be a meritorious expenditure, but maybe through private
charity. Maybe corporations would like to contribute some money to
support this worthwhile local initiative. Maybe local taxpayers could
justify the expenditure, maybe State taxpayers, but why should the
Federal taxpayer, why should my constituents in Texas have to pay a
$100,000 earmark for the International Storytelling Center in some
other State?
Then there is $500,000 for the Montana Sheep Institute.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. I will not belabor the point. But I think you get my
flavor. I am not going to even talk much about the $50 million for an
indoor rain forest that was the subject of a Federal earmark. And then
again, there are examples anybody can find on the Internet, published
by Citizens Against Government Waste, examples from what they call the
``Congressional Pig Book.'' I do not have to tell you why they call it
that.
But the point is, things have gotten terribly out of whack here in
Washington when we, as elected representatives of our constituents, of
the American people, take it upon ourselves to spend their money on
inappropriate subjects, or maybe you say there is some justification
for these topics. But I think it is easy to see why it is inappropriate
that we spend the Federal taxpayer dollar on some of these topics.
Here again, my amendment does not limit these earmarks because I
believe there will be a self-corrective mechanism through greater
transparency and the accountability that comes with it. That is why I
so strongly support the efforts that have been undertaken here on a
bipartisan basis to bring greater transparency to the earmark process,
because I think it is a problem that can literally fix itself. When
people begin to ask the kinds of questions I am asking, when the public
begins to shine the bright light of day on some of these special
interest earmarks, which have been literally hidden from Members of the
Congress until after they have voted on them and published only later
by the Congressional Research Service, after they have done a survey of
the burgeoning number of earmarks for these kinds of interests, I think
this is a problem that can correct itself.
So, Madam President, I appreciate the courtesy of the bill managers
and the opportunity to speak once again on this important topic. I
think getting this information to Members of Congress early before we
vote would be very helpful and provide a baseline of the number of
earmarks that can be analyzed so we can go forward and explain why that
number should go up if, in fact, we think it should go up, or if you
are like me, if you think the number should go down, establish what the
facts are so we have a baseline of information with which to explain
our position.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Amendment No. 57 to Amendment No. 3
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside
the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 57.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] proposes an
amendment numbered 57 to amendment No. 3.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require a report by the Commission to Strengthen
Confidence in Congress regarding political contributions before and
after the enactment of certain laws)
On page 60, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:
(b) Report Regarding Political Contributions.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit a report
to Congress detailing the number, type, and quantity of
contributions made to Members of the Senate or the House of
Representatives during the 30-month period beginning on the
date that is 24 months before the date of enactment of the
Acts identified in paragraph (2) by the corresponding
organizations identified in paragraph (2).
(2) Organizations and acts.--The report submitted under
paragraph (1) shall detail the number, type, and quantity of
contributions made to Members of the Senate or the House of
Representatives as follows:
(A) For the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173; 117 Stat.
2066), any contribution made during the time period described
in paragraph (1) by or on behalf of a political action
committee associated or affiliated with--
(i) a pharmaceutical company; or
(ii) a trade association for pharmaceutical companies.
(B) For the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer
Protection Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-8; 119 Stat. 23), any
contribution made during the time period described in
paragraph (1) by or on behalf of a political action committee
associated or affiliated with--
(i) a bank or financial services company;
(ii) a company in the credit card industry; or
(iii) a trade association for any such companies.
(C) For the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58;
119 Stat. 594), any contribution made during the time period
described in paragraph (1) by or on behalf of a political
action committee associated or affiliated with--
(i) a company in the oil, natural gas, nuclear, or coal
industry; or
(ii) a trade association for any such companies.
(D) For the Dominican Republic-Central America-United
States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Public Law
109-53; 119 Stat. 462), any contribution made during the time
period described in paragraph (1) by or on behalf of a
political action committee associated or affiliated with--
(i) the United States Chamber of Commerce, the National
Association of Manufacturers, the Business Roundtable, the
National Federation of Independent Business, the Emergency
Committee for American Trade, or any member company of such
entities; or
(ii) any other free trade organization funded primarily by
corporate entities.
(3) Aggregate reporting.--The report submitted under
paragraph (1)--
(A) shall not list the particular Member of the Senate or
House of Representative that received a contribution; and
(B) shall report the aggregate amount of contributions
given by each entity identified in paragraph (2) to--
[[Page S553]]
(i) Members of the Senate during the time period described
in paragraph (1) for the corresponding Act identified in
paragraph (2); and
(ii) Members of the House of Representatives during the
time period described in paragraph (1) for the corresponding
Act identified in paragraph (2).
(4) Definitions.--In this subsection--
(A) the terms ``authorized committee'', ``candidate'',
``contribution'', ``political committee'', and ``political
party'' have the meanings given such terms in section 301 of
the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431); and
(B) the term ``political action committee'' means any
political committee that is not--
(i) a political committee of a political party; or
(ii) an authorized committee of a candidate.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, let me begin by applauding Senator
Reid, Senator McConnell, and all of those who are responsible for
advancing this important ethics reform bill. There is no question but
that the confidence of the American people in the Congress is now at an
almost alltime low. There is no question there have been ethical abuses
in Congress in recent years. And there is no question but that we
should support the strongest ethics reform possible.
Members of Congress do not need free lunches from lobbyists. Members
of Congress do not need free tickets to ball games. And they do not
need huge discounts for flights on corporate jets. Congress does need
transparency in earmarks and holds, and we do need a new policy
regarding the revolving door by which a Member one year is writing a
piece of legislation and the next year finds himself or herself working
for the company that benefited from the legislation he or she wrote. In
other words, we need to pass the strongest ethics reform bill possible.
But in passing this legislation, we need to understand this is not the
end of our work but, rather, it is just the beginning, and much more
needs to be done.
Today in the United States of America, the middle class is shrinking,
poverty is increasing, and the gap between the rich and the poor is
growing wider. In fact, the people at the top, the very wealthiest
people in our country, have never, ever had it so good since the 1920s.
The sad truth is that Congress, especially over the last 6 years, has
not only failed to respond to this crisis, to the decline of the middle
class, but in many ways Congress has made the situation even worse.
Time and time again, this Congress has chosen to ignore the needs of
ordinary Americans and, instead, has acted on behalf of the interests
of the wealthiest and most powerful people in our country. In fact,
much of the legislation that has come to the floor of the House and the
Senate in recent years has clearly come at the behest of multimillion-
dollar corporate interests. This has included a Medicare part D
prescription drug bill that, while costing the taxpayers of this
country a huge amount of money, in fact provides a relatively weak
benefit for our seniors.
Included in this bill, as I think seniors all over this country are
beginning to understand, is a very large doughnut hole in which they
are going to have to pay 100 percent of the cost of their prescription
drugs.
Also, included in that bill is language which prevents the Government
from negotiating with the drug companies for lower prices for the
American people. We pay today the highest prices in the world for
prescription drugs, and yet the Government is prevented from
negotiating for lower prices. Meanwhile, despite strong majority
support in the House and the Senate, Congress has failed to pass
legislation widely supported by the American people that would allow
for the reimportation of safe, affordable prescription drugs from well-
regulated countries such as Canada and from Europe that would provide
huge discounts to Americans of all ages.
At the same time, while there is more and more concern in our country
and throughout the world about the danger of global warming and what it
will mean for our planet and for our children and our grandchildren,
Congress has failed to adequately fund energy efficiency and
sustainable energy. But somehow Congress did manage to fund an energy
bill that includes billions and billions of dollars in tax giveaways
and subsidies to the largest oil companies in America, companies that
are enjoying recordbreaking profits, as well as tax breaks and
subsidies to other big-energy interests.
Most American workers now know that our current trade policies have
failed and that they have failed miserably. During the last 5 years we
have lost some 3 million good-paying manufacturing jobs, and we are now
on the cusp of losing millions of good-paying, white-collar information
technology jobs. In my own State of Vermont, not a major manufacturing
center, we have lost 20 percent of our manufacturing jobs in the last 5
years alone, and we just learned the other day that another 175 jobs in
Middlebury, VT, are going to be lost because of global competition. Yet
despite a $700 billion trade deficit and the loss of millions of good-
paying jobs, Congress refuses to fundamentally change our trade
policies, a change that is desperately needed.
I know some people like to talk about ``special interests,'' but the
truth is that special interests, as I understand them, in fact, are
corporate and monied interests. What do we mean when we talk about
special interests? Are we talking about millions of American working
families who are struggling to keep their heads above water
economically? Are they a ``special interest''? I don't think they are.
Are we talking about the children of America, 18 percent of whom are
living in poverty? Are they a ``special interest''? Not to my mind. Are
we talking about millions of seniors who want nothing more than to live
out their retirement years with some form of economic security and
dignity? Are they ``special interests''? I don't believe they are.
The challenge we face is to rein in the influence and the power that
lobbyists and their large corporate clients have over the Congress. The
problem is not that the children of America have too much power. It is
not that working people have too much power. The problem is that big-
money interests, to a very significant degree, dominate what goes on in
Washington, DC.
The lobbying reform legislation that we are considering is a very
important step forward in addressing that issue. I thank Senators Reid,
Feinstein, Lieberman, Feingold, Obama, and all of those on both sides
of the aisle who have worked hard on this issue for their leadership on
lobbying reform so that we can begin to restore the confidence of the
American people in Congress. But we must keep in mind that while we are
eliminating the $20 lunches and the club-level tickets to local
sporting events, this bill does not address what is an even more
pressing issue; namely, the $10,000 campaign contributions that come
from corporate PACs. We have a fundamental problem which literally
threatens our democratic form of government, and that is that Senators
and Members of the House and their challengers are forced to raise
millions and millions and millions of dollars in order to run a winning
campaign.
In terms of campaign contributions, let's be very clear. Despite what
anyone may have heard, corporate interests are king. They run the show.
From 1998 to 2005, for example, drug companies spent more on lobbying
than any other industry--$900 million, according to the nonpartisan
Center for Responsive Politics. They donated a total of $89.9 million
in the same period to Federal candidates and party committees.
We hear a lot about ``labor money'' and about ``big labor.'' But, in
fact, corporate interests give more than 10 times as much to candidates
than do labor unions. In the 2006 cycle, according to the Center for
Responsive Politics, labor gave less than $50 million. That is a lot of
money, $50 million. But corporate interests gave well over $525
million--$50 million/$525 million, 10 times as much. That disparity may
well explain why the needs of working Americans all too often take a
back seat to corporate interests in the Congress. But, more
importantly, it tells us why we need real campaign finance reform so
that the needs of all Americans are heard rather than just those who
can afford to make huge campaign contributions.
To strengthen our democracy we need reforms on a number of fronts. We
certainly need to pass this lobbying reform bill, but we also need very
strong campaign finance reform. My own view is that we need to move
toward public funding of elections. We also need
[[Page S554]]
media reform to stem the growing concentration of ownership among
television, radio, and newspaper companies with the result that what
Americans see, hear, and read is increasingly controlled by fewer and
fewer media conglomerates. Most importantly, in my view, if we are
going to change the balance of power, if ordinary Americans are going
to get their day in Washington, DC, we need a revival of a grassroots
democratic movement from one end of this country to the other, where
ordinary people begin to stand up and say: Washington, DC, pay
attention to my needs rather than just the needs of large corporate
interests.
I understand that the legislation before us today relates only to
issues around lobbying reform and that many of the other critical
issues I have laid out will be considered at a later time. That is why
I have offered the amendment we have before us today. The amendment
will provide this body with some of the information it will need when
we address campaign finance reform at a later date.
Specifically, this amendment requires the Commission to Strengthen
Confidence in Congress, created by the underlying legislation, to
report on the aggregate amount of campaign contributions given by
certain identified corporate interests 24 months prior to and within 6
months after the passage of four specified pieces of legislation. These
four pieces of legislation are the Medicare Part D Program, the
bankruptcy reform bill, the Energy bill, and the Central American Free
Trade Agreement.
The goal of this report is to begin to throw some light on the volume
of corporate contributions that are showered on Congress when
legislation important to multinationals comes before the Congress. As a
result, this report will focus on the amounts given and the identity of
the givers.
It is our obligation to return control of the Congress to the
American people. I look forward to helping make that happen with the
ethics reform bill we are now considering and the many other equally
critical reforms that voters across this great Nation told us they
wanted this past November.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Amendments Nos. 59 and 39 to amendment No. 3 En Bloc
Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to lay the
pending amendment aside and call up two amendments, one on behalf of
Senator Coburn, No. 59, and one on behalf of Senator Coleman, No. 39,
and then have them laid aside as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the amendments en bloc.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. Coburn,
proposes an amendment numbered 59.
The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. Coleman,
proposes an amendment numbered 39.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 59
(Purpose: To provide disclosure of lobbyist gifts and travel instead of
banning them as the Reid/McConnell substitute proposes)
Strike sections 108 and 109 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.''.
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.
``(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. 39
(Purpose: To require that a publicly available website be established
in Congress to allow the public access to records of reported
congressional official travel)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CONGRESSIONAL TRAVEL PUBLIC WEBSITE.
(a) In General.--Not later than January 1, 2008, the
Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of
Representatives shall each establish a publicly available
website that contains information on all officially related
congressional travel that is subject to disclosure under the
gift rules of the Senate and the House of Representatives,
respectively, that includes--
(1) a search engine;
(2) uniform categorization by Member, dates of travel, and
any other common categories associated with congressional
travel; and
(3) all forms filed in the Senate and the House of
Representatives relating to officially-related travel
referred to in paragraph (2), including the ``Disclosure of
Member or Officer's Reimbursed Travel Expenses'' form in the
Senate.
(b) Extension Authority.--If the Secretary of the Senate or
the Clerk of the House of Representatives is unable to meet
the deadline established under subsection (a), the Committee
on Rules and Administration of the Senate or the Committee on
Rules of the House of Representatives may grant an extension
of such date for the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of
the House of Representatives, respectively.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
this section.
Mr. BENNETT. I ask unanimous consent that these amendments now be
laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I have listened with interest to the
Senator from Vermont. I have a few quick reactions. As we get closer to
his amendment, I will perhaps be more specific about some of them.
Comments about the revolving door situation, I must confess I am a
little less than overwhelmed by the arguments about the revolving door
because I have been there. I served in the executive branch in the
1960s, left on New Year's Eve of 1969, and took up my new duties as a
lobbyist on January 1, 1970. In those days there were no restrictions
with respect to a revolving door, and I was immediately called by
people who wanted my services with respect to the agency I had just
left. They paid well. I accepted their contracts, and I went back to
see my old friends back in the Department of Transportation.
It came as somewhat of a shock to me that no one wanted to talk to
me. Now that I was no longer a member of the Secretary's Office, now
that I no longer had direct access to the Secretary to discuss things
important to the administration, now that I was an outsider, my friends
were happy to see me for lunch, they were happy to talk about my
family, but I could no longer do them any good within the Department. I
was no longer a power within the Department. I was an outsider, and
they were happy to get me out of their offices as quickly as they
could.
I discovered firsthand that the idea of the revolving door is vastly
overrated. I was like any other lobbyist. I had to make my points on
the basis of the validity of the arguments I was making and not because
at one time I had been in the Department with them. We get carried away
with
[[Page S555]]
this because the media talks about how terrible is the revolving door.
I am willing to let a reasonable period of time pass, but I think many
of these arguments go beyond what reality has been to me.
I heard the Senator from Vermont talk about publicly funded
campaigns. I will make this observation: We have the largest poll taken
in the United States every year on April 15. Every year, every American
taxpayer is given the opportunity to set aside just $3 of taxes he
already owes--this is not additional money; this is $3 of the money he
already owes--to be placed in the Presidential fund to fund
Presidential campaigns.
Ninety percent of the taxpayers who have the opportunity to put $3
into a Federal fund for education vote no. That is not by accident. You
have to check the box one way or the other. Ninety percent vote, no,
they don't want to do that. I am not sure we should be talking about
that as a great idea.
Finally, the business that is in the amendment of the Senator from
Vermont that says we must disclose corporate contributions 24 months
prior to and 6 months after the passage of certain pieces of
legislation neglects the fact that corporate contributions are illegal,
and they have been since 1902 in the days of Franklin Roosevelt. What
the press calls ``corporate contributions''--the press misunderstands--
are PAC contributions. I was around Washington when we had the
Watergate situation and I remember the rhetoric in these halls when the
creation of political action committees was hailed as the basic reform
that would clean up campaign contributions, because people make
contributions to PACs; corporations do not. Individuals make the money
available to PACs; corporations do not.
Corporate contributions are illegal. These are individual
contributions put together by a political action committee and then
given in the name of the political action committee from the private
funds of private individuals. This was hailed as a reform. This was
hailed as the way to clean things up. Because the media doesn't
understand that, because the people in the media don't realize that a
corporate name attached to a political action committee does not mean
these are corporate funds, most of my constituents now think, as the
Senator from Vermont has suggested, that this is corporate money. I
have to patiently explain to them once again this is not corporate
money. I could give you an example from one of my colleagues here. He
has in his State a very large processing plant that produces products
that are sold under the label of Kraft Foods. He is very popular in the
town where this big plant is. Employees in that particular town come to
him and say: We would like to make campaign contributions to you; how
do we do it? He tells them: One way is you give me the money yourself.
Another way is you can direct your contribution to the PAC at the plant
that produces Kraft Foods to go to me. So the people who run the PAC at
Kraft Foods come to this Senator and say here are the contributions
that are directed to come to you and we are happy to transfer them
through to you. The media gets hold of it and discovers that Kraft
Foods is owned by a tobacco company, and the next thing you know, this
Senator is being attacked in the press for taking campaign money from
tobacco companies. He says: Wait a minute, these are individual
contributions from my constituents funneled through the place where
they work that has nothing whatever to do with tobacco.
Try explaining that to the New York Times. No, the editorials roll
down that he is taking tobacco money, that he is in the pocket of
special interests. Finally, the Senator said: I told them don't give me
anymore money. It is too much trouble to try to explain the truth in
this situation with the overwhelming amount of media publicity about
corporations corrupting politicians.
I made the comment before and I will make it again: I have discovered
in my 14 years here that there is no such thing as repetition in the
Senate. You say the same thing over and over again as if it is
brandnew. You cannot corrupt the Senator unless the Senator himself is
corrupt. And if the Senator himself is corrupt, he or she will find a
way around the rules no matter how we write them.
I am strongly for this bill. I think the transparency part of it, the
disclosure part, is exactly what we need. But after 40 years of being
involved with Washington, and living through the Watergate experience,
living through the scandals, whether it is Abramoff or Duke Cunningham,
or the other Members of the House who went to jail in years gone by,
whose names I don't remember but whose circumstances I still recall, or
whether it is the Congressman with whom I worked as a lobbyist who went
to jail because one of my fellow lobbyists gave him a $100,000 bribe,
the fundamental fact remains that you cannot corrupt a Senator or a
Congressman unless that Senator or Congressman is himself or herself
basically corrupt.
We can write all of the rules we want, but if a Member of this body
has the instincts of corruption in his soul, he will find a way around
the rules. We should not kid ourselves that we are doing something that
is going to clean up everything, because if we get a corrupt Member,
the corrupt Member will still act in a corrupt way and you will have
another Duke Cunningham-type scandal 5 or 10 years from now and,
unfortunately, the reaction here is, hey, that proves we need to change
the rules.
As I have said, this is the only place I know where, when somebody
breaks the rules, the first instinct is to change the rules instead of
continuing to enforce them, recognizing that even without what we are
talking about here, even without the legislation that is proposed, Duke
Cunningham is in jail, and recognizing that even without the kinds of
strict changes we are talking about, Jack Abramoff is in jail. These
were corrupt individuals who found their way around existing
legislation, and trying to solve that problem by additional legislation
may very well turn out to be an ineffective effort.
With that, I see my friend from South Carolina on his feet seeking
recognition.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I want to speak in favor of the Durbin
amendment No. 44, which is a slightly modified version of my amendment
No. 11 that was endorsed by a majority of Senators last Thursday on a
51-to-46 vote.
I ask unanimous consent that my name be added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 44 offered by the Senator from Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DeMINT. The Durbin amendment is a product of a bipartisan
agreement that I reached last week with the majority leader and the
Senator from Illinois. The Durbin amendment contains bipartisan
language that would require disclosure for all earmarks, including
those directed toward Federal projects and those contained in report
language. It also strengthens Internet disclosure so that bills shall
not be in order unless their reports include a list of earmarks,
limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits, which are posted on
the Internet in a searchable format at least 48 hours before
consideration.
In addition, it is our understanding that if a spending bill is
reported long before its consideration, the list of earmarks will
accompany any committee reports for those bills.
The Durbin amendment slightly modifies the definition of a limited
tax benefit to ``any revenue provision'' that provides a benefit to ``a
particular beneficiary or limited group of beneficiaries.'' This is
similar to the definition used in the legislative line-item veto
amendment.
I thank the majority leader and the Senator from Illinois for working
with me on this important issue. The purpose of the bill before us is
to address the culture of corruption in Washington, and it cannot be a
serious proposal unless we are completely transparent with the way we
spend American tax dollars.
This bipartisan agreement helps achieve that goal. We will be voting
today at 5:30 on the Durbin amendment and I encourage all of my
colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to support it. Following that
vote, we will vote on my amendment as modified by the Durbin amendment.
I encourage my colleagues to support it as well.
[[Page S556]]
I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 70
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 70.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for herself
and Mr. Rockefeller, proposes an amendment numbered 70.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To prohibit an earmark from being included in the classified
portion of a report accompanying a measure unless the measure includes
a general program description, funding level, and the name of the
sponsor of that earmark)
On page 7, after line 6, insert the following:
``4. It shall not be in order to consider any bill,
resolution, or conference report that contains an earmark
included in any classified portion of a report accompanying
the measure unless the bill, resolution, or conference report
includes to the greatest extent practicable, consistent with
the need to protect national security (including intelligence
sources and methods), in unclassified language, a general
program description, funding level, and the name of the
sponsor of that earmark.''.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, this amendment is presented by
myself and Senator Rockefeller, chairman of the Intelligence Committee.
It aims to bring the same goals of accountability and transparency of
earmark reform to the most opaque of earmarks, and those are classified
ones. The amendment prohibits any bill authorization or appropriation
from containing an earmark in the classified portion of that bill or
accompanying a report, unless there is unclassified language that
describes in general terms the nature of the earmark. The amount of the
earmark is disclosed and the sponsor of the earmark is identified.
We have cleared this with Senator Rockefeller and also, I believe,
with Senator Bond, who requested a change that we have made.
This amendment would provide the public with the assurance that the
classified parts of the defense and intelligence budgets--which are
indeed large--are subjected to the same scrutiny and openness as
everything else. The need for the amendment was made clear by the
actions of former Congressman Duke Cunningham. According to a report by
the House Intelligence Committee, Cunningham was able to enact a
staggering $70 million to $80 million in classified earmarks over a 5-
year period. These earmarks benefited his business partners and were
not known to most Members of the Congress or the public.
The Washington Post, in a November 2006 editorial, pointed out:
Until the last decade or so, earmarks weren't permitted to
intelligence bills because of the absence of public scrutiny.
The Post also notes that Cunningham's earmarks could be the tip of
the iceberg in terms of classified pork and corruption.
Under this amendment, the public can be assured that this cannot
happen. In saying these words, I say them as a member of the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence; I say them with the knowledge that
these earmarks can be very large; I say them with the knowledge that
this budget, which is known as a ``black budget'' and is considered by
the Defense Subcommittee of Appropriations to be very difficult to get
at, even by those of us who serve on both intelligence and defense
appropriations. Senator Bond and I are in the process of suggesting a
procedure to the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee, as
well as the leadership, that might bring greater intelligence staff
work to bear on the classified part that relates to intelligence of the
defense bill.
This amendment is a very simple amendment. It simply says make as
clear as possible, without jeopardizing national security, what the
earmark is and provide transparency as to who is requesting the
earmark. I don't think that is too much to ask. I do not believe it is
going to in any way, shape, or form disrupt or change anything other
than bring the light of day to classified earmarks.
I am prepared to ask for the yeas and nays. I ask the ranking member
if he has looked at this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I have looked at this amendment, and I
have no particular problem with it. I would think we could pass it by
voice vote, but as a courtesy to Senator Bond and the Intelligence
Committee, we have asked them to confirm that the understanding which
the Senator from California has is, indeed, correct. I have no reason
to doubt her word on this matter, but the earlier comment to us was we
want to be sure that the fix has been made. She assures us it has been.
But as a courtesy to them, I have asked my staff to check with them.
When that word comes back, which I expect to be positive, I will be
willing to move ahead with a voice vote.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I have no problem with trust but
verify. I am happy to cease and desist at this time and wait and see. I
thank the ranking member. I thank the Chair.
Mr. BENNETT. Madam 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.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I urge--and I think this is my fourth
urgent importuning of my colleagues--to please come to the floor with
their amendments. The floor is open now. At 5:30 p.m. we will have a
vote on two amendments and a cloture vote on a third amendment. I ask
them to please come to the floor and press their cause now because the
week is going on. It is Tuesday. We all heard the majority leader
saying this morning that we could finish this bill as early as
Wednesday evening or as late as Saturday. I know we would all want to
see it done on the former date.
Hopefully, Members will come to the floor. It is my understanding
there are some 60 amendments in the line. If a Senator does not want
his or her amendment to proceed further, please so advise us so we can
eliminate it from the list.
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. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have heard from the minority on the
Intelligence Committee, and they verify what Senator Feinstein has
said; that is, that the corrections which they suggested which she has
accepted are, in fact, in the bill. I am prepared to go to a vote on
the bill at this point, and I will support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member. I call up
amendment No. 70.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
Is there further debate? If not, the question is on agreeing to
amendment No. 70.
The amendment (No. 70) was agreed to.
Mr. BENNETT. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FEINGOLD. 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. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending
amendment be set aside so I can call up three amendments at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 63, 64, and 76 En Bloc
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I call up amendments Nos. 63, 64, and
76.
[[Page S557]]
They are at the desk, and I ask for their immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes
amendments numbered 63, 64, and 76 en bloc.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendments
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 63, 64, and 76) en bloc are as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 63
(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 50, strike line 1 and all that follows through page
51, line 12, and insert the following:
``(2) Congressional staff.--
``(A) Prohibition.--Any person who is an employee of a
House of Congress and who, within 2 years after that person
leaves office, knowingly makes, with the intent to influence,
any communication to or appearance before any of the persons
described in subparagraph (B), on behalf of any other person
(except the United States) in connection with any matter on
which such former employee seeks action by a Member, officer,
or employee of either House of Congress, in his or her
official capacity, shall be punished as provided in section
216 of this title.
``(B) Contact persons covered.--Persons referred to in
subparagraph (A) with respect to appearances or
communications are any Member, officer, or employee of the
House of Congress in which the person subject to subparagraph
(A) was employed. This subparagraph shall not apply to
contacts with staff of the Secretary of the Senate or the
Clerk of the House of Representatives regarding compliance
with lobbying disclosure requirements under the Lobbying
Disclosure Act of 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. 64
(Purpose: To prohibit lobbyists and entities that retain or employ
lobbyists from throwing lavish parties honoring Members at party
conventions)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Paragraph (1)(d) of rule XXXV of the Standing Rules of the
Senate is amended by adding at the end the following:
``5. A Member may not participate in an event honoring that
Member at a national party convention if such event is paid
for by any person or entity required to register pursuant to
section 4(a) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, or any
individual or entity identified as a lobbyist or a client in
any current registration or report filed under such Act.''.
AMENDMENT NO. 76
(Purpose: To clarify certain aspects of the lobbyist contribution
reporting provision)
Strike section 212 and insert the following:
SEC. 212. QUARTERLY REPORTS ON OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS.
Section 5 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1604) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(d) Quarterly Reports on Other Contributions.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 45 days after the end of
the quarterly period beginning on the 20th day of January,
April, July, and October of each year, or on the first
business day after the 20th if that day is not a business
day, each registrant under paragraphs (1) or (2) of section
4(a), and each employee who is listed as a lobbyist on a
current registration or report filed under this Act, shall
file a report with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk
of the House of Representatives containing--
``(A) the name of the registrant or lobbyist;
``(B) the employer of the lobbyist or the names of all
political committees established or administered by the
registrant;
``(C) the name of each Federal candidate or officeholder,
leadership PAC, or political party committee, to whom
aggregate contributions equal to or exceeding $200 were made
by the lobbyist, the registrant, or a political committee
established or administered by the registrant within the
calendar year, and the date and amount of each contribution
made within the quarter;
``(D) the name of each Federal candidate or officeholder,
leadership PAC, or political party committee for whom a
fundraising event was hosted, co-hosted, or sponsored by the
lobbyist, the registrant, or a political committee
established or administered by the registrant within the
quarter, and the date, location, and total amount (or good
faith estimate thereof) raised at such event;
``(E) the name of each covered legislative branch official
or covered executive branch official for whom the lobbyist,
the registrant, or a political committee established or
administered by the registrant provided, or directed or
caused to be provided, any payment or reimbursements for
travel and related expenses in connection with the duties of
such covered official, including for each such official--
``(i) an itemization of the payments or reimbursements
provided to finance the travel and related expenses, and to
whom the payments or reimbursements were made with the
express or implied understanding or agreement that such funds
will be used for travel and related expenses;
``(ii) the purpose and final itinerary of the trip,
including a description of all meetings, tours, events, and
outings attended;
``(iii) whether the registrant or lobbyist traveled on any
such travel;
``(iv) the identity of the listed sponsor or sponsors of
such travel; and
``(v) the identity of any person or entity, other than the
listed sponsor or sponsors of the travel, who directly or
indirectly provided for payment of travel and related
expenses at the request or suggestion of the lobbyist, the
registrant, or a political committee established or
administered by the registrant;
``(F) the date, recipient, and amount of funds contributed,
disbursed, or arranged (or a good faith estimate thereof) by
the lobbyist, the registrant, or a political committee
established or administered by the registrant--
``(i) to pay the cost of an event to honor or recognize a
covered legislative branch official or covered executive
branch official;
``(ii) to, or on behalf of, an entity that is named for a
covered legislative branch official, or to a person or entity
in recognition of such official;
``(iii) to an entity established, financed, maintained, or
controlled by a covered legislative branch official or
covered executive branch official, or an entity designated by
such official; or
``(iv) to pay the costs of a meeting, retreat, conference,
or other similar event held by, or for the benefit of, 1 or
more covered legislative branch officials or covered
executive branch officials; except that this paragraph shall
not apply to any funds required to be reported under section
304 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C.
434);
``(G) the date, recipient, and amount of any gift (that
under the standing rules of the House of Representatives or
Senate counts towards the $100 cumulative annual limit
described in such rules) valued in excess of $20 given by the
lobbyist, the registrant, or a political committee
established or administered by the registrant to a covered
legislative branch official or covered executive branch
official; and
``(H) the name of each Presidential library foundation and
Presidential inaugural committee, to whom contributions equal
to or exceeding $200 were made by the lobbyist, the
registrant, or a political committee established or
administered by the registrant within the calendar year, and
the date and amount of each such contribution within the
quarter.
``(2) Rule of construction.--For the purposes of this
paragraph--
``(i) the term `lobbyist' shall include a lobbyist,
registrant, or political committee established or
administered by the registrant; and
``(ii) the term `Federal candidate or other recipient'
shall include a Federal candidate, Federal officeholder,
leadership PAC, or political party committee.
``(3) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following
definitions shall apply:
``(A) Gift.--The term `gift'--
``(i) means a gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment,
hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item having monetary
value; and
``(ii) includes, whether provided in kind, by purchase of a
ticket, payment in advance, or reimbursement after the
expense has been incurred--
``(I) gifts of services;
``(II) training;
``(III) transportation; and
``(IV) lodging and meals.
``(B) Leadership pac.--The term `leadership PAC' means with
respect to an individual holding Federal office, an
unauthorized political committee which is associated with an
individual holding Federal office, except that such term
shall not apply in the case of a political committee of a
political party.''.
[[Page S558]]
Amendments Nos. 32 and 54 Withdrawn
Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask that the pending amendments Nos. 32 and 54 be
withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Those were items replaced by what we did prior to that.
Amendment No. 65 to Amendment No. 4
Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 65, a second-degree amendment
to Reid amendment No. 4, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an
amendment numbered 65 to amendment No. 4.
Mr. FEINGOLD. 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 prohibit lobbyists and entities that retain or employ
lobbyists from throwing lavish parties honoring Members at party
conventions)
On page 2, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
SEC. 108A. NATIONAL PARTY CONVENTIONS.
Paragraph (1)(d) of rule XXXV of the Standing Rules of the
Senate is amended by adding at the end the following:
``5. A Member may not participate in an event honoring that
Member at a national party convention if such event is paid
for by any person or entity required to register pursuant to
section 4(a) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, or any
individual or entity identified as a lobbyist or a client in
any current registration or report filed under such Act.''.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I withhold further discussion of these
particular amendments until a later time.
Now I will move on to talking about a very major vote coming up in
the Senate later today.
This evening the Senate will cast a very important vote. The result
will go a long way toward deciding whether the gift rule changes before
us meet the high standards for reform set by the American people in the
most recent elections in November. I am referring to the motion to
invoke cloture on Reid amendment No. 4, which contains very important
provisions imposing and strengthening restrictions on gifts, travel,
and corporate jets.
I take a few minutes to explain why I believe the Reid amendment is
so crucial.
In 1995, after another watershed election, the Senate adopted major
rule changes, which came to be known as ``the gift ban.'' Prior to that
time, there were virtually no limits on the gifts or trips that
Senators could accept. Scandalous tabloid TV exposes showed some of the
most egregious vacation extravaganzas that some Senators enjoyed at the
expense of others, and after an election in which numerous incumbents
were defeated and majority control of both Houses shifted, the Senate
finally, in 1995, took action.
People forget because the 1995 rules were a major departure from what
had gone before, but they contained exceptions and loopholes that,
while they might have seemed reasonable at the time, began to cause
problems in the years that followed. For example, as I said, before
1995, there were virtually no limits on the gifts that Senators could
accept. I was astonished when I came here as a new senator in 1995 to
see the things that were being offered to Senators. I could not quite
believe some of the things being offered. The 1995 gift ban was
actually not a ban at all; instead, we just put a limit on gifts--$50
per gift, and $100 per year from a single source.
Similarly, the 1995 rules prohibited the worst excesses under the
previous anything goes attitude about privately funded travel--golf and
ski vacations paid for and attended by lobbyists, what were called
``purely recreational trips.'' But it still allowed factfinding and
officially connected trips of up to 4 days in length, or 7 days to a
foreign destination.
Not surprisingly, and consistent with the new rules, after 1995, as
before, much of the gifts and travel offered to Senators and staff came
from lobbyists and groups that lobby. Sure, constituents offer us T-
shirts or baseball caps or home State products, and the rules allow
that. But not too many constituents making a trip to Washington with
their kids are offering to take a Senator or staffer out to a $49
dinner or to buy tickets for them to the Kennedy Center or a Wizards
game.
Although there are exceptions, most of the invitations to go to
conferences or on factfinding trips also come from lobbying
organizations, groups with a point of view that they want to share with
a Senator or staffer in comfortable, relaxed surroundings, with ample
food and drink provided.
The American people, and many of my colleagues as well, have come to
view these gifts and trips from those who want to influence us, which
are now perfectly legal under our rules, as unseemly. And of course,
there have been people who have played fast and loose with the rules.
The $100 annual limit is hardly ever discussed. Tickets to skyboxes are
sometimes valued at $49.99. A different person picks up the tab at
regular lunches or a ``personal friendship'' is developed where one
friend always seems to pay. And fact-finding trips to Scotland have
turned out to be golf adventures.
Now last year the Senate made a half-hearted effort in the direction
of cleaning up this problem, but it fell short. It passed a lobbyist
gift ban but didn't cover groups that retain or employ lobbyists. It
passed new disclosure and Ethics Committee approval requirements for
privately funded trips but did nothing to change the underlying
standard of what kinds of trips can be taken. On these two key issues,
the Senate failed the test of real reform. And in any event, no changes
to the rules went into effect because the bill died after it left the
Senate.
The public showed its displeasure with these practices and the
excesses and lawbreaking in the November elections. Watershed elections
occurred. Many new Members and new leaders arrived early this month. To
their credit, Speaker Pelosi in the House and Majority Leader Reid made
ethics reform a top priority for the new Congress--and the first
priority in the Senate. But they did something even more important.
They put the power of their offices behind tough and comprehensive
reform, a strong brew of gift and travel changes, not the weak tea that
was before us last year.
Let me be very clear. While the underlying Reid-McConnell substitute
includes some important provisions to improve the flawed bill the
Senate passed last year, it doesn't make the necessary changes to the
gift and travel rules. Only if Reid amendment No. 4 is adopted will
that job be complete. Senator Reid follows the lead of the House to
really ban gifts from lobbyists, instead of letting groups that lobby
continue to buy gifts. And he imposes new restrictions on lobbyist
funded travel that should reduce, if not eliminate, the excesses that
have become commonplace under the 1995 rules.
Senator Reid took a bold step as well by agreeing to include in his
amendment changes to the reimbursement rules that apply when Senators
fly on corporate jets. I am very pleased that this change in particular
has been included because it was brought to the attention of the Senate
in an ethics reform bill I introduced in July 2005. It will rid us of
one of the most obvious ethical fictions in the current rules, and in
the campaign laws--that flying on a corporate jet is just worth the
cost of a first class ticket on a commercial airline.
To his credit, Senator Reid has been flexible in crafting the final
version of these new corporate jet rules. He included important
disclosure requirements that the Senator from Arizona and I have been
seeking for some time. He made clear at the request of the Senator from
Oklahoma, that Members who fly their own planes are not affected by
these new rules. And he included a provision I suggested to address the
concern raised by the Senator from Alaska and others that their
official travel budgets might need to be supplemented because of the
particularly complicated logistics of travel in their large and rural
States.
My colleagues, the vote on Reid amendment No. 4 will tell the
American people if we are serious about reform or just trying to get
away with doing the least we can. The changes in Senator Reid's
amendment are absolutely critical to sending the message that the days
of lobbyist access and influence based on the perks and privileges they
offer us, the meals they buy,
[[Page S559]]
the tickets they provide, the trips they arrange and their clients
finance, are over.
Lobbyists play an important, and indeed a constitutionally protected,
role in the legislative process. But the Constitution protects the
rights of our citizens to petition their government, it does not
guarantee that lobbyists hired by those citizens can try to influence
elected representatives by taking them out to dinner. All this
amendment is saying is that if you want to meet with a lobbyist over
dinner, go right ahead--but pay your own way. And if you do not want to
pay, then have the meeting in your office. That is the rule the
Wisconsin legislature has had for decades. That is the rule my staff
and I have followed since I came to the Senate in 1993. That is the
rule the U.S. Senate should support today. I urge my colleagues to vote
in favor of cloture on Reid amendment No. 4.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 En Bloc
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lott, I ask
unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment and call up
amendments No. 78 and No. 79.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. Lott, proposes
amendments numbered 78 and 79 en bloc.
The amendments are as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 78
(Purpose: To only allow official and officially related travel to be
paid for by appropriated funds)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. OFFICIAL TRAVEL.
Rule XXXVIII of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``3. Any payment or reimbursement for travel in connection
with the official duties of the Member (except in the case of
third party sponsored travel approved by the Select Committee
on Ethics under rule XXXV) shall be paid for exclusively with
appropriated funds and may not be supplemented by any other
funds, including funds of the Member or from a political
committee as defined in section 301(4) of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(4)), or a
gift.''.
AMENDMENT NO. 79
(Purpose: To only allow official and officially related travel to be
paid for by appropriated funds)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. OFFICIAL TRAVEL.
Rule XXXVIII of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``3. Any payment or reimbursement for travel in connection
with the official duties of the Member (except in the case of
third party sponsored travel approved by the Select Committee
on Ethics under rule XXXV) shall be paid for exclusively with
appropriated funds or funds from a political committee as
defined in section 301(4)) of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(4)) and may not be supplemented by
any other funds, including funds of the Member or a gift.''.
Mr. BENNETT. I ask unanimous consent these two amendments be laid
aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BENNETT. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 81 to Amendment No. 4
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 81.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am advised----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. And this is a second-degree amendment to
amendment No. 4?
Mr. BENNETT. That is correct, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] proposes an amendment
numbered 81 to amendment No. 4.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To permit travel hosted by preapproved 501(c)(3)
organizations)
On page 3, line 8, after ``clause (1)'' insert ``sponsored
by a 501(c)(3) organization that has been pre-approved by the
Select Committee on Ethics. When deciding whether to pre-
approve a 501(c)(3) organization, the Select Committee on
Ethics shall consider the stated mission of the organization,
the organization's prior history of sponsoring congressional
trips, other educational activities performed by the
organization besides sponsoring congressional trips, whether
any trips previously sponsored by the organization led to an
investigation by the Select Committee on Ethics and any other
factor deemed relevant by the Select Committee on Ethics''.
Amendment No. 81, as Modified
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am advised there was a drafting error
in this amendment and we cannot modify it, because cloture has been
filed, except by unanimous consent. For that reason, I ask unanimous
consent that I be allowed to modify the amendment by adding the word
``or'' at the appropriate place.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). Is there objection?
The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I might respond to the ranking
member's comment, I know there are no more second-degree amendments in
order. However, I have looked at this modification. It is minor, and I
would certainly agree to it.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee for
her courtesy, and send a copy of the modified amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the modification is
permitted.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
On page 3, line 8, after ``clause (1)'' insert ``or
sponsored by a 501(c)(3) organization that has been pre-
approved by the Select Committee on Ethics. When deciding
whether to pre-approve a 501(c)(3) organization, the Select
Committee on Ethics shall consider the stated mission of the
organization, the organization's prior history of sponsoring
congressional trips, other educational activities performed
by the organization besides sponsoring congressional trips,
whether any trips previously sponsored by the organization
led to an investigation by the Select Committee on Ethics and
any other factor deemed relevant by the Select Committee on
Ethics''.
Mr. BENNETT. With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. 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. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to
speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Nelson of Florida are printed in today's Record
under ``Morning Business.'')
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CASEY. 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. 56
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 56 now be the
pending business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, this amendment prohibits the wrongful
influencing of a private entity's employment decisions and/or practices
in exchange for political access or favors.
As we all know from the recent activity in this body, Reid-McConnell,
S. 1, is an ethics reform bill, I think a critically important bill for
this body and
[[Page S560]]
for the country. One of the things we want to make sure happens in that
bill is that we provide all the protections possible to give confidence
to the American people that what is happening in Washington speaks to
some of their concerns. This amendment speaks to that by providing
criminal penalties punishable, in this case, by a fine or imprisonment
for up to 15 years for anyone who would engage in the practice of
wrongfully influencing a private entity's employment decisions and/or
practices, as I said before, in exchange for political access or
favors.
Also, one of the penalties that is contemplated in this amendment is
to disqualify an individual from holding public office--any office--if
they engage in that activity. What we are talking about is activity
that has gone under the umbrella of the name of the K Street Project
which has been written about extensively in the public press for
several years now, and what we are talking about there, in particular,
I believe, is an effort to have a corrupting influence, in my judgment,
on a couple of important areas of activity in Washington--first, a
corrupting influence on hiring decisions in the private sector in
Washington, a corrupting influence on political fundraising which we
know has all of the challenges that those of us in Washington who care
about doing it the right way have concerns about, and certainly the
activities of the K Street Project or any other similar effort, any
other similar practice in Washington also has a corrupt influence on
the priorities of the Government of the United States. That is why this
amendment is so important.
It is long overdue. It is high time to end this corruption, to end
this practice which for too long has been a part of the culture of
corruption in Washington. I believe this amendment will strengthen S.
1, it will strengthen any effort to provide, as the main bill
contemplates, both transparency and accountability, and I do believe
this amendment will speak directly to that issue. There is broad
bipartisan support for this amendment, as there is for the Reid-
McConnell bill.
I also appreciate the fact that as a new Member--and, Mr. President,
I include you in this as well as someone who cares very deeply, as you
do, about the question of ethics and ethics reform--the bill we are
talking about in the Senate was arrived at through a bipartisan effort,
and I think it is important this amendment, which deals with the K
Street Project or any other similar effort in Washington, also be a
bipartisan effort by people in both parties, on both sides of the aisle
to make sure we can once and for all tear out by the roots the corrupt
practices that, unfortunately, became known as the K Street Project.
I appreciate this opportunity to speak. I yield the floor and suggest
the absence of a quorum.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, before the Senator does that----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his suggestion?
Mr. CASEY. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I indicate to the distinguished
Senator from Pennsylvania that I strongly support his amendment. My
hope is we will be able to accept it without a vote. I have spoken with
the ranking member, and I believe he is vetting it and hopefully we
will be able to do that shortly.
I thank the Senator very much. I yield the floor.
Mr. CASEY. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. 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. 30
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, last week, I was very pleased to join
with the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, in offering an
amendment to this bill to create an Office of Public Integrity. The
American people view the way we enforce ethics requirements as an
inherently conflicted process. We are our own advisers, our own
investigators, our own prosecutors, our own judges, our own juries, and
even though some of our finest Members serve on our Ethics Committee,
they cannot escape that perception, they cannot escape the process, nor
can they convince the public that the process works to ensure an
independent, impartial investigation of allegations brought against
Members of Congress.
Last March, Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, and myself offered an
amendment designed to restore the public's confidence in our ethics
process by creating a new Senate Office of Public Integrity. Although
that amendment failed, I hope our colleagues will take another look at
the rationale for this office. I hope our colleagues have looked at the
election results in which the public clearly stated its concern over
allegations of corruption. The adoption of our amendment is the single
most important step we could take to help restore the public's
confidence in the integrity of the decisions we make.
I am not saying the amendment the Senator from Connecticut and the
Senator from Arizona and I have proposed is perfect. We are very open
to working with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have
suggestions for how to improve our amendment. We incorporated a lot of
those suggestions into the proposal we brought before the full Senate
last March.
I wanted to point out some basic information about this office.
First, it would be headed by a Director jointly appointed by the
majority and the minority leaders of the Senate. So those who fear that
somehow this Director and this office would be partisan should look at
that provision that requires a joint appointment by the Democratic and
the Republican leaders. We preserve a very important and strong role
for the Ethics Committee, and I believe that, combined, these two
entities can help restore public confidence in the independence and
impartiality of ethics oversight and enforcement.
I want to take a moment to underline this point about the role of the
Ethics Committee. It would be the Ethics Committee that decides if a
complaint were frivolous, the Ethics Committee that would decide
whether to enforce a subpoena, the Ethics Committee that would
determine when and whether investigatory materials are made public. I
think there is a lot of misunderstanding that somehow this office would
operate completely divorced from the Ethics Committee and on automatic
pilot. It would be the Ethics Committee that would continue to provide
advice, both informally and through advisory opinions. It would be the
Ethics Committee, not the Director of the Senate Office of Public
Integrity, who would have sole discretion on what is reported publicly
if the committee overrules a decision of the office.
At bottom, our amendment creates an independent, transparent process
for initiating and conducting investigations of possible ethical and
other violations. I think this is important. We haven't had the
problems on this side of the Congress that have troubled our colleagues
on the House side, but I think we still need to act to put into place a
process that would guarantee to the public an impartial and independent
investigation of allegations--not of the final judgment, not of the
remedies or punishment that is found by the Ethics Committee to be
appropriate but the investigative stage. I suggest that not only would
this help restore public confidence in the process, but it would also
be helpful to Members because if an independent office concludes there
is no merit to allegations lodged against Members of Congress, the
public is much more likely to accept that conclusion than if it is made
by other Members of the same body who serve with us each day.
I know some of our colleagues are not comfortable generally with the
concept of an independent office with any investigatory powers. But I
don't believe we are creating some sort of monster, some sort of out-
of-control special prosecutor because we impose on the process the
discipline and the authority, the ultimate authority of the Ethics
Committee. But I do believe we would be creating a process that would
help restore the badly tarnished view the public has of our ability to
investigate ourselves.
[[Page S561]]
I respect and I honor the constitutional role that says we sit in
judgment of our peers, our colleagues, in both bodies. I am not talking
about disturbing that role in any way. Instead, what I am saying is it
would help restore public confidence, when serious allegations are
lodged against a Member of Congress, if we were to create this
independent investigative office. There are many safeguards and checks
and balances we have carefully built into the amendment that the
Senator from Connecticut and I have brought before this body. I urge
our colleagues to actually read the amendment and to take a look at it
closely. If there are particular concerns, I ask that they work with us
to improve our amendment. But what is not acceptable to me is for this
amendment not to receive a vote by this body. The Members are familiar
with it. I believe it is time for us to go on the record.
I don't think that shoveling off this amendment in the hope that it
will come up at some future date is the way to proceed. I think our
amendment is well crafted and well balanced. I believe it would make a
major difference in the process and help to restore the public's
confidence in the whole ethics system. I believe it is carefully
crafted so that it does not diminish the very important role of our
Ethics Committee, a role I respect and honor, but this amendment would
help accomplish the goal of building the public's trust.
Why is this so important? Because if the public does not trust our
ethics system, it will not trust the decisions we are making on vital
issues--the issues that shape the future of this country. The American
people deserve to know that our decisions are not tainted by outside
undue influence. They deserve to know we are putting the interests of
the American people and our constituents above any other interests.
I have often said, and I will repeat it, that I respect the important
role lobbyists play in the process. They provide us with useful
information, whether they are representing a children's advocacy group,
the business community, a labor organization, or a public interest
association. That input is important to us as long as it aids but does
not dictate our decisions. It is important that the process be
transparent.
There is much in this bill, which we worked very hard on in the
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last year, that
improves the transparency of the process, but we need to add the
enforcement piece. We need to make sure not only that we ban
inappropriate practices, not only that we have full and more accessible
disclosure, but we need the enforcement piece as well. That is what my
distinguished colleague from Connecticut as well as the Senators from
Arizona and Illinois have proposed, and I believe it is the missing
piece that will make already good legislation an excellent bill.
Most of all, it is important that we go on record, that we have an
opportunity for a vote because, after all, that is part of the process,
too: ensuring that Members express their views and that it is done in a
forthright manner. I hope very much we will have an opportunity to have
a rollcall vote on this important amendment.
It has been a great pleasure to work with the new chairman of the
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on this issue, as
on every issue on which I have worked with the Senator from
Connecticut.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from Connecticut is
recognized.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would like to particularly thank the
Senator from Maine, the previous chairman of the Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee, under whose leadership this bill was
fashioned, along with myself, Senator McCain, and Senator Obama, who
has now joined us as an original cosponsor. We have continued this
battle. We lost last year, but we think this is an important provision,
and sometimes you have to fight for something you think is right until
you can convince a majority to join with you.
Senator Collins has stated the case very well. The underlying bill
here, S. 1, and some of the amendments that have been filed to it
represent a significant step forward in the way we in Congress will
regulate our own ethics and provide for disclosure and oversight of the
behavior of those who lobby us.
This underlying bill is not a perfect bill, but it is a very strong
bill. Ultimately the test of it will be its credibility. This is
comparable to other laws that we pass--for example Federal criminal
law. We pass some good laws, but ultimately we depend on the
independence of the investigative and prosecutorial system and the
independence of the judges who adjudicate the cases brought before them
not only so justice is done, but also that the system of justice we
have created enjoys the respect and trust of the people of this
country.
Here is the situation in this case. We have a tough, underlying bill
with substantial reforms to congressional ethics and lobbying, but
there is no change in the enforcement mechanism for implementing the
broader reforms that would be adopted under the underlying bill. That
is what we propose to do with this amendment number 30, establish an
Office of Public Integrity. I will get to it in a moment, but I would
also like to echo an appeal that the Senator from Maine made.
Unfortunately, I saw respectfully, in the wisdom of the
Parliamentarian, the ruling has come down that this amendment would not
be germane post-cloture. We have tried to convince the Parliamentarian
otherwise. We have not succeeded. That is a given. We respect it. There
is a process that sometimes reaches a conclusion in judgment with which
we don't agree, but the process is so independent and reliable that we
accept it nonetheless. What that means, obviously, is that unless we
are able to bring this amendment, to create an Office of Public
Integrity, to a vote prior to a cloture vote on the overall bill--which
we presume will be tomorrow--we will not have a chance to bring it to a
vote.
We have been told that unanimous consent--which is necessary to set
aside the pending amendment and bring this up--will not be granted to
this amendment. I urge our leaders and others to please reconsider
that. We know--Senator Collins, Senator Obama, Senator McCain, and I,--
that we are still fighting upstream to get the necessary votes we need
to agree to this. But I think it is important that we have the debate,
that we have the vote, that we build support.
There are many new Members, and I don't presume to know how they
would vote, and I know the new Members have gone through the process at
home and they know the extent to which our constituents--Democratic,
Republican, Independent--are unhappy with a lot of the way we do
business. They believe there is too much partisanship and, of course,
their views were affected by the scandals of the last few years.
When you think about it, it has been a difficult time for Congress.
Of course, obviously, almost all Members of Congress conduct themselves
in an ethical way, but we all suffer, and the institution suffers, when
some Members do not conduct themselves in an ethical way. Look back
over the last 4 or 5 years. In 2002, the majority leader in the House
was indicted for conspiring to illegally funnel corporate money into
State campaigns, a violation of State campaign laws. Another Member of
Congress went to jail for exchanging earmarks for bribes. The FBI
raided the office of a third Member in a probe of possible illicit
activity. Lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty and went to jail for
wire fraud and conspiracy, and the investigations into his activities
revealed what can only be characterized as the most sleazy, unethical,
ultimately illegal behavior by Mr. Abramoff, his associates, and
individuals in both the legislative and executive branches of
Government.
One Member pleaded guilty to conspiracy and making false statements
regarding political favors given to Abramoff in exchange for gifts. A
former Deputy Chief of Staff for a Congressman pleaded guilty to
conspiracy and corruption charges. A former official at the General
Services Administration in the Office of Management and Budget was
convicted of lying to various officials at GSA in an attempt to cover
up favorable treatment he gave to Mr. Abramoff.
And just as the news of many of these scandals was winding down, the
Nation was shaken again last fall by the news
[[Page S562]]
of Congressman Foley's improper behavior. So who can blame the American
people for having lost a lot of their confidence in Congress? As we
left town last October for the election break, Congress's public
approval ratings were hovering in the teens. To put any doubts to rest,
I think the American people sent a message on election day that they
wanted a change in Washington. Some of the exit polls were stunning
because they showed that more voters identified corruption in
Washington as influencing their votes in last fall's election than any
other issue, including, much to my surprise, the war in Iraq.
America voted for us to clean up our act. That is what the underlying
bill, S. 1, will do. But it will not do it as well as it should if we
do not also reform the system by which these rules and laws are
enforced. That is exactly what this bill does.
The legislation before us pledges to the American people that we are
going to put the public interest above our own self-interest. We are
saying no to gifts and travel from lobbyists. We are demanding greater
disclosure from lobbyists about their activities. We are going to slow
the revolving door between Congress and the lobbying firms of K Street.
The bill before us is one of the strongest reform measures I have seen
in the Senate. I am proud to support it. But, again, it needs an
equally strong enforcement mechanism.
Last month, before the ink was dry on the House Ethics Committee
report on the allegations of a coverup of Congressman Foley's behavior,
the press and a lot of the people dismissed it as a half-hearted job, a
kind of ``inside the Congress'' going-easy report. I do not accept that
conclusion, but the fact is, when you have Members judging Members
along the whole way of the process, that is where a lot of the people
are going to inevitably end up.
I know many of my colleagues in the Senate will say the House has a
problem, not the Senate. I would say a couple of things to that. First,
we all suffer when any Member of Congress acts unethically and Congress
seems not to be responding independently and aggressively. Who is to
say the process we have for judging our own ethical problems will not
someday soon also be seen by the public as having a problem. The public
does not care whether the scandal occurred in the House or the Senate.
To the public, Congress is Congress. We all swim together or we all
sink together.
The fact is, under the status quo of enforcement in the Senate, the
Ethics Committee, composed of Members of the Senate, investigate,
recommend, and decide on judgment. We need to break that and create an
independent part of the process, which is exactly what our amendment
would do, to conduct the investigation and recommend an action.
There has been a lot of concern among Members about this amendment. I
urge them to take a look at the details. I spoke with one Member
earlier today who said he was concerned that an irresponsible ethical
complaint would be filed with the independent Office of Public
Integrity in the middle of a campaign or before--but particularly
during the middle of a campaign--would be used in a 30-second
commercial against an incumbent.
Of course, that can happen now if somebody files a complaint with the
Ethics Committee. But, in fact, I think the proposal we have made is
aimed at an independent investigation but protecting against exactly
that kind of abuse.
Let me go through the process, briefly, to reassure Members. A
complaint may be filed with the Public Integrity Office by a Member of
Congress, an outside complainant or the Office itself at its own
initiative. No complaint may be accepted against a Member within 60
days of an election involving that Member. So we are trying to separate
this from a campaign caper.
Within 30 days of filing, the director must make an initial
determination as to whether to dismiss the case or whether there are
sufficient grounds for conducting an investigation. During that time,
the Member who is the subject of the complaint may challenge the
complaint. The director may dismiss a complaint that fails to state a
violation, lacks credible evidence of a violation or relates to a
violation that is inadvertent, technical or otherwise of a de minimis
nature.
I urge my colleagues to particularly listen to this.
The Director may refer a case that has been dismissed to
the Ethics Committee for the Ethics Committee to determine if
the complaint is frivolous. If the Ethics Committee
determines that a complaint is frivolous, the committee may
notify the Director not to accept any future complaint filed
by that same person and the complainant may be required to
pay for the costs of the office resulting from the complaint.
This is meant to be independent, but it is also meant to be fair and
to protect Members from the political abuse of the process we are
creating. There is not publicity on this until some judgment is made,
so that the prospects for misuse in a political context, in my opinion,
are actually less under this proposal of ours than they are in the
current system.
This Office of Public Integrity assures the American people that each
ethics case is examined by this independent entity. But the Ethics
Committee would in no way lose its authority to be the ultimate judge
of whether a violation has occurred because that is the authority it
has, pursuant to the Constitutional provision that Members of each
Chamber shall regulate their own behavior.
It is an interesting fact that the Ethics Committee itself has
occasionally retained independent counsel to investigate ethics
complaints that come before it. This, in part, I know, is a reflection
of the committee's concern that it doesn't have sufficient staff to
handle all the investigations that come before it. But I think it is
also a reflection of a judgment that motivates this amendment--that
there are times when a charge is made against a Senator before a
committee of his peers or her peers, Senators, and to establish real
credibility for the investigation the Ethics Committee itself has
brought in an independent investigator. We are saying that makes good
sense, and that is exactly what our amendment would do on an ongoing
basis.
Finally, I wish to note that at the suggestion of our friend and
colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, we are assigning, under this
amendment, to this Office of Public Integrity, the role of recommending
to the Ethics Committee the approval or disapproval of privately funded
travel by Members and staff. The underlying bill restricts privately
funded travel that may be accepted by Members of Congress and contains
a new pre-approval process for privately funded travel. Giving this
responsibility to this Office of Public Integrity, independent as it
is, I think will help assure the American people that travel requests
by Members of the Senate will be scrutinized independently by this
independent office.
I will conclude, noting that the time is coming to go to the
discussion of the three pending amendments. This proposal for an Office
of Public Integrity is entirely consistent with the Constitution's
mandate that each House of Congress determines its own rules and
sanctions its own members. It is a proposal consistent with the
practice of the Ethics Committee of bringing in outside counsel on
occasion to assist in its work. It is 100 percent consistent with the
message the American people sent in November: for Congress to conduct
itself with honor and dignity, in a fashion that earns their trust.
This is a sensible, strong effort to assure the people who are good
enough to send us to Washington that we are not only adopting reforms
in our lobbying regulations and laws and our ethics regulations and
laws, but we are taking strong action to make sure those reforms are
well enforced, as they should and must be if we are to restore the
public's confidence in our work. This is an important amendment. It
deserves a vote. I appeal to my colleagues and leaders to give it that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time between
4:30 and 5:30 shall be evenly divided between and controlled by the two
leaders or their designees.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S563]]
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the previous
quorum call and remaining quorum calls before the vote at 5:30 be
equally divided against the time on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, at 5:30 the Senate will be voting on my
second-degree amendment to an amendment offered by the Senator from
South Carolina, Mr. DeMint. I thank the Senator from South Carolina for
working with Senator Reid and myself to craft a strong provision to
deal with earmark reform.
One of the concerns many had about the underlying DeMint earmark
reform was that we did not think the language was strong enough when it
came to tax provisions. There were provisions in appropriations bills
which direct money to entities. They can be private entities or public
entities, they could be State governments, local governments, any
number of different types of governmental units, as well as private
entities.
For example, I have directed money in the Defense appropriations bill
to two firms in Illinois that are doing breakthrough research on a
variety of things of importance to the Department of Defense, so the
actual firms were named. That is the nature of an appropriations
earmark. I, in my practice in the office, have been as transparent as
possible. There is a race to put out a press release as soon as it is
done because I take great pride in what we support.
What we are trying to do is to put into the rules of the Senate and
the control of legislation in the Senate more transparency, more
accountability, so there is no question, so we avoid any abuse such as
led to some of the more embarrassing episodes in the last Congress
resulting in corruption charges against lobbyists and Members of
Congress.
The initial intent of Senator DeMint in his amendment was positive,
to move toward more appropriations earmarks disclosure, but we felt
that his language, when it came to tax provisions, needed to be
strengthened.
Of course, one can benefit a company by sending money for research.
One can also benefit a company by giving them a break in the Tax Code.
Both are of value to the company. They should be treated the same when
it comes to disclosure, transparency, and accountability.
The purpose of my second-degree amendment was to strengthen the
language of the earmark disclosure when it comes to that. We broadened
the definition of what is known as a limited tax benefit. If we were to
provide a cut in the tax rate for all Americans in certain income
categories, that does not have a particular impact on an individual or
a company. That is a general tax benefit. When we deal with limited tax
benefits, they can be written in a way when they benefit one specific
entity, one specific company, or a few, a handful, we want those tax
earmarks to be treated with the same disclosure requirements as the
earmarks in appropriations.
The DeMint amendment defined a limited tax benefit as a revenue-
losing provision that provides tax benefits to 10 or fewer
beneficiaries or contains eligibility criteria that are not the same
for other potential beneficiaries. That is his original language.
I have thought that the number 10 was the problematic element in his
approach. I don't know where the number 10 came from. I think it might
have been in an earlier House version, but I think the language we
replace it with makes more sense.
We define ``limited tax benefit'' as any revenue provision that
provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to a
particular beneficiary or limited group of beneficiaries. Our
definition is more expansive, would cover more tax earmarks, would
require more disclosure, more transparency, more accountability. I
think that was the goal of Senator DeMint's amendment.
It is my understanding that he is going to accept my second-degree
amendment which is going to tighten this language when it comes to tax
earmarks.
Second, the Durbin amendment requires the earmark disclosure
information be placed on the Internet in a searchable format for at
least 48 hours before consideration of the bills, resolutions, or
reports that contain the earmarks. The DeMint amendment did not have a
similar provision. In the world of the Internet, we know that posting
this information 48 hours before the bill can be considered so that the
earmarks are known to all who care to look is the best way to make sure
there is transparency. So we have added this 48-hour disclosure
provision before the consideration of a bill, resolution, or report
that contains either an appropriations or a tax earmark. In that way,
we have expanded the availability of information for those who follow
the proceedings of the Senate.
There is more to be done. Senator Harkin of Iowa is not in the Senate
now, but he pointed out an element of the underlying bill that is
problematic when it comes to language on this tax benefit provision.
Senator Harkin is right. Paragraph B in this bill is subject to
misinterpretation. He has suggested at some point--before the vote or
after--we have a colloquy to make it clear what our intent would be. I
am going to join him in that. I am hoping we can either clean up this
paragraph B by way of amendment in the Senate, if not in conference. We
do not want any ambiguity when it comes to the applicability of this
provision as it relates to limited tax benefits.
I have discussed this with Senator DeMint, and we will see if we can
get this done in the Senate. If not, I hope we can address it in the
conference committee. We will be working with the Committee on Finance,
which is our Senate committee responsible for tax provisions, to make
sure they understand what our intention will be and take any advice
they have to offer that will help us come up with better language.
I am pleased with this bipartisan solution to the concerns that
several Senators had with the original DeMint earmark amendment. If the
second-degree amendment is agreed to, we will have a positive vote in
passing this amendment. I believe it reflects the intent of all on both
sides of the aisle to make sure there is more disclosure.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I ask the distinguished Senator from
Illinois if there is any additional time I might utilize?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the time has
been equally divided prior to voting at 5:30. I have used a portion of
it here, and I ask the Parliamentarian how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 14 minutes remaining.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I, of course, yield all that time to the
Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator for
his characteristic courtesy.
James Madison reminds us, in Federalist No. 37, that:
The genius of republican liberty seems to demand . . . not
only that all power should be derived from the people, but
that those intrusted with it should be kept in dependence on
the people. . . .
Let me say that again. James Madison says, in Federalist No. 37, that
``The genius of republican liberty seems to demand . . . not only that
all power should be derived from the people, but that those intrusted
with it''--meaning that power--``should be kept in dependence on the
people. . . .''
To ensure that this quotation I have just stated by James Madison is
so, it is the representatives of the people in Congress--including
Robert C. Byrd and all other Senators here--who are entrusted with the
power of the purse.
Now, listen to that. To ensure that this is so, it is the
representatives of the people in Congress who are entrusted with the
power of the purse.
``This power,'' Madison writes, in Federalist No. 58, ``may, in fact,
be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any
constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for
obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect
every just and salutary measure.''
We are Senators, the people's representatives. We are here to look
after the interests of the people of our States. In many cases, they
are not well-to-do people. They cannot just pick up a phone and call
the White
[[Page S564]]
House. And, too often, the Federal bureaucracy is an inaccessible
morass. In time of need--in drought or flood, when a bridge is near
collapse, when safe drinking water is not available, when health care
services are endangered, when a community is struggling, when worker
safety is threatened--the people call on their representatives in
Congress.
Many times, we are the only ones who are willing to listen. Get that.
Many times, we are the only ones who are willing to listen, and the
only ones--hear me, again--who are willing to help. We, the people's
representatives, are armed by the Constitution with the power of the
purse to ensure that the Federal Government is responsive to their--the
people's--needs.
And so when I speak about congressional earmarks, I speak about a
subject that broaches the most serious of constitutional questions:
Who--hear me--who shall control expenditures from the public
treasuries, the unaccountable bureaucrats in the executive branch
downtown--I do not speak ill of them; they are responsible people--but
I say, the unaccountable bureaucrats in the executive branch or the
representatives of the people?
Let me say that again. We, here in the Senate, are armed by the
Constitution with the power of the purse--in this body and the other
body--to ensure that the Federal Government is responsive to their--the
people's--needs.
And so when I speak about congressional earmarks, I speak about a
subject that broaches the most serious of constitutional questions: Who
shall control expenditures from the public treasuries, the
unaccountable bureaucrats in the executive branch or the elected
representatives of the people in the legislative branch?
Earmarks are arguably the most criticized and the least understood of
congressional practices. I know it is easy to attack these
congressional practices. Many of the most vocal critics do not
understand the purpose of the earmarks they criticize, nor do they have
any appreciation of their uses or benefits in the communities that
receive them.
Let me say that again. Earmarks--hear me, everybody; those from the
States, I know they are always listening--earmarks are arguably the
most criticized and the least understood of congressional practices.
Many of the most vocal critics do not understand the purpose of the
earmarks they criticize, nor do they have any appreciation of their
uses, meaning the uses of earmarks, or benefits in the communities that
receive these earmarks.
Many people do not know that earmarks are not specific to
appropriations bills. For instance, earmarks can be found in revenue
bills as tax benefits for narrowly defined constituencies. Earmarks can
be found in authorization bills that are wholly separate from the
appropriations process. Hear me now. Earmarks can be found--yes;
where?--in the President's budget requests. How about that? Earmarks
can be found in the President's budget requests, and sometimes as part
of the budget reconciliation process.
There is no law, no rule, no universal standard that even defines
what an earmark is. And so I leave the determination about the
propriety and need for an earmark, not with the political pundits or
the so-called watchdog groups or the news media or the unelected
bureaucrats downtown, but where that determination rightfully belongs,
where it rightfully belongs under the Constitution, with the people,
with the people of the United States.
So hear me--hear me, everyone East, West, South, and North--when I
say there is nothing inherently wrong with an earmark. It is an
explicit direction from the Congress--the people's elected
representatives; the Congress--about how the Federal Government should
spend the people's money--your money out there in the hills and
mountains and prairies and the plains and valleys of this country. I
say again, it is an explicit direction--talking about earmarks--from
the Congress about how the Federal Government should spend your money,
the people's money.
It is absolutely consistent with the Framers' intentions. Dispute me,
if you like. Challenge me, if you like, and challenge the Constitution
of the United States. It is codified in Article I of the Constitution,
giving the power of the purse to the representatives of the people.
We, the representatives of the people, have an obligation to be good
stewards of the public treasury and to prevent imprudent expenditures.
That is our duty. We have an obligation to guard against the corruption
of any public officials who would sell their soul and the trust of
their constituency in order to profit from an official act. That also
is our duty, and one not to be taken lightly. But let no person suggest
that the Congress errs in using an earmark to designate how the
people's money should be spent.
Let me say that again. Let no person suggest that the Congress errs
in using an earmark to designate how the people's money--your money out
there, your money; hear me, the people's money--should be spent. That
is equally our constitutional duty. It does not belong to the
President. It does not belong to the unelected bureaucrats in the
executive branch. It belongs to the people through their elected
representatives here in Congress.
Well intentioned though they may be, the civil servants making budget
decisions in the executive agencies and offices of the Federal
Government do not understand the communities that we--you and I, Mr.
President, all of us here--represent.
They do not meet with the constituencies. They do not know our
States. They do not know our people. They do not see what we see.
How much time do I have, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The majority's time has
expired.
Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as long as I require,
and it won't be too long.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I would say to the distinguished
Senator from West Virginia through the Chair that we have 30 minutes on
our side, and I have two speakers. I know Senator McCain and Senator
DeMint wish to speak. I am not sure how long that will take. Does the
Senator have an idea how much longer he will need, 5 minutes, 10
minutes?
Mr. BYRD. I will try to finish in 10 minutes.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I am happy to yield for an additional 10 minutes to
the other side.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my generous and considerate friend.
The process may not be flawless, but if public monies are spent
unwisely or wastefully, at least the people have the means to know
about it. Both the House and Senate in open session must agree on an
earmark, and the president has an opportunity to veto the measure that
carries it. There is a record of debate, and a record of how each
Member of Congress votes. A controversial item is available for all to
see and judge if not before, then certainly after it is enacted.
Ultimately, Senators will have to defend their votes on the floor of
the Senate, or respond to the inquiries of the media, or stand before
the electorate and their constituency. The representatives of the
people in Congress are held accountable.
If the Congress does not specify how funds are to be spent, then the
decision falls to the executive branch--the so-called ``experts'' at
bureaucratic agencies to determine the priorities of this Nation. In
such cases, the American people may never know who is responsible for a
spending decision. The American people never know how a spending
decision is made. They may never hear anything about it. In the
executive bureaucracy, there is far less accountability to the people.
We ought to prefer that spending decisions be made in an open and
public forum of debate, rather than ensconced within the hidden and
unaccountable agencies of the executive branch. The fact that
controversial earmarks are being openly debated, and that several
controversial earmarks were put before the voters last November,
suggests that the system works. Those entrusted with power are being
held accountable to the people.
So I say to Senators that we are treading some dangerous
constitutional grounds with this bombast against earmarks. I support,
as I always have, making the budget and appropriations process more
transparent, but let their be no mistake that the misguided cries to do
away with earmarks has constitutional ramifications
[[Page S565]]
about who controls the power of the purse. The White House recognizes
this. The President is asking the Congress to reduce congressional
earmarks, leaving more spending decisions to the White House and
executive branch. The President is asking for fewer limitations and
more flexibility in how the executive branch spends the people's money.
The President is even taking advantage of the current political
environment to ask for a line-item veto--God help us--a wholly
unconstitutional grant of power invalidated once before by the Supreme
Court. If so-called earmark reforms happen too quickly and with too
little thought to the constitutional ramifications, it could mark the
beginnings of a dangerous aggrandizement of the executive in the
legislative process, and I am not for that. I am not willing to go
along with it.
In this rush to label earmarks as the source of our budgetary woes,
and calls to expand the budgetary authorities of the President, we--
Members of the Senate--should remember why deficits have soared to
unprecedented levels. Senators will recall that the president has not
exercised his current constitutional authorities. He has not vetoed a
single spending or revenue bill. He has not submitted a single
rescission proposal under the Budget Act.
What has wrought these ominous budget deficits are the
administration's grossly flawed and impossible budget assumptions. In
2001, the President inherited a $5.6 trillion, 10-year surplus. After 1
year operating under his fiscal policies, that surplus disappeared. We
went from a surplus in the fiscal year 2001 of $128 billion to a
deficit in the fiscal year 2002 of $158 billion, followed by the three
largest deficits in our Nation's history in the fiscal years 2003,
2004, and 2005. The administration's excessive tax cuts added $3
trillion in budget deficits. The war in Iraq, which I voted against,
has required the Congress to appropriate $379 billion, and another $100
billion request will arrive from the President next month. Rather than
dealing with these fiscal failures, too many would rather propagate the
specious argument that enlarging the president's role in the budget
process and doing away with congressional earmarks will magically
reduce these foreboding and menacing deficits. It absolutely will not.
Often, critics of congressional earmarks assert that earmarks, by
definition, are wasteful spending. In the 1969 Agriculture
Appropriations bill, Congress earmarked funds for a new program to
provide critical nutrition to low-income women, infants and children.
This program, which is now known as the WIC program, has since provided
nutritional assistance to over 150 million women, infants and children,
a critical contribution to the health of the nation. Is that wasteful
spending? Is that wasteful spending?
In the 1969 and 1970, Congress earmarked $25 million for a children's
hospital in Washington, DC, even overcoming a Presidential veto. That
funding resulted in the construction of what is known as the Children's
National Medical Center. The hospital has become a national and
international leader in neonatal and pediatric care. Since the hospital
opened, over 5 million children have received health care. Last year,
Children's Hospital treated over 340,000 young patients, and performed
over 10,000 surgeries, saving and improving the lives of thousands of
young children. Is that wasteful spending?
In 1983, Congress earmarked funds for a new emergency food and
shelter program. In 2005 alone, the program served 35 million meals and
provided 1.3 million nights of lodging to the homeless. Is that
wasteful spending?
In 1987, Congress earmarked funds for the mapping of the human gene.
This project became known as the Human Genome Project. This research
has lead to completely new strategies for disease prevention and
treatment. The Human Genome Project has led to discoveries of dramatic
new methods of identifying and treating breast, ovarian, and colon
cancers, saving many, many lives. Is this wasteful spending?
In 1988 and 1995, Congress earmarked funds for the development of
unmanned aerial vehicles. These efforts produced the Predator and the
Global Hawk, two of the most effective assets that have been used in
the global war on terror. Is this wasteful spending?
No. Each of these earmarks was initiated by Congress and produced
lasting gains for the American people.
There is no question that the earmarking process has grown to
excessive levels in recent years. From 1994 to 2006, the funding that
has been earmarked has nearly tripled. That is why I have joined with
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey in calling for a 1-year
moratorium on earmarks in the fiscal year 2007 joint funding resolution
that will be before the Senate next month. That moratorium will give
the Congress the time it needs to approve legislation that adds
transparency to the process of earmarking funds.
I support transparency and debate in the congressional budget and
appropriations process. I support the provisions included in the ethics
bill now pending before the Senate that would provide a more
accountable, above-board, and transparent process by requiring earmarks
for non-Federal entities in all of their legislative forms--as
authorizing measures, as appropriations measures, as revenue measures--
to be disclosed--yes, let's have it out in the open--along with their
sponsors and essential government purpose, prior to their consideration
by the Senate. If the sponsor is Robert C. Byrd, let him show himself.
Taxpayers, of West Virginia and the Nation ought to know how and why
spending decisions are made. That is why it is essential to ensure that
these spending decisions remain in the Congress.
In past years, the Congress routinely failed to consider the annual
appropriations bills in a timely manner. When they were considered,
they too often took the form of massive omnibus bills that were forced
upon the Senate without the opportunity to amend--take it or leave it.
Such practices encouraged the kinds of earmarking practices that have
been criticized in recent months. As chairman of the Senate
Appropriations Committee, I, Robert C. Byrd, will endeavor to do all
that I can to have the annual appropriations bills considered in a
timely manner. When the fiscal year 2008 spending bills are brought to
the floor, I will do all that I can to allow the Senate to work its
will, and to open the spending decisions of the Congress to the
American people.
Senators take an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution.
Eliminating waste and abuse in the Federal budget process is important,
but protecting the character and design of the Constitution is
absolutely essential. Let's not lose our heads and subsequently the
safeguards of our rights and liberties as American citizens.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah controls the remainder
of the time.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Illinois
has an action he wishes to take. I yield to him at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Amendment No. 41
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside so that I may call up amendment No. 41 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
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 Illinois [Mr. Obama] proposes an amendment
numbered 41.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership
PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange
contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected
or arranged)
Strike section 212 and insert the following:
SEC. 212. QUARTERLY REPORTS ON OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS.
Section 5 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1604) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(d) Quarterly Reports on Other Contributions.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 45 days after the end of
the quarterly period beginning on the 20th day of January,
April, July, and October of each year, or on the first
business day after the 20th if that day is not a business
day, each registrant under paragraphs (1) or (2) of section
4(a), and each employee who is listed as a lobbyist on a
current registration or report filed under this
[[Page S566]]
Act, shall file a report with the Secretary of the Senate and
the Clerk of the House of Representatives containing--
``(A) the name of the registrant or lobbyist;
``(B) the employer of the lobbyist or the names of all
political committees established or administered by the
registrant;
``(C) the name of each Federal candidate or officeholder,
leadership PAC, or political party committee, to whom
aggregate contributions equal to or exceeding $200 were made
by the lobbyist, the registrant, or a political committee
established or administered by the registrant within the
calendar year, and the date and amount of each contribution
made within the quarter;
``(D) the name of each Federal candidate or officeholder,
leadership PAC, or political party committee for whom a
fundraising event was hosted, co-hosted, or sponsored by the
lobbyist, the registrant, or a political committee
established or administered by the registrant within the
quarter, and the date, location, and total amount (or good
faith estimate thereof) raised at such event;
``(E) the name of each Federal candidate or officeholder,
leadership PAC, or political party committee for whom
aggregate contributions equal to or exceeding $200 were
collected or arranged within the calendar year, and to the
extent known the aggregate amount of such contributions (or a
good faith estimate thereof) within the quarter for each
recipient;
``(F) the name of each covered legislative branch official
or covered executive branch official for whom the lobbyist,
the registrant, or a political committee established or
administered by the registrant provided, or directed or
caused to be provided, any payment or reimbursements for
travel and related expenses in connection with the duties of
such covered official, including for each such official--
``(i) an itemization of the payments or reimbursements
provided to finance the travel and related expenses, and to
whom the payments or reimbursements were made with the
express or implied understanding or agreement that such funds
will be used for travel and related expenses;
``(ii) the purpose and final itinerary of the trip,
including a description of all meetings, tours, events, and
outings attended;
``(iii) whether the registrant or lobbyist traveled on any
such travel;
``(iv) the identity of the listed sponsor or sponsors of
such travel; and
``(v) the identity of any person or entity, other than the
listed sponsor or sponsors of the travel, who directly or
indirectly provided for payment of travel and related
expenses at the request or suggestion of the lobbyist, the
registrant, or a political committee established or
administered by the registrant;
``(G) the date, recipient, and amount of funds contributed,
disbursed, or arranged (or a good faith estimate thereof) by
the lobbyist, the registrant, or a political committee
established or administered by the registrant--
``(i) to pay the cost of an event to honor or recognize a
covered legislative branch official or covered executive
branch official;
``(ii) to, or on behalf of, an entity that is named for a
covered legislative branch official, or to a person or entity
in recognition of such official;
``(iii) to an entity established, financed, maintained, or
controlled by a covered legislative branch official or
covered executive branch official, or an entity designated by
such official; or
``(iv) to pay the costs of a meeting, retreat, conference,
or other similar event held by, or for the benefit of, 1 or
more covered legislative branch officials or covered
executive branch officials;
``(H) the date, recipient, and amount of any gift (that
under the standing rules of the House of Representatives or
Senate counts towards the $100 cumulative annual limit
described in such rules) valued in excess of $20 given by the
lobbyist, the registrant, or a political committee
established or administered by the registrant to a covered
legislative branch official or covered executive branch
official; and
``(I) the name of each Presidential library foundation and
Presidential inaugural committee, to whom contributions equal
to or exceeding $200 were made by the lobbyist, the
registrant, or a political committee established or
administered by the registrant within the calendar year, and
the date and amount of each such contribution within the
quarter.
``(2) Rules of construction.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection,
contributions, donations, or other funds--
``(i) are `collected' by a lobbyist where funds donated by
a person other than the lobbyist are received by the lobbyist
for, or forwarded by the lobbyist to, a Federal candidate or
other recipient; and
``(ii) are `arranged' by a lobbyist--
``(I) where there is a formal or informal agreement,
understanding, or arrangement between the lobbyist and a
Federal candidate or other recipient that such contributions,
donations, or other funds will be or have been credited or
attributed by the Federal candidate or other recipient in
records, designations, or formal or informal recognitions as
having been raised, solicited, or directed by the lobbyist;
or
``(II) where the lobbyist has actual knowledge that the
Federal candidate or other recipient is aware that the
contributions, donations, or other funds were solicited,
arranged, or directed by the lobbyist.
``(B) Clarifications.--For the purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) the term `lobbyist' shall include a lobbyist,
registrant, or political committee established or
administered by the registrant; and
``(ii) the term `Federal candidate or other recipient'
shall include a Federal candidate, Federal officeholder,
leadership PAC, or political party committee.
``(3) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following
definitions shall apply:
``(A) Gift.--The term `gift'--
``(i) means a gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment,
hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item having monetary
value; and
``(ii) includes, whether provided in kind, by purchase of a
ticket, payment in advance, or reimbursement after the
expense has been incurred--
``(I) gifts of services;
``(II) training;
``(III) transportation; and
``(IV) lodging and meals.
``(B) Leadership pac.--The term `leadership PAC' means with
respect to an individual holding Federal office, an
unauthorized political committee which is associated with an
individual holding Federal office, except that such term
shall not apply in the case of a political committee of a
political party.''.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, this is a supplement to what I already
think is an excellent bill that has been presented by the two leaders
to try to improve our processes and provide more transparency and
accountability in how lobbyists interact and how we conduct ourselves
in an ethical fashion.
To make it very plain, this amendment simply says that all registered
Federal lobbyists would have to disclose not only the contributions
they make but also the contributions they have solicited and bundled.
It applies only to registered lobbyists. It has strong support on a
bipartisan and bicameral basis. I hope we can have this amendment
agreed to. I think it will make a strong bill that much stronger.
With that, I appreciate the time given to me by the Senator from
Utah. I look forward to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. BENNETT. 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. 71
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the pending amendment be laid aside and that I may call up my amendment
No. 71.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Nelson], for himself and Mr.
Salazar, proposes an amendment numbered 71.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To extend the laws and rules passed in this bill to the
executive and judicial branches of government)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. EQUAL APPLICATION OF ETHICS RULES TO EXECUTIVE AND
JUDICIARY.
(a) Gift and Travel Bans.--
(1) In general.--The gift and travel bans that become the
rules of the Senate and law upon enactment of this Act, shall
be the minimum standards employed for any person described in
paragraph (2).
(2) Applicability.--A person described in this paragraph is
the following:
(A) Senior executive personnel.--A person--
(i) employed at a rate of pay specified in or fixed
according to subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 5, United
States Code;
(ii) employed in a position which is not referred to in
clause (i) and for which that person is paid at a rate of
basic pay which is equal to or greater than 86.5 percent of
the rate of basic pay for level II of the Executive Schedule,
or, for a period of 2 years following the enactment of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, a
person who, on the day prior to the enactment of that Act,
was employed in a position which is not referred to in clause
(i) and for which the rate of basic pay, exclusive of any
locality-based pay adjustment under section 5304
[[Page S567]]
or section 5304a of title 5, United States Code, was equal to
or greater than the rate of basic pay payable for level 5 of
the Senior Executive Service on the day prior to the
enactment of that Act;
(iii) appointed by the President to a position under
section 105(a)(2)(B) of title 3, United States Code or by the
Vice President to a position under section 106(a)(1)(B) of
title 3, United States Code; or
(iv) employed in a position which is held by an active duty
commissioned officer of the uniformed services who is serving
in a grade or rank for which the pay grade (as specified in
section 201 of title 37, United States Code) is pay grade O-7
or above.
(B) Very senior executive personnel.--A person described in
section 207(d)(1) of title 18, United States Code.
(C) Senior members of judicial branch.--A senior member of
the judicial branch, as defined by the Judicial Conference of
the United States.
(b) Staff Lobbying.--
(1) In general.--Section 207(c)(2)(A) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by striking clauses (i) through (v)
and inserting the following:
``(i) employed by any department or agency of the executive
branch; or
``(ii) assigned from a private sector organization to an
agency under chapter 37 of title 5.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 207(c)(2)(C) of title
18, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) as subclauses (I)
and (II), respectively;
(B) by inserting ``(i)'' before ``At the request'';
(C) by striking ``referred to in clause (ii) or (iv) of
subparagraph (A)'' and inserting ``described in clause
(ii)''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) A position described in this clause is any
position--
``(I) where--
``(aa) the person is not employed at a rate of pay
specified in or fixed according to subchapter II of chapter
53 of title 5; and
``(bb) for which that person is paid at a rate of basic pay
which is equal to or greater than 86.5 percent of the rate of
basic pay for level II of the Executive Schedule, or, for a
period of 2 years following the enactment of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, a person who,
on the day prior to the enactment of that Act, was employed
in a position which is not referred to in clause (i) and for
which the rate of basic pay, exclusive of any locality-based
pay adjustment under section 5304 or section 5304a of title
5, was equal to or greater than the rate of basic pay payable
for level 5 of the Senior Executive Service on the day prior
to the enactment of that Act; or
``(II) which is held by an active duty commissioned officer
of the uniformed services who is serving in a grade or rank
for which the pay grade (as specified in section 201 of title
37) is pay grade O-7 or above.''.
(c) Senior Executive Staff Employment Negotiations.--Senior
and very senior Executive personnel shall not directly
negotiate or have any arrangement concerning prospective
private employment while employed in that position unless
that employee files a signed statement with the Office of
Government Ethics for public disclosure regarding such
negotiations or arrangements within 3 business days after the
commencement of such negotiation or arrangement, including
the name of the private entity or entities involved in such
negotiations or arrangements, the date such negotiations or
arrangements commenced.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, last year, Washington was
rocked by the Abramoff scandal and other misdeeds. With the underlying
bill, Congress has shown it is taking seriously its responsibility to
the American people its responsibility to set rules for behavior by
Members and staff that aren't just words on a page in a dusty ethics
manual.
I applaud the effort that has gone into ethics reform. It has been a
good debate. There is one point that I discussed last year--- as early
as the Rules Committee markup--- that I feel needs to again be part of
the debate this year. Last year I offered a sense-of-the-Senate
amendment to make many of the reforms we have considered throughout
this ethics debate apply to all branches of government. I am pleased
that this sense of the Senate was accepted and is included in the
underlying bill.
Today I have filed and proposed amendment No. 71, which builds on the
principle behind this sense of the Senate that the standards employed
in this bill should be the minimum standards that guide the other
branches of Government. The revolving door isn't just on the front of
the U.S. Capitol. It spins freely in the executive branch--in every
Federal agency in Washington.
My amendment has three parts:
The first provision says the gift and travel bans of this
bill should be the minimum standards employed by the
executive and judicial branches. The second provision extends
the Senate's 1-year ban on lobbying by former staff to the
executive branch. The third provision extends the Senate's
negotiating of future employment provisions to the executive
branch as well.
I believe in disclosure, transparency and restoring integrity to our
government. The question here isn't whether reforms are needed, they
are. But we need to make sure we are implementing the right reforms.
Any reforms need to apply to all branches of government if we are to
begin the process of rebuilding trust between the government and the
people.
Mr. President, I think the underlying bill is incomplete without my
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to adopt it.
I yield the floor.
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. DeMINT. 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. DeMINT. Mr. President, I would like to make a few comments about
a couple of amendments on which we are getting ready to vote. One is
mine, and one is an amendment to my amendment by Senator Durbin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator seeking unanimous consent to
speak? There is an order presently to vote at this time. Is the Senator
seeking unanimous consent?
Mr. DeMINT. Yes. I ask unanimous consent to speak. I apologize, Mr.
President. I am getting ahead of myself today. I thank the
Parliamentarian. Am I free to speak at this point?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Amendments Nos. 44, as modified and 11
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, we are getting ready to vote on a couple
of amendments. One is Senator Durbin's which I believe improves the
underlying amendment, which is my amendment No. 11. I thank Senator
Reid and Senator Durbin and a number of Members on the Democratic side
who worked with us to perfect this amendment in a way that will be good
for the country and will be much more transparent in how we do
business. I have asked to be a cosponsor of Senator Durbin's amendment,
which will come up before mine. I again encourage all my Republican and
Democratic colleagues to support Senator Durbin's amendment, as well as
the underlying amendment.
I remind my colleagues, I think these two amendments focus on the
most egregious problem with this whole idea of ethics and lobbying
reform. It makes all of the earmarks, all of the designated spending--
some folks refer to this as specific favors for interest groups--
everything we do to designate funds in a particular direction, it just
requires us to disclose these, to disclose them in a way that the
American people can see, can find them on the Internet, and can
determine for themselves if this is a good way to spend their
taxpayers' dollars. We believe, as I think the American people do, that
if it is clear what we are doing while we are doing it and who is doing
it, it will, first of all, limit unnecessary earmarks and unnecessary
Federal spending, but it will also create a lot more accountability for
this designated spending which we do attach to bills.
I thank my Democratic colleagues for working constructively with us.
We made progress and created a better bill. I encourage all of my
colleagues to vote for both of the amendments tonight.
I yield the floor.
limited tax benefits
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am concerned about a possible
misunderstanding of the intent of the language in the proposed Senate
rule XLIV concerning earmarks. My specific concern goes to the
definition in the proposal concerning ``limited tax benefits.'' The
definition contains two parts. The first is a two-part test that
provides that limited tax benefit is one that ``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) contain eligibility criteria that are uniform in
application with respect to potential beneficiaries of such
provision''. The key here is the word ``and'' after 1986. The second
part simply provides that if this test is not
[[Page S568]]
met, that only a tax that benefits a single entity is a ``limited tax
benefit.''
I am told that there are some who might define ``potential
beneficiaries'' to only include a variation in the treatment of the
class covered by the amendment. This would not be logical. My
perception, prior to our voting, is that the intent of those two words
``potential beneficiaries'' means a category or class of taxpayers
impacted by the tax provision. In other words, if the Senate was
considering the modification of the alternative minimum tax to not
include a specific tax provision in the code as counting as income
under the AMT, that would not be considered a limited tax benefit,
because it would impact all of the potential beneficiaries equally. On
the other hand, if one was considering a provision that went into the
code and said that we should not count that class of income as AMT
income as applied to X or Y, that would not be treating everyone in the
class the same. In the latter case, we would be triggering subsection
``B,'' because there was not uniform treatment of all potential
beneficiaries of the break. And accordingly, if the number impacted in
the second case was a ``limited group of beneficiaries,'' it would be
considered a limited tax benefit.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I believe that the Senator from Iowa has
raised an important point. we need to clarify how the amendment applies
to targeted tax benefits. We would like the language of the amendment
to capture a wide variety of situations where a small number of
taxpayers receive special treatment. I hope that we can work with
Senator DeMint, the Senate Finance Committee, and any other interested
Senators to make appropriate changes to this amendment during
conference, if not sooner, so that the language is clear and the
outcome increases transparency and accountability.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of the DeMint
amendment as amended by the Durbin amendment.
Last week, I voted to table the original DeMint amendment because it
would have stricken earmark reform language in the Reid-McConnell
bipartisan substitute and replaced it with provisions which contain,
among other things, a definition of earmarked tax benefits which is
weaker than the Reid-McConnell language.
The DeMint amendment would have defined a tax benefit as an earmark
only if it benefits 10 or fewer beneficiaries. This would have left
open a loophole for earmarks which were aimed at benefiting very small
groups of people, even as few as 11. It would have been relatively easy
to circumvent the DeMint language and the intent of the tax earmark
language in the bill.
The Durbin second-degree amendment which has been adopted removes the
limitation of ``10 or fewer beneficiaries'' from the DeMint amendment
and defines a ``limited tax benefit'' as ``any revenue provision that
provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to a
particular beneficiary or limited group of beneficiaries''. This is
stronger language--a limited group can be far more than 10.
The Durbin second-degree amendment also requires that the earmark
disclosure information be placed on the internet in searchable format
for at least 48 hours before consideration of the bills containing
earmarks. The DeMint amendment did not previously have a similar
provision.
In summary, the Durbin language has improved this amendment which
will now increase the transparency of earmarks contained in conference
report language, as well as include disclosure of tax provisions that
benefit limited groups of beneficiaries.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 5:30
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will proceed to a vote on or in
relation to amendment No. 44, as modified, offered by the Senator from
Illinois, Mr. Durbin.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 44, as modified. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr.
Conrad) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 10 Leg.]
YEAS--98
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
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--2
Conrad
Johnson
The amendment (No. 44), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. WYDEN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 11, as Amended
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
11, as amended.
Mr. DeMINT. 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 North Dakota (Mr.
Conrad) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 11 Leg.]
YEAS--98
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
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--2
Conrad
Johnson
The amendment (No. 11), as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Under the previous order and
pursuant to rule XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke
cloture.
[[Page S569]]
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Reid
amendment No. 4 to Calendar No. 1, S. 1 Transparency in the
Legislative Process.
Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Joseph Lieberman, Tom
Carper, Ken Salazar, Robert Menendez, Patty Murray, Jon
Tester, Jack Reed, Joe Biden, Debbie Stabenow, Daniel
K. Akaka, Barbara Mikulski, Benjamin L. Cardin, Dick
Durbin, Ted Kennedy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The mandatory quorum has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 4, offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, be
brought to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory under rule XXII.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr.
Conrad) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 95, nays 2, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 12 Leg.]
YEAS--95
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
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
NAYS--2
Coburn
Nelson (NE)
NOT VOTING--3
Conrad
DeMint
Johnson
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 95, the nays are 2.
Two-thirds of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor Senate amendment
No. 37 that has been offered by the Senator from South Dakota to the
legislative and lobbying transparency legislation, S. 1.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006,
which became law this past September 26, 2006, requires that the Office
of Management and Budget develop a single, searchable, public Web site
that provides information on all types of Federal awards including
Federal grants, sub grants, loans, contracts, cooperative agreements,
and other forms of financial awards that entities, including nonprofit
organizations, receive from the Federal Government. This Web site is to
be accessible to the public at no cost and contains information such as
the entity receiving the award, the amount, and the purpose.
Senate amendment No. 37, that has been offered by the Senator from
South Dakota, Senator Thune, builds upon the Federal Funding
Accountability and Transparency Act by requiring entities that receive
Federal funding to publicly disclose those funds, disclose that
entity's political advocacy, and the amount spent on its political
advocacy. Under this amendment, political advocacy includes influencing
legislation, involvement in political campaigns, litigation with the
Federal Government, and supporting other entities that engage in these
types of political advocacy. In his remarks upon offering Senate
amendment No. 37, the Senator from South Dakota stated that his
amendment will shed further light on organizations that receive Federal
funding that are at the same time also involved in advocacy on Federal
issues. I could not agree more that the transparency required in this
amendment is necessary and that this is something the American people
would like to see happen.
For the past two Congresses, I have been the chairman of the U.S.
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. In that role, I
designated grants management at the Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA, as one of the priority oversight areas of the committee. I began
this oversight by conducting a committee hearing where representatives
from the EPA, EPA inspector general, the Government Accountability
Office, and a private organization called Taxpayers for Common Sense
testified to severe deficiencies in grants management at EPA for at
least the past 10 years and regardless of Presidential administration.
In fact, the EPA inspector general's testimony at that hearing focused
on a nonprofit Federal grant recipient that had received close to $5
million over 5 years in violation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act. The
EPA has had a particularly bad habit of awarding large grants to
special interest and partisan groups and, in many cases, with little
oversight. However, this is a problem that can plague all Federal
agencies and departments.
Since the beginning of this oversight, EPA has taken a number of
positive steps, and I would like to focus on one of those positive
developments. I suggested in May 2004 that to increase transparency in
grant awards, the EPA should develop a publicly accessible, no-cost Web
site with information on EPA's grants and recipients. I suggested this
Web site cover future grant recipients as well as grants awarded over
the past 10 years. I also provided some examples of useful information
to include on the Web site such as the grant recipient's name, agency
grant number, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number, the type
of recipient--governmental entity, nonprofit, eductional institution,
foreign recipient, etc.--the grant project location, beginning and
ending project dates of grants, the amount of the grant, the total cost
of the project or cumulative amount of grants for the particular
project, the grant description or purpose, the grant's expected
outcome, the approving office or program within the agency, and the
agency project officer and awarding officers' contact information.
Since that time, EPA has created this new Web site with the most
publicly available information ever provided on EPA grants and
recipients. The EPA's grant awards database may be easily found on the
EPA's Web site and has been available since 2004.
I believe that placing this information on the World Wide Web for
anyone to access has greatly increased the transparency of the grants
process within the EPA and has required EPA to be more accountable for
the types of grants, recipients, and oversight of the grants awarded.
Likewise, I believe that placing information on the World Wide Web
concerning the political, lobbying, and litigation activity of regular
recipients of Federal funds provides needed transparency that I believe
the American people may be surprised to see and may provide a tool for
appropriate Federal agencies to use to ensure that Federal dollars are
not being misused for political purposes.
In many cases, when the Federal Government awards a grant to a
private organization, it is a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization. The
Internal Revenue Service has classified these organizations as section
501(c)(3) charitable organizations after that section of the Internal
Revenue Code. However, I have delivered remarks concerning the
political activities of recipients of Federal funds or their closely
affiliated organizations. Some of these 501(c)(3) organizations that
regularly receive Federal funds are often closely affiliated with
corresponding section 501(c)(4) and 527 organizations and political
action committees all highly involved in lobbying and political
activities every year and in each election cycle. Although this article
is dated, one of the best articles that describes this tangled web of
political financing and advocacy was a Washington Post article from
September 27, 2004, which I
[[Page S570]]
will request to have printed in its entirety at the conclusion of my
remarks. This article contains a quote from a former Federal Election
Commission official stating:
In the wake of the ban on party-raised soft money, evidence
is mounting that money is slithering through on other routes
as organizations maintain various accounts, tripping over
each other, shifting money between 501(c)(3)'s, (c)(4)'s, and
527's. . . . It's big money, and the pendulum has swung too
far in their direction.
While I understand that Senate amendment No. 37 does not reach into
this tangled web of political and lobbying financing to separate
Federal funding from private dollars, this amendment does make publicly
available on a single Web site information on recipients of Federal
awards and a description of the political and lobbying activities in
which those organizations have been involved. This kind of disclosure
has begun the process of applying transparency and reform to grants
management at the EPA and I believe will also direct needed public
attention on the political and lobbying activities of organizations
that regularly receive taxpayer funding.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article to which I
referred be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Sept. 27, 2004]
New Routes for Money To Sway Voters--501c Groups Escape Disclosure
Rules
(By Thomas B. Edsall and James V. Grimaldi)
In recent months, ads mocking Democratic presidential
nominee John F. Kerry have been surfacing in battleground
states and on national cable channels, paid for by a group
called Citizens United.
In one television commercial playing off the MasterCard
``Priceless'' ads, the announcer describes Kerry's $75
haircuts, $250 designer shirts and $30 million worth of
summer and winter homes. As a picture of Kerry and Sen.
Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) appears on screen, the announcer
concludes: ``Another rich, liberal elitist from Massachusetts
who claims he's a man of the people. Priceless.''
The spot, more hard-edged than the ads run by the official
Bush-Cheney '04 campaign, is in the same provocative vein as
the controversial Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads that have
dominated much of the campaign since late August. There is
one major difference, however: The Swift Boat group must
disclose who is paying for its ads; Citizens United does not
have to tell anybody where it got its money or how it is
spent.
Neither does Project Vote, a group run by former Ohio
Democratic Party chairman David J. Leland that hopes to
register 1.15 million new voters in black, Hispanic and poor
white communities. Nor do two major voter registration and
turnout projects called ``I Vote Values'' and ``The Battle
for Marriage,'' backed by some of the largest organizations
on the religious right that are coordinating a drive to
register millions of evangelical Christians.
Unlike the campaigns of President Bush and Kerry, the two
major parties, political action committees and the Swift Boat
Veterans--one of the ``527'' advocacy groups that have become
part of the 2004 campaign lexicon--Citizens United and
Project Vote operate under the radar of regulation and public
disclosure in what campaign finance expert Anthony Corrado of
the Brookings Institution and Colby College described as ``a
real black hole.''
Known as 501c groups, for a statute in the tax code, these
tax-exempt advocacy and charitable organizations are conduits
for a steady stream of secretive cash flowing into the
election, in many respects unaffected by the McCain-Feingold
legislation enacted in 2002. Unlike other political groups,
501c organizations are not governed by the Federal Election
Commission but by the Internal Revenue Service, which in a
complex set of regulations delineates a range of allowable
activities that are subject to minimal disclosure long after
Election Day.
A 501c (3) group can register voters, and donations to it
are tax deductible, but it is prohibited from engaging in
partisan or electioneering work. A 501c (4), (5) or (6) group
can be involved in elections, but the cost of doing so must
be less than one-half the group's total budget. Public
Citizen, in a report last week titled ``The New Stealth
PACs,'' contended that many of the politically active 501c
(4) groups regularly spend more than half their budgets on
political activities in violation of IRS rules.
IRS rules also stipulate that electioneering by 501c (4),
(5) and (6) groups cannot be ``express advocacy''--that is,
telling people to vote for or against specific candidates.
But such groups can run ads that address public issues such
as immigration or taxes and that refer to the stands of
candidates in ways that help or hurt them.
In the 2004 campaign, these legal distinctions have
translated into two specific roles for these groups. One is
to mobilize voters for Election Day. The other is to
articulate criticism and orchestrate attacks that
candidates and their parties may not want to launch
themselves. That is the role assumed by Citizens United,
whose president, David N. Bossie, is no stranger to
hardball conservative politics.
Asked whether he would provide the names of his donors,
Bossie said, ``No, we follow the rules that are in place for
501c groups.''
The rapid emergence of 501c and 527 groups in this election
cycle is a direct consequence of the changes in political
spending brought about by McCain-Feingold. The groups have
essentially emerged to do what the law prevents parties from
doing: They raise and spend unlimited contributions of ``soft
money'' from corporations, unions and wealthy donors to
influence federal elections.
Kent Cooper, who has watched the intricate ways money gets
into the political system, first as chief of public records
at the FEC and now as co-founder of PoliticalMoneyLine, said
there is a growing need for more stringent regulation of 501c
groups.
In the wake of the ban on party-raised soft money, Cooper
said, evidence is mounting that money ``is slithering through
on other routes,'' as organizations ``maintain various
accounts, tripping over each other, shifting money between
501c (3)s, c (4)s and 527s. . . . It's big money, and the
pendulum has swung too far in their direction.''
Until 2000, neither 527s nor 501c organizations were
required to list donors or account for expenditures. Sen.
John McCain (R-Ariz.), angered at smears aimed at his
presidential campaign by a 527 group, succeeded that year in
passing legislation requiring the IRS to report the spending
activities of 527s throughout the election cycle. That left
the 501c organizations as the only groups with virtually no
disclosure requirements.
To arrive at a total expenditure figure for 501c groups is
impossible, given their nondisclosure requirements. But,
based on interviews and an examination of available records,
it seems likely their total spending will be from $70 million
to $100 million this election cycle, with expenditures by
pro-Republican and pro-Democratic groups roughly equal.
There are huge unknowns, however. For example, the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform, a 501c (6)
business organization, has an annual budget of more than $40
million. The National Rifle Association, a 501c (4), has a
budget of more than $200 million, which the group's chief
executive, Wayne LaPierre Jr., can tap to increase voter
turnout among not only its 4 million members but also the 14
percent of the electorate that has a ``very favorable'' view
of the NRA.
Equally difficult to track is the burst of money going to
the network of hundreds of generally liberal and pro-
Democratic turnout operations, including Project Vote, the
NAACP Voter Education Fund and USAction, none of which
discloses its contributors.
Some board members, consultants, lawyers and staff members
of many of these nonpartisan 501c organizations are, in fact,
active partisans, separately working for campaigns, political
parties and groups.
Perhaps no one better illustrates the host of interlocking
roles than Carl Pope, one of the most influential operatives
on the Democratic side in the 2004 election. As executive
director of the Sierra Club, a major 501c (4) environmental
lobby, Pope also controls the Sierra Club Voter Education
Fund, a 527. The Voter Education Fund 527 has raised $3.4
million this election cycle, with $2.4 million of that amount
coming from the Sierra Club. A third group, the Sierra Club
PAC, has since 1980 given $3.9 million to Democratic
candidates and $173,602 to GOP candidates.
These activities just touch the surface of Pope's political
involvement. In 2002-03, Pope helped found two major 527
groups: America Votes, which has raised $1.9 million to
coordinate the election activities of 32 liberal groups, and
America Coming Together (ACT), which has a goal of raising
more than $100 million to mobilize voters to cast ballots
against Bush. Finally, Pope is treasurer of a new 501c (3)
foundation, America's Families United, which reportedly has
$15 million to distribute to voter mobilization groups.
``I am in this as deeply as I am,'' Pope said, ``because I
think this country is in real peril.''
Although the McCain-Feingold law was generally a boon for
501c groups, one provision has tightened restrictions on the
way they spend their money. The law's ban on the use of
corporate and union funds to finance issue ads in the final
60 days before the general election has prompted such
conservative groups as Americans for Job Security and the 60
Plus Association to move away from radio and television
advertising and toward voter mobilization and non-broadcast
advocacy, primarily through direct mail, newspaper ads and
the Internet.
Although corporate-backed tax-exempt groups are struggling
to comply with McCain-Feingold, liberal, pro-Democratic
charitable and tax-exempt organizations are concentrating
much of their time, money and effort on voter registration
and turnout. These activities do not fall under the 60-day
broadcasting ban and can be structured as nonpartisan work
eligible for tax-deductible support.
For many groups doing voter mobilization, it is crucial to
have a 501c (3) group to tap into what has become a
multimillion-dollar commitment by a host of liberal
foundations and wealthy individuals to increase turnout among
minorities and poor people.
[[Page S571]]
Among the foundations investing substantially in voter
registration and turnout programs likely to benefit Democrats
are the Proteus Fund, which, in addition to direct grants,
set up the Voter Engagement Donor Network in 2003 as an
information service to 130 other foundations and individual
donors; the Pew Charitable Trusts; and America's Families
United, which was created in 2003 to channel about $15
million to voter registration and turnout groups. Most of
these foundations voluntarily identify the groups to which
they make grants on their Web sites.
One of the best-funded organizations is Project Vote, a
501c (3) group that has an $18 million fundraising goal and
had raised, as of early September, $13.2 million in tax-
deductible contributions. Similar work in registering and
turning out urban voters, especially minorities, is being
conducted by USAction Education Fund, the 501c (3) arm of
USAction. Board members for America's Families United include
not only Pope, but also Dennis Rivera, president of New York
Local 1199 of the Service Employees International Union and a
major figure in Democratic politics, and William Lynch Jr.,
who served as board secretary until he recently became deputy
manager of the Kerry campaign.
The close connection between partisan activists and 501c
groups is equally clear among conservative groups. Benjamin
L. Ginsberg has been a lawyer for the Bush campaign, the
Republican National Committee, Progress for America and the
Swift Boat Veterans (both 527s) and Americans for Job
Security, a 501c (4). Ginsberg was forced to resign as chief
outside counsel to the Bush campaign during a controversy
over his simultaneous involvement with the Swift Boat group.
But he is one of the few activists whose involvement in
multiple groups has come under scrutiny.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________