[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 106 (Thursday, June 28, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8667-S8670]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 2316
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of Calendar No. 182, H.R. 2316, Lobbying Disclosure; that
all after the enacting clause be stricken, and the text of S. 1, as
passed by the Senate on January 18, 2007, be inserted in lieu thereof;
that the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be
laid on the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a
conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses,
and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the
Senate with a ratio of 4 to 3, with the above occurring without
intervening action or debate.
I would say to my distinguished colleague--my counterpart, Senator
McConnell--that it is my intent not to appoint the conferees until we
get back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving right to object, and I will not object, I
was not on the floor Tuesday when the majority leader first brought
this issue to the Senate floor. I was down at the White House. I am
pleased he is ready to go to conference on lobby reform, the first bill
introduced in this Congress, S. 1, and passed with a vote of 96 to 2
almost 6 months ago, on January 18.
I am also encouraged the Democratic House finally decided to pass a
bill after many months of stalling and excuses. However, before we
agree to this unanimous consent request, I would like to engage my
colleague in a brief colloquy to ensure minority rights are not
trampled, as they were in the supplemental.
As the Senate will recall, the majority drafted that bill and
included matters not related to troop funding and not part of either
bill. This was designed, obviously, to get around 41 Republican
Senators here in the Senate. Obviously, putting those items in a troop
funding bill made it very difficult to oppose the bill and we know how
that story ended.
In that vein, I ask my good friend, the majority leader, to commit
that, consistent with the provisions of S. 1--to commit not to drop
extraneous provisions into this conference report not dealt with by
either body. I think it is important that this very significant issue,
on which we have had extraordinary bipartisan cooperation, continue to
deal with the subject matter related to this bill.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I don't wish to relegislate the
supplemental. I think it was one of the best things that has happened
to the country in a long time. We were able to get some things in that
bill, such as minimum wage, for the first time in 10 years; disaster
relief for farmers, first time in 3 years; the first time we got money
over and above what the President wanted for homeland security; we were
able to get $6.5 billion for Katrina.
Having said that, the distinguished Republican leader has my
assurance this bill will deal with the subject matter that came out of
the Senate and out of the House. It will deal with ethics and lobbying
reform.
I further say to my friend, and he and I have had long discussions on
this bill and I am sure we will continue to have some, this will be a
real conference, as we have had for many years--not recently, but this
will be a conference where there will be public debate on what we
should do and what we should not do.
We will schedule that the week we get back, schedule the conference
as soon as we can when we appoint conferees. There has been a request
we not appoint them today. I accept that. We will do it when we get
back. The minority need not worry. This legislation, when it comes
back, will be perfect for the President to sign if, in fact, that is
necessary. In some instances, it is not necessary. But it will deal
with ethics and lobbying and nothing else.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I have one phone call to my cloakroom
I have to deal with. I respectfully request that we have a very short
quorum call, so I can consult with one of my Members. If the majority
leader will not object, I would like to have a very brief quorum call.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. It is my understanding there is a unanimous consent
pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Is there objection to
the request?
Mr. DeMINT. Reserving the right to object, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, earlier this year, the Senate took a
major step in being more transparent with the earmarking process. We
worked together. We passed within the lobbying/ethics reform bill
transparency and rules that would keep us from adding secret earmarks
when we go to conference. I have asked repeatedly on the Senate floor
that we accept that as a rule. I had asked the majority leader to amend
his unanimous consent request to go to conference to include Senate
acceptance of the rules we have already passed. That way we would have
the comprehensive work we have all planned to have. I understand from
the majority leader they are not willing to accept that, and they want
to go to conference where it is our belief it will be significantly
changed.
In light of our inability to come up with agreement that would
include earmark disclosure, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Again, we have delay, delay, delay, on an issue of vital
importance. What we are asking is to go to conference. We have already
acknowledged there will be nothing that will come out of conference
other than what is in this bill. For us to do the conference out here
on the Senate floor is a little unusual proceeding. All the conference
committees I have been involved in have been ones where the conferees
decide what should happen, and then they bring that matter back to the
respective bodies. Then there is a vote on it.
If my friend from South Carolina doesn't like what comes back, he has
every avenue within the rules at his disposal. No one is trying to take
advantage of him. I appreciate the work he has done on earmarks. A
number of other people have worked on earmarks. It has been a
progressive step forward. But it would not say much about my leadership
if we negotiated it out here
[[Page S8668]]
on the floor of the Senate as to what was going to be in the conference
report. That is what the conferees are all about.
Again, we cannot go forward on the 47 different items that are in
this ethics and lobbying reform----
Mr. DeMINT. Will the leader yield for a question?
Mr. REID. All of which are important. Earmarking is important to my
friend from South Carolina. Other Senators have other things of
importance in this lobbying/ethics reform. We debated this issue. We
debated it at some length. We accepted a lot of amendments. A number of
amendments were not in the final draft of what went to the House. They
have now completed their work. It is time we go to conference and work
this out. But we are not going to piecemeal this out here on the Senate
floor.
Mr. DeMINT. Will the leader yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I am happy to.
Mr. DeMINT. I thank the leader, and I appreciate his perseverance. I
would just like to ask why the part of this bill that applies only to
the Senate--it does not need to be conferenced with the House because
it is our rule about how we deal with earmarks, how we deal with the
conference of out-of-scope earmarks. Why can't we just accept that part
here and go to conference with all of these other provisions in which
you know our Members are interested?
I have no objection to going to conference, but there is no reason to
conference with the House on rules that apply only to the Senate.
Mr. REID. Madam President, the House, of course, has issues that
affect them only. Sometimes they affect what we do. So we can't do this
in a vacuum. I have a suggestion. I think it is a valid, constructive
suggestion. I would say to my friend from South Carolina, what he
should do is see what he can do to get on the conference. That is what
I would suggest. I would be happy to have you on the conference. I
don't select who the Republicans put on the conference, but that may be
an answer to the problem. I would be happy to have you in the
conference. I think it would be a good exercise for you to see what
goes on inside of a real conference.
Separate and apart from that, I have to simply say, this is, again, a
diversion, a distraction from doing the work of this country.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the majority leader yield?
Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the majority leader if I understand
what has happened here. We have adopted the language of the Senator
from South Carolina in S. 1, 96 to 2. We sent it over to the House for
consideration. The Senator from South Carolina came to the floor while
the House was deliberating and insisted that we move forward. We said
we had to wait for House action, and House action has taken place,
moving us to a conference. Now the Senator from South Carolina is
objecting to going to a conference so that this could become the law of
the land and the rules applying to the Senate. Is that where we are
today? The Republican Senate is objecting to going to conference on
ethics and lobbying reform?
Mr. REID. The Senator from Illinois has it down pat. We have worked
within the confines of the rules that have been given us. We have
passed a bill. They have passed one in the House. Now is the time to
see if we can make it into law.
There will be some things that will wind up being a Senate rule. Some
things will wind up being a House rule. That is part of what the
conference is going to work out. No one is trying to detract from
anything that the distinguished Senator from South Carolina wants. But
just because you want something doesn't mean you are necessarily going
to get it. I just think this is such a bad way to legislate. Here we
were within seconds of being able to go to conference. A phone call
came in to the cloakroom. I understand that. The Republican leader has
an obligation to take care of his Members. But I think this is not a
good way to go.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for another question?
Mr. REID. The eyes of the American public are on us.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask the majority leader, wasn't there a clear message
from the last election that people wanted us to clean up the culture of
corruption in this town, that they wanted ethics and lobbying reform?
Isn't that why the Democratic majority picked it as S. 1, the first
piece of legislation we considered, made it a high priority, and passed
it with a strong bipartisan vote? And isn't it a fact that because of
the objection from the Republican side of the aisle, we now run the
risk of having nothing, no change, no reform in lobbying or ethics, and
that the Senator from South Carolina has asked for you to guarantee a
result from a conference committee?
Mr. REID. I appreciate----
Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, may I respond?
Mr. REID. For the first time in 131 years, someone was indicted
working in the White House. That man has now been convicted and is in
prison. The President's appointee to handle Government contracting was
led away in handcuffs from his office. He is now in prison. The
majority leader of the House of Representatives was convicted three
times of ethics violations. He has now resigned in disgrace after
having been indicted in Texas.
We have another Congressman, part of the whole Abramoff scandal, who
is in prison. Many staff members have pled guilty to crimes, have quit.
Some of them are giving State's evidence. The investigations are still
ongoing. A couple of days ago, Mr. Griles, second in command at the
Interior Department, was sentenced to prison.
It is time that we got real and change this culture. That is what
this legislation is all about. It is time that we started doing things
for the American people. One of the things we can do is tell the
American people that we are distancing ourselves from this culture of
corruption.
That is what this legislation is all about. To not allow us to go to
conference on some petty issue that my friend has raised is really bad,
not good for the American people. This is a bill loaded with good
things. We want to do some good things for the American people.
On some procedural suggestion that is not within the confines of
common sense and good judgment, we have an objection. That is wrong.
All it does is focus more attention on the culture of corruption.
Mr. DeMINT. Will the Senator allow a response?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Chair.
I am very surprised to hear earmark reform referred to as a trivial
issue. More than anything else, the things that you were just talking
about, the corruption, are all earmark related, where Congressmen have
sold earmarks for bribes. A big part of the corruption here is
earmarks. To respond in a more detailed way, the House has passed its
own rules package. It didn't relate to us. They did not send it to
conference. They didn't need the Senate to advise. They adopted their
own rules. We know, if I could speak through the Chair to Senator
Durbin, that if we send this to conference, nothing will be done this
year. This conference will work for months. We will not have earmark
reform during this year's appropriations process. That is exactly what
this is intended to do.
For that reason, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent, again,
that the rules be discharged from further consideration and the Senate
now proceed to S. Res. 123 and S. Res. 260; that the resolution be
agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
Mr. DURBIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I would assure my friend that I have
spoken to the Speaker on more than one occasion. We have been trying to
get to conference on this for quite some time now. They completed their
work. It has been about 3\1/2\ weeks. I believe without any stretch of
the imagination, we will finish this conference in a week. It might go
10 days. But it will only be a question of scheduling. The conference
will go very quickly. It will be a public conference.
I would say to my friend--I say this respectfully--did you serve in
the House before you came here?
[[Page S8669]]
Mr. DeMINT. Yes, sir.
Mr. REID. I thought so. So you are probably not familiar with
conferences because under Republican leadership, they were eliminated.
There were no conferences. I have said we will hold public conferences.
So even though my friend is probably not familiar with a real
conference, we will have one. It will not take all year. It will not
take all conference. We will finish it very quickly.
No one suggests that earmarking is trivial. I suggested that your
objection to this is trivial. I say that you shouldn't do this. It is
wrong. It is only slowing up what you in your heart want. All you are
doing is slowing it up. There is no intent on my behalf to eliminate
earmark reform. I think most everybody in this body lives by earmark
reform. I think it would be very good that rather than some vacuous
thing talking about earmarks, we have something here that we can look
to that is either a part of a law or a rule. My friend should not worry
about this taking a long time. Once we get to conference, it will not
take long.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I would like to address my comments to
my friend from South Carolina. The bottom line is very simple. We have
conference committees to move things along, not to slow them down. My
colleague from South Carolina has concerns about earmarks. I understand
them. They are heartfelt. But it is clear that if we acceded to his
request, any single Senator, because of any issue on any bill, could
hold up progress completely--on ethics reform, on 9/11, on anything
else.
I will tell you my reading. I am from a different part of the country
than my colleague, but people want us to get some things done. They
don't want us to say: If I don't get it exactly my way on my provision,
I am going to hold everything up. That is the consequence of what my
friend from South Carolina is saying.
Mr. DeMINT. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SCHUMER. I might feel that the worst part of what happened, the
scandals we talked about, is the free trips. I might say: I don't want
to trust anything to conference reports. Unless free trips are done
exactly as we say here, I want to hold up the bill. One of my
colleagues might say that they think the worst thing is flying and the
airplanes.
Mr. DeMINT. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SCHUMER. I will in a minute. We would be totally gridlocked. If
each of us in this body of 100, each with strong opinions and great
talents, were to say: I am not going to let anything move forward
unless I get my thing done, period, without change, without discussion,
without modification, with the other body, we would be where the public
doesn't want us: gridlocked on ethics reform, gridlocked on 9/11,
gridlocked on everything else.
I am happy to yield to my friend from South Carolina.
Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Senator for the comment. You are exactly
right. If this was just what I wanted, I would not hold up anything.
This is something you voted for. Every Senator voted for this earmark
reform as a Senate rule, not as something we are going to debate with
the House but as our rule. All I am asking is that we adopt the rules
for the Senate that we have already passed. I do not want to hold up
this conference.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, we have a vote scheduled. I have just
received word from the Appropriations Committee, bipartisan, they need
another 10 minutes. So I ask unanimous consent that they have 10
minutes; otherwise, I will just go into a quorum call.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. So the vote will take place at 10 after the hour.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, reclaiming my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I understand this passed by a whole lot
of votes. That is not the point. There are lots of things that pass by
a lot of votes, and then they all have to be worked out in conference
committees and in other ways. If each of us insists ``it is my way or I
hold things up''--maybe there are ways to improve and strengthen the
provisions we pass; maybe there are things other people might add;
maybe there will be the kinds of legislative tradeoffs that will make a
stronger ethics bill. We all have no way of knowing. But we do know one
thing: If what the Senator from South Carolina is doing, by asserting
his prerogatives in the Senate, was done by everybody, or even five
other Senators, we would absolutely have no ethics reform--no ethics
reform--no ethics reform.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SCHUMER. I am happy to yield to my colleague from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I come from the House of
Representatives, as my friend from New York and my friend from South
Carolina. Over there, in that body, the Speaker decides how everything
is going to go, whether the Speaker is a Republican or Democrat. Then
some people come over here from the House, and they decide they are
going to use the rules of the Senate to call attention to what they
think is the issue of the day.
I want to thank my friend. My question to my friend is this: If you
went out and asked the average person on the street what they think
about the Congress and whether we need ethics reform and if we should
pass ethics reform, my friend, I think, would agree--and I will ask him
this--they would answer, yes.
Then, if you followed it up, I say to my friend, and said: Well,
there are one or two things missing from this bill; we took care of 12
things, but it is tough because we have to work across party aisles. It
is tough because everybody has his or her own idea. Do you think it is
good to get started with the package we have and get it done for the
American people?
What does my friend think the average person would say?
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, the average person would say--because
the average American is practical--anyone who insists on only his way
or her way is gumming up the works. To get 90 percent or 95 percent of
what is a good package, most people would say, yes.
I will say another thing to my colleague.
Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, will my Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I will be happy to yield when I finish
my little colloquy with my friend from California.
My guess is, if you ask the person on the street what is the most
egregious abuse in terms of lobbyists and ethics, it is the trips. That
is what caught the highlights. It was all the free gifts and all the
emoluments and going to London and going here and going there. Most
people, if you asked them about earmarks, and they knew what the
earmarks were--they would say the bridge from Alaska is a bad thing,
and there are a few others that are a bad thing--but my guess is that
95 percent of the people in this body--maybe 100 percent; maybe my
friend from South Carolina is proud of the earmarks they have put in
and they should be made public early and there should be debate on
them--but they, in themselves, are not wrong as the free trips, in
themselves, are wrong.
So the bottom line is, if you ask the average citizen, my colleague
from California is right, they would say: Move forward because there is
a lot in this bill that is important. In fact, the No. 1 abuse we read
about might have been trips or emoluments or something like that more
than earmarks.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, will the Senator from New York yield for
a question?
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I am happy to yield to my colleague
form Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, is the Senator aware that the bill just
objected to by the Republican Senator from South Carolina that we want
to take to conference to make into law includes provisions that toughen
the rules concerning gifts and travel, banning gifts from registered
lobbyists, requiring the market value be paid for tickets to events,
prohibiting Senators from participating in events to honor them at a
national convention, extending the ban on travel paid for by lobbyists,
requiring Senators and staff to receive approval from the Ethics
Committee before accepting expenses for any trip paid for by private
sources, requiring full disclosure of any travel on
[[Page S8670]]
noncommercial airlines, requiring certifications and disclosures filed
by Senators and staff available to the public for inspection?
Also, it includes slowing down the revolving door between Senators
and staff, so those leaving the Senate are limited in the jobs they can
take; reducing and eliminating negotiations for another job by a
sitting Senator in terms of where they might go when they leave the
Senate; also, prohibiting staff contact with lobbyists who are family
members of the Senator; also, voting to significantly expand lobbying
disclosure.
It goes on for lengthy paragraphs: voting to prohibit partisan
efforts like the K Street Project, that notorious project involving
lobbyists and Members of the Senate; voting to deny pensions to former
Members convicted of certain crimes; voting to protect the integrity of
conference reports.
Does the Senator from New York not make this point, that when one
Senator stands up and says: Well, I have one little section that I want
to guarantee is going to be in the final conference report, that
Senator is stopping us from considering all of these elements of ethics
and lobbying reform, each of which points to some concern of Members of
the Senate where we want to change the ethics standards, clean up the
culture of corruption?
So when the Republican Senator from South Carolina objects to going
to conference, he stops us from considering any and all of the things I
just read.
Is that the point the Senator from New York is making?
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Illinois.
That is exactly the point I am making. I would say, the reason we have
a Senate, and not a body of one, is because there are different views.
Some of the things that my colleague from Illinois read to me are the
most objectionable that are on the books now.
I would guess the public is probably closer to my view than the view
of the Senator from South Carolina. I would guess what bothered them
the most with Abramoff, or with anything else, was all the trips and
emoluments and the way the lobbyists sort of insinuated their way into
the whole process. There are hundreds of earmarks where there were no
lobbyists involved. There were many more earmarks--most earmarks--where
the public debate would be supported by this body.
Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SCHUMER. So I would say to my friend from Illinois that is
exactly the point. If each of us insists that our little provision must
be passed on its own--no debate, no discussion, no moving forward with
the general process--we would have no ethics reform.
Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SCHUMER. So despite the good intentions of my colleague from
South Carolina, the effect of what he is doing is preventing good,
strong, tough ethics reform across the board on issues such as
earmarks, but also on issues such as trips and the K Street Project,
and everything else from moving forward.
So my colleague from Illinois makes a point that I think is----
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for another
question?
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I continue to yield to my colleague.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I would like to ask my colleague from
New York, as to the notorious K Street Project, where lobbyists had
regular meetings with Members of the Senate to discuss which
legislation would come up, which amendments would be considered, which
provisions in the Tax Code would be passed, and which would fail--all
of these things are now prohibited under the bill that we want to send
to conference. They do not relate directly to earmarks, which are
appropriations measures, but everyone across America would concede
there were clear abuses when it came to this K Street Project.
So when the Republican Senator from South Carolina objects to taking
this bill to conference, he has gone beyond earmarks. He is not
allowing us to consider the broader question about what we consider to
be unethical and illegal contacts between lobbyists and Members of the
Senate. He is stopping us from passing new laws to bring some ethics
reform to the Senate.
I ask the Senator from New York, the issue of earmarks was voted on
with an overwhelming vote in the Senate. The Appropriations Committee,
on which I serve, is moving forward with real earmarks reform. So it
would seem that the Senator from South Carolina is carping on a trifle
here. We have a huge number of important legislative items to consider
in S. 1.
I ask the Senator from New York, in the time he has served in the
House and the Senate, can he recall a time when a Senator or Member of
Congress could receive a guarantee that a conference committee was
going to produce exact language as each Member would like going into
the conference?
Mr. SCHUMER. Well, Madam President, I have served in this body now
for 8 years. I had served in the House for 18 years. I cannot recall a
single instance. We do have senses of the Senate; we had senses of the
House, which are supposed to direct things. But we have never asked for
a guarantee. I, for one, cannot recall someone saying: I am holding up
everything until I get my guarantee. That is wrong.
Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I will be happy to yield in a second.
I will tell you, I go to my State. It is a diverse State of 19
million people. It is not South Carolina. It is not Illinois. It is not
Nevada. It is not California. It is not Washington State. But I will
tell you, the No. 1 thing I hear is: Can't you folks each give in a
little bit? Can't you folks each work with one another and get
something done?
That is what I hear. Yet the path my friend from South Carolina is
taking is exactly the opposite because we will get good earmark reform.
____________________