[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.

                          ____________________