[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 126 (Thursday, August 2, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10687-S10719]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the amendment of the House to S. 1, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Message from the House of Representatives to accompany S. 
     1, entitled ``An Act To Provide Greater Transparency in the 
     Legislative Process.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
hours of debate prior to the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on 
the motion to concur, with the time equally divided and controlled 
between the two leaders or their designees.
  The Senator from California is recognized.


                          tragedy in minnesota

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, quickly, before I begin, I also wish 
to send my very deep condolences to those families who will have lost 
their loved ones in this very tragic bridge collapse. I heard the mayor 
on the television this morning, and it brought me back to my days as 
mayor. I know what this

[[Page S10688]]

kind of difficulty--whether it is an earthquake or a bridge collapse--
brings for a city.
  I wish to extend my thanks to the wonderful efforts made by the 
emergency forces and the medical team of the city of Minneapolis. I 
think it was very special. I saw many acts of heroism.
  I very much agree with what the majority leader said about our 
deteriorating infrastructure. My thoughts went to the great Golden Gate 
Bridge. I think we need to pay more attention to our homefront and to 
those items. But at this point I send my very deep condolences to those 
who will have lost family members and loved ones.
  Mr. President, if I may, I wish to present a unanimous consent 
agreement regarding speakers on our side directly following my remarks: 
Senator Lieberman, for 10 minutes; Senator Obama, for 10 minutes; 
Senator Feingold, for 10 minutes; Senator Durbin, for 10 minutes; and 
Senator Reid, for 10 minutes of leader time, I believe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge the Senate to 
invoke cloture on this bill, S. 1, the Honest Leadership and Open 
Government Act. In the last election, the message was loud and clear: 
It is time to change the way business is done in the Nation's Capital. 
In response, what is before us this morning is the single most sweeping 
congressional reform bill since Watergate. I support its passage, and I 
support its passage despite the fact that I do not like everything that 
is in this bill. It is a strong bill. I am sure it is too strong for 
some and it is too weak for others, but, like all conference reports, 
it is, in effect, to some degree a compromise.
  On Tuesday, by a 411-to-8 strongly bipartisan vote, the House passed 
this legislation, and now it is the Senate's turn. It would be a 
serious mistake if we do not step up to the plate and demonstrate to 
the American people that we have heard their message.
  As I say, the bill is not perfect. There have been some complaints by 
the minority party about the process used to bring this bill to the 
floor, and I wish to begin by addressing that issue.
  Last January, the Senate passed S. 1 by a 96-to-2 vote. On May 24, 
the House passed companion legislation by a 386-to-22 margin. Those 
were strong bipartisan votes. But when the majority leader sought 
unanimous consent to name conferees, one member of the minority party 
objected, and he held fast to his objections, preventing the 
establishment of a conference committee where Members could have sat 
down in the light of day and negotiated Member to Member the 
differences between the two bills. Clearly, that wasn't able to take 
place.
  With few other options available, the majority leader and the Speaker 
of the House sought consensus on a bill that could be taken up by both 
Houses, and that consensus bill is what we have before us today.
  It may not be every person's wish, and as chairman of the Rules 
Committee, I commit right now to keep these items on the front burner, 
and should changes be necessitated, I would be very happy to entertain 
them. Though I cannot speak for my counterpart, the distinguished 
ranking member, Senator Bennett, I believe he would also.
  But today, let me say this: I believe this is a good bill--not a 
perfect bill but a good bill. Its passage today is the most direct 
action we can take to show the American people that, yes, we want to 
curb the influence of lobbyists and we want to restore the public trust 
on how we operate as Senators and Members of the House of 
Representatives.
  In recent years, there has been an explosive growth in the number of 
registered lobbyists in Washington from 16,342 in 2000 to 34,785 in 
2005. So in 5 years, the numbers of lobbyists have doubled, and, 
according to all reports, the numbers keep growing.
  One of the most critical provisions of this bill will now shine new 
light on the role lobbyists play in political campaigns by requiring 
the disclosure of funds they bundle on behalf of Members, PACs, and 
party committees. It will also require that lobbyists disclose all 
their campaign contributions as well as payments to Presidential 
libraries, inaugural committees, or entities controlled by, named, or 
honoring Members of Congress, and it requires lobbyists to file 
electronic reports quarterly on their lobbying activity, with these 
reports becoming available on a searchable public database. The bill 
also increases civil penalties from $50,000 to $200,000 and establishes 
a criminal penalty of up to 5 years for those lobbyists who knowingly 
and corruptly fail to comply with these new requirements.
  There has been increasing concern about former members of the 
administration, former lawmakers, and their staff gaining undue access 
as lobbyists because of the relationships they have made while working 
for the Government. This bill seeks to address those concerns by 
increasing the length of time, the so-called cooling-off period, for 
Senators. Currently, Senators are barred from lobbying Congress for 1 
year. With passage of this bill, that would be extended to 2 years.
  Cabinet Secretaries and other very senior executive personnel would 
be prohibited from lobbying the department or agency in which they 
worked for 2 years after they leave their position. In other words, 
they cannot lobby the department from which they left for 2 years. That 
is an increase from 1 to 2 years.
  Senior Senate staff and Senate officers would be barred from lobbying 
the entire Senate for 1 year, instead of just their former employing 
office. That would be the whole Senate, not just their office.
  There has been a lot of talk also about the K Street Project in which 
lobbyist firms, trade associations, and other business groups were told 
by former House majority leader Tom Delay and others that they would 
encounter a closed door in Congress unless they hired members of the 
then majority party. This bill seeks to end that practice by 
prohibiting Members of Congress and their staff from influencing hiring 
decisions of any private organization on the sole basis of partisan 
political gain, and it carries with it a fine and imprisonment of up to 
15 years for violations. That is a stiff penalty, but hopefully it 
sends a stiff and strong signal that such practices will not be 
tolerated in the future.
  Another issue that recently came to light is that Members of Congress 
convicted of bribery, perjury, conspiracy, and other related crimes can 
still receive their congressional pensions. I did not know this. 
Probably you didn't know this, Mr. President. But, fortunately, this 
bill ends that practice.
  S. 1 also contains a number of major reforms to Senate rules, and I 
will highlight a few of the most important procedural reforms.
  Section 511 amends rule XXVIII to subject ``dead of night'' additions 
to conference reports, when the new matter was not approved by either 
House, to a 60-vote point of order. This is a very important change in 
the rules, and it has been the bane of many our existence for a long 
period of time. You go through the process, and then after the process 
is concluded, in the dead of night, something is stuck into a 
conference bill. This practice will end.
  Currently, when an out-of-scope provision is added to a conference 
report, we can object, but the objection brings down the whole bill. 
The reform in this bill will allow a Member to object to just the added 
provision.
  I first proposed this provision in the last Congress and worked 
closely with Senator Lott on its development. I am very happy that it 
is included in the final bill.

  Section 512 ends secret Senate holds by requiring the Senator placing 
a hold on a legislative matter or nomination to publicly disclose that 
hold within 6 days. This, too, is an important reform. We all know 
about anonymous holds. We all know what it takes to discover who 
actually has the hold. It is time those Members who seek to hold up 
legislation come forward and disclose who they are and why. We do not 
prohibit their ability to exercise this senatorial prerogative, but we 
do require that they be transparent and, therefore, public about it.
  Section 513 requires that Senate committees and subcommittees post 
video recordings, audio recordings, or transcripts of all public 
meetings on the Internet.
  A great deal of attention has been given to the dramatic escalation 
in the number of earmarks awarded by Congress, and I wish to spend a 
couple of minutes on the earmark provisions.

[[Page S10689]]

  According to a survey of the Congressional Research Service, CRS, the 
number of earmarks has skyrocketed from 6,114 to 13,012 in 2006. So in 
6 years, the number of earmarks has more than doubled. Henceforth, 
earmarks which are in effect congressional additions to spending cannot 
be made in the dark of night but only in the full light of transparent 
disclosure. That is a big change.
  This bill would require that the sponsor or the requester of each and 
every earmark be publicly identified, and because there is often 
disagreement about what does and does not constitute an earmark, the 
bill provides for the first time in Senate rules a definition that does 
not restrict the disclosure requirement to only appropriations bills. 
You and I, Madam President, serve on the Appropriations Committee, but 
there are also these authorizations that, in effect, are requests for 
added spending.
  This new rule XLIV requires that all congressionally directed 
spending items, limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in 
bills, resolutions, conference reports, and managers' statements be 
identified and posted on the Internet at least 48 hours before Senate 
action. So 48 hours before a bill comes to the floor, all of these 
additions must be transparently available to the public. It requires 
for the first time that Senators certify that they and their immediate 
family will not have a direct pecuniary benefit from the earmark they 
request as defined by rule XXXVII.
  Separately, rule XLIV also subjects new directed spending added to a 
conference report when the new spending was not approved by either 
House to a 60-vote point of order so that you, Madam President, I, 
Senator Grassley, or anyone else can come to the floor and raise a 
point of order to that congressional add-on, and then that would be 
subject to a 60-vote point of order. If a Senator objects to the 
earmark being dropped into the conference report, it then will most 
likely be stripped out unless 60 Senators vote to keep it in.
  Committees would also be required, to the greatest extent 
practicable, to disclose in unclassified language the funding level and 
the name of the sponsor of congressionally directed spending included 
in classified portions of bills, joint resolutions, and conference 
reports. The chairman of each committee is responsible for certifying 
that the list of earmarks is correct and properly identified. So there 
is also a burden placed on the chair of every committee and 
subcommittee.
  Let me speak for a moment about gift and travel reform. The Senate 
rules have also been reformed to curb the special access that special 
interests seek to gain by providing Members with gifts, meals, and 
tickets to entertainment and sports events. This bill prohibits staff 
and Senators from accepting gifts from registered lobbyists or entities 
that employ them. The bill prohibits Senators from attending parties in 
their honor at national party conventions if they have been sponsored 
by lobbyists, unless the Senator is the party's Presidential or Vice 
Presidential nominee.
  The bill amends rule XXXV by prohibiting Senators and their staff 
from accepting private travel from registered lobbyists or entities 
that hire them, and prohibiting lobbyists from organizing, arranging, 
requesting, or participating in travel by Senators or their staff. 
However, Senators and their staff, with preapproval from the Ethics 
Committee, will still be allowed to accept travel by entities that 
employ lobbyists if it is necessary to participate in a 1-day meeting, 
a speaking engagement, a fact-finding trip, or similar event. And 
Senators and their staff can still accept travel provided by 501(c)(3) 
organizations if the trip has been preapproved by the Ethics Committee.
  Finally, Senators will be required to pay the fair market value--that 
is, the charter rate--for flights on private jets not operating or paid 
for by an air carrier that is certified by the FAA. Section 601 
separately establishes the same requirement for Senate candidates and 
Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. This, in itself, is a 
consequential reform and somewhat controversial.
  Finally, before closing, I would like to thank the majority leader 
for his unyielding determination to bring this bill forward. Without 
his dogged determination, and that of the Speaker of the House, I don't 
believe this bill would be before us today, and both are to be 
commended.
  The 2006 election saw the largest congressional shift since 1994, and 
even with the war in Iraq on many voters' minds, Americans remain 
seriously concerned about ethics in government. It is time we listen to 
their concerns. This bill attempts to do so.
  It is not always easy, it is not going to please everybody, and as I 
said in the beginning, Members are either going to feel that this bill 
is too strong about this part or that part, or too weak about this part 
or that part. But let me just reinforce that this is a conference 
report. It is not subject to amendment. It has been put together in an 
unusual procedure because of the objection from the other side to us 
going to conference, which would have been a far preferable method of 
handling this.
  I once again repeat my commitment that as chairman of the Rules 
Committee, I will be happy to consider any amendments that the 
operation of this bill might indicate are warranted in the future.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Landrieu). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, may I claim my time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Actually, under previous order, Senator 
Lieberman was scheduled to follow Senator Feinstein.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. We are not going back and forth?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa may proceed.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Also, on behalf of Senator Stevens, because he was 
waiting to claim his time, and he had to go to a markup, he asked if I 
would have his name taken off the list and reserve the time for our 
side. But I would ask unanimous consent that I have 5 of that 10 
minutes he originally had added to my time.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I 
won't object, but I misspoke, and if I may just correct the record.
  This is not a conference report. It is a bill. But it is still not 
subject to amendment because the tree is filled. I wanted to make that 
clear.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from Iowa?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, 
I wanted to ask my friend from Iowa how long he intends to speak.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. That would be 10 minutes.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair, and I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I am rising to speak against the 
compromise that deals with the issue of secret holds. I would agree 
with the Senator from California, the distinguished chairman of the 
committee, that what we have in this report is probably better than 
what we have today because secret holds are secret, and nobody knows 
who is holding a bill. The public's business ought to be public, and it 
isn't today. But I do take exception to what is before us in regard to 
secret holds for the simple reason that there wasn't any necessity 
whatsoever to compromise.
  Secret holds are rules of the Senate, or procedures in the Senate, 
and this body spoke with 84 votes in favor of what Senator Wyden and I 
put before the Senate. Basically, this makes it so liberal that it is 
practically meaningless what we are doing about secret holds.
  Article I, section 5 of the Constitution of the United States reads 
in part:

       Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.

  That means that the House of Representatives would have no say 
whatsoever in the Senate rules, but a conference was used for 
negotiations between the House and Senate. That was used as a rationale 
for changing what Senator Wyden and I had previously gotten passed in 
the Senate. So when the Senate debates and passes changes to its rules, 
that ought to be the final word. But that wasn't the final word, as we 
are seeing today. That is what

[[Page S10690]]

happened with the House package of rules changes that the body passed 
in the Congress, and we didn't attempt to tell the House what they 
ought to do.
  However, since the ethics reform bill that the Senate passed in 
January also contained changes to the Lobbying Disclosure Act and other 
laws, the entire bill needs to pass both Houses of Congress and be 
signed by the President. Nevertheless, that does not change the fact 
that under the Constitution, only the Senate determines its rules and 
procedures, and the Senate, in an overwhelming majority, spoke. So why 
shouldn't it be left just the way Senator Wyden and I had originally 
introduced it.
  What has happened is, the Senate had a full open debate about it and 
passed the changes that we did in Wyden-Grassley. Now we have a 
situation where the majority leader of the Senate and the Speaker of 
the House rewrote major provisions in this package, including rewriting 
Senate rules that had already passed the full Senate.
  In conference, one provision that was changed was a provision that I 
referred to which Senator Wyden and I had been working on for years to 
end the practice of secret holds because the public's business ought to 
always be public. Any Senator who has guts enough to put a hold on a 
bill ought to be willing to stand up and say who they are. Only in the 
Senate can a single Member prevent legislation or nominations from 
being considered under the so-called procedure of holds. Holds do not 
exist in the House.
  Senator Wyden and I were successful in passing an amendment in last 
year's ethics reform bill by a vote of 84 to 13 on public disclosure. 
That same language was included in the bill without a vote in this 
Congress. But you know how things go on around the Senate. We had 
prominent Senators, people who run this body, who told Senator Wyden 
and I that ``they get the message,'' after 6 or 7 years, and, finally, 
we were going to end this secrecy. That bill wasn't enacted, but we 
included those identical provisions in this bill.
  Senator Wyden and I pushed for that provision because we believed the 
public's business ought to be done in public. Every Senator has the 
right to object to a unanimous consent request to proceeding to a 
matter. Senators have every right to object to a unanimous consent 
request publicly, but I see no legitimate reason Senators should be 
able to be secret about what they are doing in the Senate. It has been 
my policy for years to place a brief statement in the Congressional 
Record each time I place a hold, with a short explanation of why I 
placed that hold. It has never hurt me one bit, and Senators should 
have no fear following a requirement of the public's business being 
public. In other words, nothing secret. If you want to hold up a bill, 
just have guts enough to say so.
  So I say the Senate has spoken in passing our very well thought out 
provision. And I should add that this provision was written with the 
help and advice of Senator Lott and Senator Byrd, both former majority 
leaders with much valuable insight about how the Senate works. Yet even 
though the Senate has already spoken as a body on this matter, a single 
Senator has single-handedly rewritten part of this provision, 
overriding what I consider overwhelming support in the Senate to end 
secret holds.
  In the version that was Senate passed, we allowed 3 days for Senators 
to submit a simple public disclosure form for the Record, just like 
adding your name as a cosponsor to a bill. The intent is not that it is 
somehow legitimate to keep a hold secret for 3 days, but we wanted to 
give Senators ample time to get their disclosure to the floor to be 
entered into the Record. The rewritten provision, as Senator Feinstein 
has said, gives Senators 6 legislative days instead of those 3 days. It 
is absurd to think that Senators need over a week to send an intern 
down to the floor with this simple form.
  Of greater concern is that the rewritten language requires Senators 
to disclose a hold only after a unanimous consent request is made and 
objected to anonymously on the Senator's behalf, and then they have 6 
days after that. That is too late. By that point, particularly at the 
end of a session, it is going to make this process meaningless. By that 
point, a hold could have existed for some time, perhaps without the 
sponsor of the bill even realizing it.
  Furthermore, since the majority leader controls the Senate's 
schedule, he would hardly object to his own request to bring up a bill 
or nominee. He would simply not bring up a bill or nominee being held 
up by a Member of his own party. If a Member of the minority party were 
to attempt to ask unanimous consent to proceed to a matter, he would 
object on his own behalf to protect the majority leader's prerogative 
to set the agenda, and any secret holds by members of a majority party 
would remain secret.
  I am deeply disappointed that this provision that Senator Wyden and I 
worked so hard on, over a period of at least 6 years, to finally get a 
vote of 84 Members of this body supporting it, and then, because it was 
almost a fait accompli as seen by leaders of this body--powerful 
Senators in this body--just to put it in, in January, in the bill that 
is before us because it would be done--so-called ``getting the 
message,''--well, who has forgotten that they got the message that they 
had to change this? And that is what is so irritating.
  I am going to vote for this bill, but this was something that didn't 
need to be in a bill. It didn't need to be negotiated. This was decided 
by the vast majority of the Senate. But you know what it tells me. 
There are still people around here who don't want the public's business 
to be public. They want to do things in secret. They do not have guts 
enough to say they want to hold up a bill. So we end up with this 
convoluted thing we have of 6 days, but it isn't even kicked in until 
after there is an attempt by somebody to ask for a unanimous consent 
request to bring up a bill, and then only at that point, and then there 
is 6 days after that.
  So I have stated my piece. I am not very happy. I hope Senator Wyden 
is as unhappy as I am and will try to do something in the future.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Obama). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from California for 
her leadership in this very important matter.
  We all know, if you read the public opinion polls, Congress is at an 
all-time low in the estimation of the American people. I am not going 
to comment about the political impact of that, but more broadly on the 
fact that this is, in our self-estimation, the greatest democracy in 
the world, and that means this is a government which depends on the 
support of those we govern--the consent of the governed. When the level 
of trust and respect between the people of the United States and the 
Members of this elected Congress is as low as it is now, our democracy 
is less than it should be. I don't want to say it is in jeopardy, but I 
will say that it is weakened by this distrust.
  So why does this distrust exist? I am sure everybody has their own 
favorite explanations. It seems to me that part of it is a pervasive 
partisanship here that gets in the way of us producing results, 
producing solutions to problems that people have--the people who are 
good enough to honor us by sending us here. They are frustrated because 
they think we too often put partisan interests ahead of public 
interests, ahead of their interests.

  Another reason for the low estimation and opinion the American people 
have of Congress today is the wave of scandals that has afflicted the 
Congress and individual Members. When one Member is accused or 
convicted of an ethical or legal lapse, it affects the attitude of the 
people toward the entire institution. These seem to have come with 
increasing frequency.
  Ultimately, no law can guarantee that an individual anywhere, 
including in Congress, will do the right thing and will be ethical. 
There are always private moments when we will all have to count on our 
moral compasses and our values center. But we adopt law to try to 
create a clarity of rules and create incentives for our society 
overall--and in this case, we ourselves--to guide us, encourage us, 
hopefully to scare us into doing the right thing. It is in that

[[Page S10691]]

context that I rise with real enthusiasm to support the Honest 
Leadership and Open Government Act which is before the Senate today.
  This is not only the right thing to do in every substantive way, but 
it is the right thing to do in the larger sense that I described, of 
trying to rebuild the respect the American people have for this 
institution and for all of us who are Members of it. The focus here is 
on disclosure, as it ought to be.
  The American people will naturally view darkly what is done in the 
shadows. They want to know that what we do in their names here in 
Congress is done with their best interests at heart rather than the 
narrow interests of a special few whose money may appear to the public 
to buy those special few access. Those suspicions, in the context of 
public cases of ethical and legal violations, grow in the darkness. The 
American people must know, through disclosure and sunlight--and this 
bill will shine light on so much of what we do--that the only special 
interest being represented here in Congress is the interest of the 
American people who were good enough to honor us by sending us here to 
serve them. This sweeping legislation shines much needed light in 
corners and corridors of this Capitol, too long left in the dark. It 
should help restore the public's trust now, a trust that is in much 
need of restoration.
  I am proud to say that much of the lobbying part of this legislation 
came from the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, 
last year under the leadership of Senator Collins, this year under my 
chairmanship. We always have worked together on a bipartisan basis.
  With regard to lobbying, I wish to cite a few of the key proposals 
that increase disclosure.
  This bill will bring the Lobbying Disclosure Act into the age of the 
Internet by requiring electronic filings and by requiring quarterly--
rather than semiannual--reports detailing lobbying activities that 
lobbyists perform for specific clients. The reports are going to be 
right there for the public to see on the House and Senate Web sites.
  Second, the bill amends the Lobbying Disclosure Act to require 
lobbyists to file reports detailing their activities beyond lobbying 
directly. That includes campaign contributions, payments for events to 
honor Members or to entities controlled by Members, and donations to 
Member charities, Presidential libraries or inaugural committees. None 
of these contributions are currently disclosed under law. This 
legislation attempts to build a broader wall between what we do here in 
serving the public and the lobbying world. Lobbying is a 
constitutionally protected activity. We are not trying to stop it or 
curtail it. We are trying to make sure it is done in an honorable and 
honest way.
  This legislation increases from 1 to 2 years the cooling-off period 
before Senators can come back and lobby their colleagues. The bill also 
adds a provision to the Lobbying Disclosure Act prohibiting lobbyists 
from knowingly providing gifts or travel to Members in violation of 
House or Senate ethics rules, putting lobbyists on the hook for civil 
or criminal penalties if they violate the rules. Amendments to the 
Lobbying Disclosure Act will also shine a spotlight on so-called 
stealth coalitions by requiring greater disclosure of the identity of 
individual organizations that contribute to collective and focused 
lobbying efforts.
  We back all these provisions with teeth--better enforcement. We 
increase civil penalties under the Lobbying Disclosure Act and create 
new criminal penalties for knowing and corrupt failure to comply with 
the act. We will have annual audits. We require annual audits by the 
Government Accountability Office, GAO, of lobbyists' filings--that is a 
second tier of review--and regular reporting by the Department of 
Justice on actions they take against those who violate the rules.
  Those are the most significant parts of this legislation that came 
out of our committee with regard to lobbying. I do wish to compliment 
my friend and colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, for her 
work in putting together an extremely tough ethics package. I think it 
is a very significant accomplishment for her in the first half year of 
her chairmanship of the Senate Rules Committee. In particular, I am 
pleased the final package, for the first time, requires so-called 
bundled campaign contributions made by lobbyists to Federal candidates 
to be disclosed to the public and published on the Federal Election 
Commission Web site. I know Senator Feinstein has mentioned, and others 
will, other reforms here.
  I wish to say just a final word about earmarks. This was an issue 
that came up in my campaign for reelection last year. I was accused by 
one of my opponents of bringing earmarks back to Connecticut. I thought 
that was something good to do. I said, like so much else in life, there 
are good earmarks and bad earmarks. Bad earmarks can often get through 
if there is not adequate disclosure. If you support an earmark and it 
is in legislation, you ought to not only be proud to be identified with 
that earmark in public but, if necessary, to come to the floor and 
defend the earmark to make sure it has the support of your colleagues.
  This legislation requires that all earmarks included in bills and 
conference reports and their sponsors be identified on the Internet at 
least 48 hours before the Senate votes. Senators will be required to 
certify that they and their immediate family members have no financial 
interest in these earmarks. Dead-of-night additions to conference 
reports--that is, new earmarks, business that has too often been done 
here without public scrutiny or even the scrutiny of most Members of 
Congress--will now be subject to a 60-vote point of order.
  I will say, if a Senator from yesteryear--not so far back yesteryear, 
15 years, maybe 10 years--came back and saw that we were doing this 
here, they would wonder where they were. But where they would be is 
someplace where the American people justifiably want us to be.
  Once the elections are over, the American people expect us to come 
here and do their business. That is exactly what this legislation will 
make much more likely. In the end, as I said at the beginning, it all 
comes down to the moral compass each Member of Congress has and the 
respect we give to the office in which it is our privilege to serve. 
But government in the shadows with deals cut behind closed doors 
invites abuse, breeds distrust, and simply must end. This bill goes a 
long way toward doing exactly that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of 
the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The lobbying 
portion of this bill falls within Senator Lieberman's jurisdiction. I 
also thank him for a job well done. He has been steadfast in this 
pursuit for a number of years.
  I will exchange places with the Presiding Officer, and Senator Obama 
will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. OBAMA. I thank the Senator.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois is 
recognized.
  Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, I come to the floor to speak in strong 
support of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.
  First of all, let me commend the Presiding Officer for the 
outstanding work she has done in helping to shepherd this process 
through. It is wonderful work. I think the American people very much 
appreciate the improvements that are being made to our political 
process as a consequence. I also commend Senator Reid for his 
outstanding leadership on this bill. I especially thank my good friend, 
Senator Feingold, with whom I have worked closely on this issue over 
the past year and a half.
  The bill before us today could not be more urgently needed. For too 
long, the American people have seen lobbyists treat the legislative 
process like a game, using targeted contributions to maximize their 
leverage. For too long, people have believed their voice and interests 
have been drowning in a sea of lobbyist money and influence in 
Washington.
  This is not the first time we have faced a crisis of confidence in 
government. Around the turn of the last century, wealth was becoming 
more concentrated in the hands of a few robber barons, railroad 
tycoons, and oil magnates. It was an era known as the Gilded Age. It 
was made possible by a government that played along. But when

[[Page S10692]]

President Theodore Roosevelt took office, he wouldn't play along. He 
devoted his Presidency to busting trusts, breaking up monopolies, and 
doing his best to give the American people a shot at the American dream 
once more.
  America needs this kind of leadership more than ever. It needs 
leadership that sees government not as a tool to enrich well-connected 
friends and high-priced lobbyists but as the defender of fairness and 
opportunity for every American.
  We cannot settle for a second Gilded Age in America. Yet we find 
ourselves once more in the midst of a new economy, where more wealth is 
in danger of falling into fewer hands, where CEO pay grows from year to 
year as the average worker's pay remains stagnant, where Americans are 
struggling like never before to pay their medical bills or kids' 
tuition or high gas prices, all the while the profits of drug and 
insurance and oil industries have never been higher.
  Once again we are faced with the politics that makes all of this 
possible. In recent years, the doors to Congress and the White House 
have been thrown wide open to an army of Washington lobbyists who 
turned our Government into a game only they can afford to play. Year 
after year, they stand in the way of our progress as a country. They 
stop us from addressing the issues that matter most to our people.
  Let's take health care, just as one example. The drug and insurance 
industry spent $1 billion in lobbying over the last decade. They got 
what they paid for when their friends in Congress broke the rules and 
twisted arms to push through a prescription drug bill that actually 
made it illegal for our own Government to negotiate with the 
pharmaceutical companies for cheaper drug prices. Because reform has 
been blocked up until now, there are parents and grandparents in this 
country who are walking into the drugstore and wondering how their 
Social Security check is going to cover a prescription that is more 
expensive than it was a month ago, who are being forced to choose 
between their medicine and groceries because they can no longer afford 
both.
  Let me be clear, I do not begrudge businesses trying to make a 
profit. I do not begrudge them hiring lobbyists to plead their case 
before Congress. It is protected political speech, and we appreciate 
that there are many lobbyists who represent their clients well and 
fairly. But it is time we had a Congress that tells drug companies or 
oil companies or the insurance industry that, while they may get a seat 
at the table in Washington, they don't get to buy every single chair. 
We need to put an end to the prevailing culture in this town, and that 
is what we have been trying to do for the past couple of years.
  Last year, Congress came up with a somewhat watered-down version of 
reform.
  I, along with others, such as Senator Feingold and the Senator from 
Arizona, who is about to speak, Mr. McCain, voted against it because we 
thought we could do better.
  In January, I came back with Senator Feingold, and we set a high bar 
for reform. I am pleased to report that the bill before us today comes 
very close to what we proposed. By passing this bill, we will ban gifts 
and meals and end subsidized travel on corporate jets; we will close 
the revolving door between Pennsylvania Avenue and K Street; and we 
will make sure the American people can see all the pet projects 
lawmakers are trying to pass before they are actually voted on.
  We will do something more. Over the objections of powerful voices in 
both parties, we will ensure that our laws shine a bright light on how 
lobbyists help fill the campaign coffers of Members of Congress by 
bundling contributions from others. Because an era in which soft money 
is prohibited, the real measure of a lobbyist's influence is not how 
much money he has contributed, it is how much money he is raising from 
others.
  For too long, this practice has been hidden from public view. But 
today we can change that. I am pleased the amendment I have offered on 
bundling is part of this bill. I wish to thank Representative Chris Van 
Hollen, who fought so hard to get this provision included in the House 
bill. As the Washington Post described the bundling provision earlier 
this year:

       No single change would add more public understanding of how 
     money really operates in Washington.

  So there is a lot of good in this bill. I truly hope and believe it 
will change the way we do business in Washington.
  Let's not forget, though, there is still some more we need to do. One 
of the things I have argued is necessary to have on this is an 
independent entity to enforce ethics rules in Congress. Because no 
matter how well we police our own conduct, as long as we are our own 
prosecutor, judge, and jury, the public will never have complete trust 
in our decisions. So far, that is a fight I have lost. But I will 
continue to support independent enforcement because I believe it is in 
our Nation's best interests.
  I also believe that if we are serious about change, we need to have a 
real discussion about public financing for Congressional elections. 
Because even if we can stop lobbyists from buying us lunch or taking us 
out on junkets, they will still be able to attend our fundraisers, and 
that is access the average American does not have.
  In our democracy, the price of access and influence should be nothing 
more than your voice and your vote. That should be enough for health 
care reform. That should be enough for a real energy policy. That 
should be enough to ensure our Government is still the defender of 
fairness and opportunity for every American.
  It is time to show the American people we have the courage to change 
the prevailing culture in this city. It is time to give people 
confidence in their Government again. We have a chance to start doing 
it with this bill.
  I proudly support this legislation. I once again thank the chair for 
her outstanding work in moving this forward. I urge all my colleagues 
to support the legislation.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, over the last 20 years, I have found 
myself in a lonely fight against earmarks and porkbarrel spending year 
after year. I have come to the floor and read list after list of the 
ridiculous items we are spending money on, hoping enough embarrassment 
might spur some change.
  I was encouraged in January, when this body passed by 96 to 2, an 
ethics and lobbying reform package which contained real, meaningful 
earmark reform. I thought at last we would finally enact some effective 
reforms. Unfortunately, the victory was short-lived.
  One of my happier days, I will admit, was when Dr. Coburn was elected 
to the Senate in 2004. There is no better advocate of earmark reform; 
no one more consistent in standing firm to fight the worthy fight 
against wasteful spending, and I am proud to call him my friend.
  I would like to commend my friend, Senator DeMint, and Senator 
Graham, Senator Cornyn, and others for joining our effort. Sadly, I say 
to my friends, that given the very watered-down earmark provisions 
contained in the measure brought to us by the majority, our good fight 
clearly will have to continue.
  Not only does this bill do far too little to rein in wasteful 
spending, it has completely gutted the earmark reform provisions we 
passed overwhelming in January. It provides little more than lip 
service, unless, of course, you happen to be a committee chairman of 
the majority leader.
  Under this majority-written bill, with no input from the Republicans, 
this bill will, unless you hold one of the top positions, you will now 
wield even more power, even more power with your porkbarrel pen.
  Let me be clear. The ethics and lobbying reform bill has some good 
provisions which I strongly support: A ban on gifts and travel paid for 
by lobbyists or groups, although, if you want to get a free meal, count 
it as a campaign contribution. But, anyway, increased disclosure is 
welcome reform.
  But the bill before us fixes only part of the problem and does not go 
to the heart of the problem. The heart of the problem that has bred the 
corruption is the earmark process. We all know that as my friend, Dr. 
Coburn, has said from time to time, it is the gateway drug to 
corruption--it is the gateway drug to corruption. I do not throw around 
the word ``corruption'' lightly. But there

[[Page S10693]]

are former Members of Congress in jail. There are investigations going 
on right now, and you can trace it all back to the influence of money 
which has corrupted a process which then allows money, our tax dollars, 
to be given to special interests or even accrue to the benefit of the 
author of the earmarks.
  We come to the floor a lot and talk about a lot of the earmarking. 
Some of them are fun to talk about, but they make you sad: $225,000 for 
a historic wagon museum in Utah; $1 million for a DNA study of bears in 
Montana; $200,000 for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
  You notice all these earmarks are geographically designated so there 
will be no mistake that that money might go someplace else other than 
where it had been intended by the appropriator.
  One of my favorites is the $37 million over 4 years to the Alaska 
Fisheries Marketing Board to promote and develop fishery products and 
research pertaining to American fisheries. So how does this board spend 
the money so generously? I have a picture I will not show. Well, they 
spent $500,000 of your tax dollars to paint a giant salmon on the side 
of an Alaska Airlines 747, and nicknamed it the ``Salmon Forty 
Salmon.''

  So the fact is, we are not going at the heart of the problem. Let me 
quote from yesterday's Wall Street Journal that says it even better 
than I can:

       Our favorite switcheroo: Under the previous Senate reform, 
     the Senate parliamentarian would have determined whether a 
     bill complied with earmark disclosure rules. Under Mr. Reid's 
     new version, the current majority leader, that is, Mr. Reid 
     himself, will decide if a bill is in compliance. When was the 
     last time a Majority Party Leader declared one of his own 
     bills out of order?

  I have only been here 20 years, but I have never seen it. I do not 
think you are going to see it in the future. So while under this new 
version of the bill earmarks should be disclosed in theory, the fact 
remains that only the committee chair or the majority leader or his 
designee can police it.
  If they say all the earmarks are identified, we take it as gospel. 
Our only option is to appeal the ruling of the chair that a 
certification was made. Of course, that is business as usual, requiring 
60 votes.
  The new version does retain the requirement that bills and conference 
reports be available 48 hours before a vote, but the searchable 
database is no longer a requirement when it comes to conference 
reports; conference reports, where we have seen inserted some of the 
most egregious porkbarrel projects in this system as it exists today.
  Of course, conveniently the bill was modified between its release 
Monday morning and another version Monday afternoon. It was a 
modification to the benefit of the business-as-usual crowd. It would 
now require a 60-vote threshold to appeal the ruling of the chair, 
compared to a mere majority vote under the version released a few hours 
earlier.
  Let's be clear. Sixty Members are not going to overrule the majority 
leader. Fact. Business as usual. Business as usual.
  I am a bit saddened, too, because there was an opportunity here. 
There is enough outrage and anger out there amongst the American people 
that they are demanding reform. They are not demanding an increase from 
1 year to 2 years for disclosure; they are not demanding about meals, 
they are demanding we fix the earmark process which has led to 
corruption. We have taken a pass. I regret it very much.
  I predict to you now the earmarking and porkbarrel spending will 
creep back into the process sooner rather than later, and we will not 
regain the confidence of the American people.
  I wish to thank again my colleagues, both Senators from South 
Carolina, the Senator from Oklahoma, and others who have fought 
sometimes a lonely fight to try to clean up this mess.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Oklahoma and the 
Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Obama). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Wisconsin is next on 
our list. However, he had a pressing meeting, so we would be happy to 
go to a Republican.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank Senator McCain for highlighting 
some of the problems with the bill. The real problem is that we last 
year spent $434 billion of our grandkids' money that we could not come 
up with. We did not collect taxes; we lowered their standard of living 
in the future. How did we get there?
  We got there because we use earmarks to buy votes on appropriations 
bills. So we never look at the appropriations bill, we only look to see 
if our little thing is in it. Not all earmarks are bad. What is bad is 
a lack of transparency in our Government.
  I know, Mr. President, you have helped me in terms of the 
Transparency and Accountability Act, but that is all after the fact. 
What this bill does is create a lie. That is what it is. It is not 
anything less than that.
  We are lying to the American people that we are fixing earmarks, when 
we are not. The reason is, the vast majority of people in this body do 
not want their earmarks disclosed because it limits their ability to 
play the power game with the well connected who get something ahead of 
everybody else.
  The other problem with earmarks is it takes our eye off the 
priorities for our country. Earmarks cause us not to do what is best 
for the country as a whole in the long term. It makes us short-term 
thinkers. It makes us parochial in our interests. I challenge any 
Member of this body to look at the oath they took and see if it says 
anything about your State when you swore to uphold the Constitution and 
serve as a Senator. Your duty is to the country as a whole, not to the 
well-heeled special interests who are the beneficiaries, whether they 
are parochial or not, to your earmark.
  So there is no question this bill will pass. But the question the 
Senators have to ask is: Was I intellectually honest when every one of 
them out there is saying: We will have to fix this later because we do 
not like it, but we do not have the courage to vote against it--because 
they know we have not fixed the problem. But they are afraid of the 
public outrage and the pressure that has been created, in the essence 
of creating the impression that we fixed the problem.
  Now, why do I say we have not fixed the problem? You go through this. 
What the Senate passed was Dick Durbin-Nancy Pelosi's bill on 
transparency and earmarks, brought to the Senate by the Senator from 
South Carolina.
  The first provision prohibits Senators from trading earmarks for 
votes. In other words, I will give you your earmark if you will vote 
for my bill. It is gone. It is not there anymore.
  Prohibiting Senators and staff from promoting earmarks from which 
they or their families would receive a direct financial benefit, it is 
gone. We now say it has to be for that person, even though you may be 
connected. So we have gutted that. One of the greatest problems we 
have, we have gutted. So no longer is there a prohibition that your 
family member cannot benefit from an earmark from Congress. That is the 
greatest conflict of interest there is. Yet it goes on every day.
  Third. Allows the Senate Parliamentarian, not the majority leader, 
not the chairman of the committee, to determine if a bill complies with 
earmark disclosure and transparency rules. The American people are 
never going to be able to hold us accountable until they can see what 
we are doing.
  We have now said that, whoever is the leader, Republican or Democrat, 
this is not about who is in charge, it is about whether who is in 
charge will have the courage to go against the whole political power of 
their own party to certify.
  The first appropriations bill we had so far in the Senate, the only 
one we passed, was certified that it was totally compliant. It missed 
it by $7 billion. They did not list all the earmarks, and they 
certainly were not transparent, but they certified they were.
  The next provision prohibits consideration of bills, joint 
resolutions, or conference reports if earmarks are not disclosed. You 
can't bring it to the floor anymore if they are not disclosed. You 
still can bring it to the floor under the rules of this new ethics 
bills.
  The next provision requires earmarks attached to a conference report 
to be publicly available on the Internet in a searchable format 48 
hours before consideration. It still says it, but there is an out. The 
way this place works, we

[[Page S10694]]

bring conference reports up such as that all the time. So every time it 
is going to get waived, and we are not going to know. We are going to 
be voting on bills where the earmarks aren't disclosed.
  Next provision: Requires 67 votes to suspend the earmark disclosure 
rule. That is what we passed 98 to nothing. Now if you want to fight 
that, you have to have 61 votes to say it doesn't. We have totally put 
on it the other side. We have totally made it so that you can in fact 
not disclose earmarks, and the majority will vote with you. We have 
made it hard for transparency rather than easy.
  The next provision requires a full day's notice prior to attempting 
to suspend the earmark disclosure rule. Not anymore. No notice. So you 
could suspend it and don't have to notify anybody that you are 
suspending it.
  Finally, it requires all earmark certifications from Senators to be 
posted on the Internet within 48 hours. Not anymore, not if the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee doesn't think they can get it 
done. They just waive it.
  So where are the problems? Why is it that the country has between 14 
and 28 percent confidence in the Congress? It is because we continue to 
use sleight of hand to tell them we are doing something when we are 
not. I don't have any problems with the other things in the bill 
basically, but those are symptoms of the disease. The disease is right 
here. It is called earmarks. If we don't treat the disease rather than 
the symptoms, we are never going to fix the problem.
  I am adamantly opposed to this bill and what it has done to gut 
earmark disclosure. I have been around here long enough to know what 
will happen under the time pressures and the constraints and the way we 
operate. This will all go away. It may not go away on the first bill or 
the second bill, but it will go away. So we find ourselves with the 
Senate getting ready to vote on an ethics and disclosure rule, and 
every Senator is saying: How do we fix the things we don't like? Well, 
we will do it later.
  Nobody loves this bill, but we are going to vote for it, not because 
we are fixing the problem, but it looks as if we are fixing it. The 
confidence in Congress isn't going to go up; it is going to go down.
  We started this debate 2\1/2\ years ago on an amendment on a bridge 
to 50 people in Alaska of which 15 Members of this body voted with me. 
But the American people came to realize that the bridge to nowhere 
stood for something more than the bridge to nowhere. It stood for the 
lack of character and integrity in this body in terms of making long-
term decisions and putting the country first instead of political 
careers. We haven't solved anything with this ethics bills in terms of 
that problem and rebuilding confidence. There is a crisis of confidence 
in this country. There is a rumble that we don't deserve the positions 
we hold because we haven't earned them, because we are going to use 
sleight of hand. We are going to lessen confidence in this country. We 
talk about money. It is great, except what is going to happen is we are 
going to bundle $14,900 every 6 months and it is not going to be 
reported. Over a 6-year career, that is $180,000 that one lobbyist can 
bundle for you that does not have to be reported. So tell me how we 
fixed the problem? The bundling is a symptom of the earmarks. It is a 
symptom. Where is the connection between earmarks and campaign 
contributions? It is there almost every time. You just have to look for 
it.
  With the President's help we passed the post-transparency bill, 
Senator Obama and I, to where we get a look at it after the fact. But 
now we don't want to have transparency before the fact. We have failed 
the American people with this bill. We are also failing the Senate and 
ultimately we fail ourselves.
  I ask the American people to look at the pictures of their children 
and grandchildren. Do you want them to have the same opportunities, the 
same benefits, the same freedoms and liberties? This is the thing that 
is going to take it away--the lack of an honest and open debate about 
priorities, the continued spending of money we don't have, and most of 
it on the basis that we have a gateway drug to spending addiction 
called earmarks.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this is a proud day for the Senate. I 
certainly thank the Chair of the committee, the Senator from 
California, for all her guidance and hard work to make sure this 
legislation got to this point. I certainly thank the Presiding Officer, 
Mr. Obama of Illinois, who has been a wonderful partner in this effort. 
I enjoyed working with him, and he was tough all the way through when 
it counted to make sure we would end up with this kind of strong 
legislation. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Many months of work on legislation to reform our Nation's lobbying 
disclosure laws and the rules that govern our conduct as Senators are 
about to come to a close. The result is a bill that by any measure must 
be considered landmark legislation. I am pleased to support this bill, 
and I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture and support the bill. I 
want to speak for a few minutes about what is in this bill and the 
forces that brought us to this moment.
  I introduced the first comprehensive lobbying and ethics reform 
package in the Senate in July 2005, about 10 years after enactment of 
the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 and the last significant changes to 
the Senate's rules on gifts and travel on which I worked with the 
senior Senator from Arizona. A decade of experience had exposed the 
weaknesses in those important pieces of legislation. In light of 
growing concern about the relationships between certain Members of 
Congress and Washington lobbyists, I thought it was time to undertake 
further significant reform.
  In the months that followed, the Jack Abramoff scandal consumed more 
and more space on the front pages of the newspaper. When he was 
indicted in December, lobbying and ethics reform all of a sudden got a 
big burst of momentum in Congress. In the first few months of 2006, 
radical reform seemed not only possible but likely. Hearings were held, 
and a bidding war for who could sound the most sincere about fixing the 
problems that had led to the Abramoff scandal ensued.
  Unfortunately, the congressional leadership at the time talked a good 
game, but was not really committed to reform. The bill that passed the 
Senate last May fell well short not only of what was needed, but also 
of what had been promised only a few months earlier. The House 
leadership waited even longer to act and tried to add controversial 
campaign finance legislation to the package, dooming it to defeat. The 
conventional wisdom was that the voters didn't care, at least that's 
what the defenders of the status quo assured themselves as they 
engineered the stalemate that led to no reform at all being enacted. As 
we found last November, they were wrong.
  The voters sent a clear message in November 2006 that they were fed 
up with the way things were going in Washington. And the leaders of the 
new Congress responded to that message by making lobbying and ethics 
reform their very top priority. Speaker Pelosi included major changes 
to the ethics rules in the House in a package of rules changes adopted 
on the very first day of the session. And Majority Leader Reid 
introduced an ethics and lobbying reform package as S. 1 and brought it 
immediately to the Senate floor.
  I am pleased that only 7 months later, we are here today to finish 
the job. The bill before us is a very strong piece of reform 
legislation. We have a real ban on gifts from lobbyists, strong new 
rules governing privately funded travel, a requirement that Senators 
pay the full charter rate to travel on corporate jets for personal, 
official or campaign purposes, strengthened revolving door 
restrictions, and improved lobbying disclosure provisions. And for the 
first time, the public will get a full accounting, through reports 
filed by lobbyists, and reports filed by campaigns and party 
committees, of all the ways that lobbyists provide financial support 
for the Members of Congress who they lobby.
  I am very pleased also that the bill includes provisions to provide 
greater transparency in the process by which

[[Page S10695]]

legislation is considered here in the Senate. Finally, after years of 
failed attempts, secret holds on legislation will be a relic of the 
past. In addition, out of scope additions to conference reports can be 
stricken individually rather than bringing down the whole report. All 
of these items show the seriousness with which this Congress and its 
new leadership addressed the anger that the American people expressed 
last November.
  Let me say a word about earmarks. I heard my colleagues discussing 
it, and they know how strong I have been on this issue and how much I 
opposed the earmark process in my own practices and how many times I 
supported strong legislation in this regard. I have long been a strong 
supporter of earmark reform. I have cosponsored legislation on this 
topic with the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain. Back in January, when 
the Senate first debated this bill, I broke with my leadership and 
supported the earmark reform amendment authored by the junior Senator 
from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint. It is my judgment that the earmark 
reforms included in the proposal before the Senate today are consistent 
with the DeMint amendment, much stronger than the original bipartisan 
leadership proposal that was introduced in January, and an enormous 
improvement over the way earmarks had been handled by both Democratic 
and Republican-controlled Congresses in the past. It is simply not 
accurate to say that the final version of this provision guts the 
DeMint amendment that the Senate passed early this year. The minor 
changes that were made certainly do not justify a vote against cloture 
or against the bill.
  The difference between the approach to lobbying and ethics reform 
this year and last year is this: Last year there was a lot of tough 
talk, but when it came down to it, the goal was to try to satisfy 
public outrage but actually do as little as possible. This year, the 
tough talk was backed up by tough action. This bill includes real 
reform on things like gifts and earmarks that get a lot of public 
attention and also on things like secret holds and corporate jets that 
occur mostly behind the scenes but have a big impact on how things work 
in Washington.
  I especially thank Majority Leader Reid for his steadfast insistence 
on passing strong legislation. This is a great accomplishment for him 
and for the Senate. I am pleased it is getting done in a timely manner. 
And I want to thank my colleagues for recognizing that regardless of 
how reforms might inconvenience us or impact our personal lifestyles, 
our priority must be to convince our constituents that we are here to 
advocate their best interests, not those of well-connected lobbyists.
  Ethical conduct in government should be more than an aspiration, it 
should be a requirement. That is what this bill is all about. I am 
proud to support it, and I urge my colleagues to vote aye on cloture, 
and on final passage of the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if the Chair would allow me to thank 
the Senator from Wisconsin, he has been an energetic, enthusiastic 
advocate for a very long time. He is not always hard to please. I want 
to particularly say ``thank you'' to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I see we have 30 minutes before the vote. 
I was offered 10. I ask unanimous consent that I have up to 15 minutes 
to complete my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise to voice my opposition to the pretense of 
earmarks reform that is included in this so-called ethics bill and to 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on cloture this morning so we can 
restore the earmark transparency rules we all voted on in January. If, 
as the majority contends, the differences between that bill and the one 
we bring to the floor today are minor, there should be no objection to 
making those rules the same.
  Americans know how much Congress loves earmarks. These are the 
special interest spending items that fill most of our bills. Americans 
also know that these earmarks are at the center of most of the waste 
and corruption in Washington. They know money in the form of earmarks 
is the easiest favor a lawmaker can deliver to a special interest. They 
know the explosion of earmarks in the last decade has turned Congress 
into a giant favor factory that turns out favors for special interests, 
not for the American people.
  The Associated Press ran a fascinating article this morning entitled 
``Earmarks Prove Popular and Dangerous.'' The article talks about how 
earmarks have been at the center of corruption in this town, yet 
Members of Congress continue to embrace earmarks and will do whatever 
it takes to keep them in the shadows away from public scrutiny.
  The article says:

       Even the imprisonment of lobbyists Jack Abramoff and former 
     [Representative] Duke Cunningham . . . on corruption charges 
     that included earmark abuses has not dulled lawmakers' 
     appetite for pet projects. One recent study found that 
     earmarks in House legislation went from 3,000 in 1996 to 
     15,000 in 2005.

  The article highlights that earmark disclosure is at the center of 
the debate on the so-called ethics bill before us today. It concludes 
by predicting there will not be enough Senators voting today to restore 
true earmark reform in this bill. That may be true, but I hope it is 
not the case.
  This bill as it is currently written is a fraud. It is business as 
usual dressed up like ethics reform. And it is a stunning 
disappointment and a huge missed opportunity. It completely guts 
earmark rules we all agreed to back in January and allows us to 
continue to add secret earmarks to our bills. Even worse, it allows 
Members of this body to steer millions of tax dollars to themselves and 
their families. Yet the bill has the title of ``ethics reform,'' so 
many are going to support it so they can have a sound bite during their 
election.
  This is not really a big surprise. Even though the Democratic 
leadership campaigned on cleaning up the culture of corruption in 
Washington, it has never been committed to cleaning up the culture of 
earmarks. The first version of this bill which came to the floor in 
January was so inadequate in how it dealt with earmarks, it only 
covered 5 percent of all the earmarks. The authors of this bill thought 
they could get away with saying they were providing earmark 
transparency without actually doing it.
  Fortunately, after a lot of public pressure was applied, we were able 
to come together in a bipartisan way to fix this problem and bring 
every earmark out into the light of day. The rule we all agreed to not 
only disclosed all earmarks, but it also gave every Senator the ability 
to hold the committees accountable if the American people do not get 
the transparency they deserve.
  I thought the Democratic leadership had realized the importance of 
these reforms, so when the appropriations season began and earmarks 
started to be added to our bills, I sought consent from my colleagues 
to formally enact these rules so we could be true to our word and 
ensure honest, full earmark disclosure. But, as my colleagues know, the 
Democratic leadership objected to real earmark reform. In fact, they 
objected on March 29, April 17, June 28, July 9, and July 17--five 
times in over what has now been 196 days since these earmark rules were 
passed in January. When it comes to true earmark reform, we have heard 
nothing but excuses and seen nothing but obstruction.
  The majority leader wanted to take this bill to conference with the 
House back in June so he could kill earmark reform behind closed doors 
and share the blame with Republicans. I asked him if he would pledge to 
preserve earmark rules we all agreed to, but he said he could not give 
me that assurance. He left me no choice but to object to conferencing 
this bill with the House.
  Now the rule is back before us. It has been rewritten in secret by 
the majority leader and the Speaker of the House, and they did exactly 
what I was afraid of--they killed earmark reform, only this time they 
cannot blame this on anyone but themselves.
  For some reason, the Democratic leadership does not understand the 
importance of this issue. They talk a lot about the culture of 
corruption, but when it comes to reining in the most corrupting 
practice in Washington,

[[Page S10696]]

which is earmarking, they only offer lip service.
  My colleagues should remember that it was the practice of trading 
earmarks for bribes that has been at the heart of the corruption 
scandals here in Washington. Let me say that again because it is very 
important. We had and still have a process in place that allows Members 
of this body to trade the public trust for personal gain.
  Former Congressman Duke Cunningham was the master at this. He knew 
the oversight of his activities was so lax that he kept his own earmark 
``bribe menu.'' He knew the House and the Senate were not going to 
police his colleagues and that the earmark process would give them the 
ability to steer millions of dollars to his friends who were bribing 
him. The document that charged Duke Cunningham outlined very clearly 
what he was doing, and I quote:

       Under the very seal of the United States Congress, 
     Cunningham placed this nation's governance up for sale to a 
     defense contractor--detailing the amount of bribes necessary 
     to obtain varying levels of defense appropriations.

  Or earmarks.

       In this ``broad menu,'' the left column represented the 
     millions in government contracts that could be ``ordered'' 
     from Cunningham. The right column was the amount of the 
     bribes that the Congressman was demanding in exchange for the 
     contracts.

  The bill we are considering does nothing to stop the earmark factory. 
This so-called ethics bill does not actually require the Senate to 
disclose every earmark. All it requires is the chairman of the relevant 
committee or the majority leader to tell us they have disclosed every 
earmark. It does nothing to guarantee that earmarks are actually 
disclosed, and it is therefore unenforceable.
  The rule we all agreed to in January that put the Senate 
Parliamentarian in charge of enforcing this rule has been changed. The 
Parliamentarian is a nonpartisan referee who works for all Senators, 
but this bill puts him on the sidelines. It allows the chairman of the 
committee and the majority leader--two of the most ardent supporters of 
earmarks and the two people least likely to object to one of their own 
bills--in charge of enforcing earmark disclosure. This allows the fox 
to guard the henhouse, and it makes a joke of ethics reform.
  This is clearly a sham, and it is a total shame. It has been 
confirmed by the Senate Parliamentarian and the Congressional Research 
Service. A memo prepared by CRS states:

       If a point of order is raised under the new rule, it 
     appears that the Chair presumably would base his or her 
     ruling only on whether or not the certification has been 
     made, and not on the contents of the available lists or 
     charts, including the accuracy or completeness of this 
     information.

  Mr. President, this has also been confirmed by the Senate 
Parliamentarian, who says he would not be able to ensure full earmark 
disclosure.
  I hope my colleagues understand what is going on here. The lists of 
earmarks may only include the ones the Appropriations Committee thinks 
we should know about. If their certification is inadequate and leaves 
out 95 percent of the earmarks--like they wanted to do earlier this 
year--the new rule does not give Senators the ability to raise a point 
of order to require full earmark disclosure.
  But this is not some theory of what could happen. We know without a 
doubt that secret earmarks will continue because this Democratic leader 
and Appropriations chairman are already hiding secret earmarks while 
claiming to be in full compliance with the rule. The nonpartisan 
Government watchdog group, Taxpayers for Commonsense, has already 
discovered $7.5 billion in undisclosed earmarks this year, while we are 
supposedly operating under this rule.
  There are several other loopholes in this bill that allow secret 
earmarks. It allows Senators to trade earmarks for votes. It allows 
Senators to provide earmarks that financially benefit themselves or 
their families. It still allows Senators to drop earmarks into bills 
when they are in conference and cannot be fully debated or voted on. It 
allows Senators to get around disclosing earmarks on the Internet in a 
timely way. And it allows Senators to avoid having to put their no-
conflict certification letter on the Internet in a timely way.
  This so-called ethics bill is a fraud. The majority leader and some 
of the supporters of this bill want to tell the American people they 
have fixed the secret earmark problem when they have actually codified 
the status quo. This bill is actually worse than doing nothing because 
it preserves business as usual while trying to fool people into 
thinking everything has been fixed.
  I also want to read something that was sent out by nationally 
syndicated columnist Robert Novak which explains why Republicans are 
not innocent either. He wrote:

       Yet neither the prospect of several Republicans going to 
     prison nor the disastrous loss of the 2006 election has 
     weakened the party's embrace of the earmark model they ran 
     from while holding the majority, in which each congressman 
     provides for his district or state according to the New Deal 
     model of ``Tax, tax! Spend, spend! Elect, elect!''

  Mr. President, Democrats wrote this shameful earmark rule, and they 
will have to take responsibility for that. But Republicans have a 
responsibility to stop it. Republicans need to learn their lesson from 
the last election and, at the very least, shine some light on the 
earmarking process.
  I do not know if we will win the vote this morning, but I urge my 
colleagues to oppose cloture so we can restore the earmark transparency 
rules we all agreed to in January. This would be an easy fix. It could 
be done in a matter of minutes. This bill could be quickly sent back to 
the House for its approval and then on to the President for his 
signature.
  Earmarks are where most of the corruption has come from. It is 
directing money in return for some favor. If we are not willing to 
honestly reform this process with this bill, then it will not solve the 
problem it claims to solve. It will make it worse.
  I thank the Chair and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader is recognized 
under a previous order for 10 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me first thank the members of the 
Rules Committee, particularly Chairman Dianne Feinstein. This is 
landmark legislation. We have had groups that have been watchdogs over 
the Congress, that have been the first to complain when there are 
ethical lapses, that have weighed in and said this bill can make a 
difference.
  It was not easy, trust me. Members of the Senate and Members of the 
House--many of them--resisted the changes that are included in this 
bill. But Senator Feinstein was given the authority and the 
responsibility to come up with a bill that is going to literally change 
the climate and the way we do business here on Capitol Hill, and she 
did it. I thank her for her leadership.
  New transparency for lobbying activities; a strong lobbyist gift ban; 
limits on privately funded travel; restrictions on corporate flights; 
strong revolving-door restrictions; expanding public disclosure of 
lobbyist activities; ending the infamous K Street Project, which, 
unfortunately, for a long time was just acceptable conduct under the 
previous party's control of Congress; and congressional pension 
accountability--all of these are dramatic changes.
  The Senator from South Carolina has focused on the issue of earmarks. 
I have been fortunate, in the House and the Senate, to have served on 
appropriations committees. I chair one of those subcommittees now. I 
want to tell you that the Senator from South Carolina has, 
unfortunately, misrepresented what this bill does. The Senator from 
South Carolina can, undoubtedly, remember when I offered an amendment 
on the floor, which he supported, which said we could not even proceed 
to an appropriations spending bill until we had posted on the Internet, 
for the world to see, every single congressional earmark in the bill 48 
hours in advance. That is the type of disclosure which has never 
occurred on Capitol Hill, and it means that not only will the members 
of the committee and those who bring the bill to the floor be held 
accountable, but every person requesting an earmark--every Senator--
will have to put their name next to the earmark request. I have just 
gone through this again. I think it is the right thing to do--full 
disclosure, full transparency, nothing to hide.

[[Page S10697]]

  The situations that led to the imprisonment of Members of the House 
and lobbyists were these secret earmarks that popped up in the dead of 
night and people did not know what they meant. Change a comma here or 
put a semicolon there, and all of a sudden millions of dollars were 
flowing to favored clients of some lobbyist. Well, there is a 
Congressman from California who is now in jail for that, and there is a 
lobbyist in jail for it as well. Let me tell you, that era of secrecy 
in earmarks is over. It is over. Forty-eight hours before the bill 
comes to the floor, the whole world can take a look at it. And if you 
failed to put the earmarks in that disclosure, you are subject to a 
point of order.
  Now, who rules on a point of order here? It is the gentleman sitting 
in front of the Presiding Officer. He is the Parliamentarian. We turn 
to him and say: All right, was there full disclosure of the earmarks in 
the bill? And he rules one way or the other. He doesn't have a dog in 
this fight. He works for both political parties. That is the way it 
should be. This is going to be an independent judgment as to these 
earmarks and whether there is full disclosure.

  What about conflicts of interest between Senators and those who are 
requesting these disclosures? We have to file--each Senator, asking for 
an earmark for a project at home, has to file a statement on the record 
that we have no personal or pecuniary interest in this earmark we are 
requesting. That didn't occur before. That didn't occur before this 
Congressman went to jail and before this lobbyist went to jail. This is 
a dramatic change, and that disclosure--that denial of any kind of 
conflict of interest, or I should say acceptance that we won't have any 
conflict of interest, is public record. It is there to be seen. If 
someone violates it, they have made this statement to the committee, it 
has been disclosed to the public, and the whole earmark is there for 
the world to see. It is a level of transparency and disclosure which we 
have never had before.
  What troubles me the most about the criticism of the Senator from 
South Carolina is that he is arguing that the writing of this bill was 
done ``behind closed doors, in secret.'' Well, there was an opportunity 
to take this bill to a conference committee. That is when House and 
Senate Members sit in a room at a table, work out their differences, in 
public, so that the press and the world can hear the deliberations and 
see the changes that are made. When we came to the floor and asked for 
that conference committee so the world could see the whole process, one 
Senator got up and objected. Does anyone want to guess which one? The 
Senator from South Carolina who just gave the speech this morning about 
the secrecy of this process. He can't have it both ways. He cannot 
object to a conference committee which is open and public, and then 
when the conference committee doesn't occur, object to what follows. We 
had no choice but to work out this bill and bring it to be considered 
by the House and the Senate.
  So how did this bill fare on the floor of the House of 
Representatives that was hit so hard by this culture of corruption and 
ethical scandals? The final vote was 411 to 8, a bipartisan vote on the 
floor of the House of Representatives for this ethical reform, and now 
we hear from the Senator from South Carolina that somehow we have 
stacked the deck on the Democratic side. That wasn't reflected in the 
House vote.
  Many of his Republican colleagues realize, as we do, that as painful 
as this is, it is necessary. If we don't have the trust of the American 
people when it comes to the business we do, then, frankly, many of us 
who have dedicated our lives to public service are going to be the 
lesser for it. For all this hard work and all the time we put in, 
people will always be suspicious: Is that Senator voting for that 
project because his brother-in-law works there or something? Well, that 
is going to end with this reform.
  The Senator from South Carolina may have wanted more. He may have 
wanted to do it differently. That is his right. He is a Senator from a 
State, and he has that right, but he has to be honest and acknowledge 
that what we have done here is significant change. In the 5 years he 
was serving over in the House of Representatives, he didn't suggest 
that the Republican majority change their earmark process, ever. We 
can't find one single instance when he went to the floor of the House 
and argued for earmark reform when his party was in the majority. Now 
that the Democrats are in the majority, he has become outspoken on this 
issue. That, again, is his right to do so. I welcome it. I will say, 
conceding to the Senator from South Carolina, you have forced some 
valuable change in this process. You should take credit for that. But 
to stand here now and tell us this work product is not real reform 
flies in the face of comments made by people who have been working for 
reform in Congress for decades.
  They believe this is landmark legislation. To put a 48-hour 
disclosure--48-hour disclosure--before we can even take up a bill, to 
put it on the Internet for everyone to see is a level of transparency 
never before seen in the Halls of Congress in our entire history. It 
never took place. That is a significant change. It is a change which I 
think moves us in the right direction.
  Let me say a word about earmarks because there is a lot of comment 
about Members of Congress earmarking money on special projects. The 
bill I just completed, the financial services bill, we took a look at 
earmarks. Do you know what it turned out? It turned out the earmarks by 
the President of the United States were two or three times larger than 
any requested earmarks by Members of Congress. And there are no 
requirements under our rules that the administration say there is no 
pecuniary conflict of interest, no disclosure of 48 hours in advance. 
They put them in the bill.
  But when it comes to Members of Congress, we have changed those 
rules, in my subcommittee and in other appropriations committees, and 
it will also apply to tax bills as well. Give me the power to change 
the punctuation in the Tax Code, and I can make a lot of people happy 
in a hurry.
  So we want to get down to the real business and make sure that 
whether the earmark is in an appropriations bill or a tax bill, the 
American people see it from the start, and then they decide. When I run 
for reelection, my opponent--and I am certain the press--will scour 
through things I have asked for to see if they can be justified. If 
they find something they question, I am going to have to answer that 
question. We make that much easier for the public and for the press to 
get to the bottom of it.
  I would say to my colleague from the State of South Carolina, by 
ending the K Street Project, by restricting lobbyist activities, by 
adding dramatic transparency to the Senate rules, we are seeing more 
reform in this bill than at any time in the history of the Senate or 
the House. How did we reach this point? Out of embarrassment--
embarrassment over a culture of corruption that overtook many of the 
activities of Congress over the last few years. People have gone to 
jail. They have paid a heavy price. There have been embarrassments, and 
I am sure a lot of sadness in many families. But the bottom line is, we 
have kept our word that this bill, through real reform, and that will 
make a difference in the way we do business, is going to be passed.
  I sincerely hope that an overwhelming, bipartisan majority will 
support this reform, this rules change when it comes before us today.
  If one Senator or any group of Senators is successful in stopping 
this reform of the rules, this reform of ethics, then they better go 
home and answer to their constituents. When you pick up the morning 
paper, you know America is counting on us to do the right thing, and I 
encourage my colleagues to vote for this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the majority whip has expired.
  The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois, but I 
do have to clarify the facts because his representation of this bill 
has actually been an obvious misrepresentation. He has said if they 
certify that all the earmarks have been reported 48 hours in advance, 
and we have verified that family members have no interest in it, that 
we can challenge that if we don't believe it is true--but we can't 
challenge those facts.

[[Page S10698]]

  I would like to ask the Parliamentarian at this point to confirm that 
because the way the sleight of hand is worked in this bill is, I can no 
longer object to the accuracy of the certification. I will just have to 
object to whether or not it has been certified.
  I ask the Parliamentarian this specific question: If a point of order 
is raised under the earmark disclosure rule in this bill, would the 
Chair--through the Parliamentarian--be permitted to verify the 
completeness and accuracy of the disclosure, or would the Chair be 
required to only recognize whether a certification has been made by the 
chairman or majority leader?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is required to only recognize 
whether a certification has been made by the chairman or the majority 
leader.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I just want to explain to my colleagues 
that is the crux of this issue. If the accuracy makes no difference--as 
it hasn't this year when we have gotten certification of disclosure or 
verification there has been no conflict of interest--if all that has to 
happen to comply with this rule is the majority leader or the chairman 
of the committee to say it has been complied with, and if I contest it, 
that I have no standing because it has been certified, that the 
Parliamentarian has been sidelined on this issue and can no longer 
verify whether it is true or accurate, what we have done is created 
this sham of disclosure that can be covered up by one Member of the 
Senate. That is why I call it a fraud. That is why I call it a sham. We 
have put all the language in here, except we have allowed it all to be 
waived by one Member of the Senate. This is not ethics reform at all.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment 
aside.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from South Carolina has the floor.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2506 and ask that 
it be adopted.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, there is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I would just like to advise my colleagues 
that the majority has just objected to adopting the DeMint amendment 
for earmark reform that has been gutted in this rule. This is all we 
have been asking for throughout the process, that we put in this ethics 
bill the exact same language we all voted on that was written by 
Speaker Pelosi, rewritten by Senator Durbin, and has been gutted in 
this process, and it is still being called earmark reform. The 
Parliamentarian has just confirmed for us and the world that the 
certification is a complete sham.
  I thank the President, and I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I applaud the good work of the Senator 
from South Carolina in pointing out the defects in this bill. I know he 
has been criticized for exercising his rights as a U.S. Senator to 
object to a unanimous consent request that the bill go to conference 
committee where, as we all know, Republicans and Democrats would 
ordinarily sit down together and work out a compromise and would then 
come back to the floor for a vote. But as a result of the process 
employed by the majority leader, the Democratic leader, and the Speaker 
of the House, Speaker Pelosi, Republicans have had no opportunity to 
have any impact whatsoever on the final language of this bill. The only 
time we will have a chance to voice our views on this bill will be the 
vote that is coming up now.
  So make no mistake about it, the bill we will be voting on is not the 
product of bipartisan negotiations; it is exclusively the act of the 
Democratic majority. I think only time will tell whether this bill 
operates as advertised or whether, as the Senator from South Carolina 
points out, it is a complete sham, perhaps presenting a patina or a 
thin veneer of reform, when, in fact, it really is rotten to the core 
because of the fact that business as usual will continue to be carried 
on here when it comes to the nondisclosure of the appropriation of 
Federal tax dollars for special purposes.


                   Reporting of Bundled Contributions

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, one of the most important provisions 
contained in S. 1 when it first passed the Senate in January was an 
amendment offered by the junior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Obama, to 
require lobbyists to report on a quarterly basis the campaign 
contributions that they collected or arranged for Members of Congress. 
I was the primary cosponsor of that amendment. The activity the 
amendment covered is often called ``bundling.'' S. 1, as passed by the 
Senate, also required lobbyists to report on fundraisers that they host 
or cohost.
  I am very pleased that the final bill maintains the requirement that 
this information be disclosed. It is important to note, however, that 
an agreement was reached to move the duty to report this information 
from the lobbyists to campaigns, in part to protect Members from 
unfounded allegations that lobbyists had raised political contributions 
for them when they actually had not. I would like to ask the Senator 
from Illinois, who worked hard to make sure that a bundling provision 
was included in the final bill, if section 204 of the bill is designed 
to capture the same kind of activity that the Obama amendment covered--
lobbyists' bundling of contributions and hosting of fundraisers for 
Federal candidates?
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I respond to my friend from Wisconsin that 
that is, indeed, the case. The bill requires candidate committees, 
political party committees, and leadership PACs to report contributions 
bundled by lobbyists if those contributions total more than $15,000 in 
a 6-month period. Persons whose bundling has to be reported include 
individuals, lobbying firms, or lobbying organizations registered or 
listed on registrations filed under the Lobbying Disclosure Act and 
political committees established or administered by each registrant or 
individual listed lobbyist. These persons also include any agent acting 
on behalf of a registered lobbyist, lobbying firm, or lobbying 
organization. Thus, if the CEO of a lobbying organization is raising 
money as an agent of the organization, his activities are covered by 
the legislation and must be reported. But employees of a lobbying 
organization, including a CEO, who are not lobbyists listed on the 
organization's lobbying disclosure reports are not covered, unless they 
are acting as agents for the organization.
  The definition of bundled contributions includes contributions (i) 
``forwarded from the contributor or contributors to the committee'' and 
(ii) contributions ``received by the committee from a contributor or 
contributors, but credited by the committee or candidate involved . . . 
to the [lobbyist] through records, designations, or other means of 
recognizing that a certain amount of money has been raised by the 
[lobbyist].''
  Part (i) of the definition means that any contributions that are 
physically handled by the lobbyist and are transferred, delivered, or 
sent to a campaign are considered to be bundled. But in addition, under 
part (ii), if contributions sent directly to a campaign by the 
contributors are ``credited'' to the lobbyist, they are also bundled. 
The ``credit'' doesn't have to be written or recorded because the 
definition includes ``other means of recognizing that a certain amount 
of money has been raised.'' So if a lobbyist tells a candidate that he 
has raised a certain amount of money for the campaign, the lobbyist 
should be credited with that amount of fundraising, and the bundling 
must be reported, assuming, of course, that the threshold amount of 
contributions is met within the 6-month period. This was what we were 
trying to get at in the amendment that passed the Senate in January--to 
cover contributions that were physically collected by a lobbyist and 
transferred to a campaign, contributions that were formally recorded by 
a campaign as having been raised by a lobbyist, and contributions that 
a candidate or a campaign was aware had been raised by a lobbyist.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I agree with that. With respect specifically to 
fundraisers hosted or cohosted by lobbyists, my view is that virtually 
all such events would be covered by this provision. Is

[[Page S10699]]

that how the Senator from Illinois sees it as well?
  Mr. OBAMA. Yes, I agree with that view. At many fundraisers, the host 
of the event collects the checks and gives them to a representative of 
the campaign. So that would be covered because the contributions have 
been ``forwarded'' to the campaign. But at some events, a 
representative of the campaign, or even the candidate, physically 
receives checks directly from contributors as they arrive or leave, and 
of course, some checks may be sent in afterward. In that case, the 
campaign knows the total amount raised, and knows the lobbyist who 
hosted the fundraiser is responsible for those contributions. Even if 
no formal records are kept about the money raised at the event, 
although most campaigns obviously do keep such records, the campaign 
has credited the lobbyist with that fundraising and it must be 
reported, as long as the threshold amount is met.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. That is my understanding as well of section 204. It 
requires, however, that a candidate or campaign know that a lobbyist 
has raised a certain amount of money, not that they are just generally 
aware that the lobbyist has been fundraising for the campaign.
  And it should be understood as well that the term ``raised'' in 
section 204 includes but is broader than the term ``solicited,'' which 
is defined in the FEC regulations issued to implement the campaign 
finance laws. For example, even if a lobbyist does not make a 
solicitation for a contribution, as the term ``solicit'' has been 
defined in FEC regulations, the lobbyist will still have ``raised'' a 
contribution if the lobbyist facilitated the contribution by hosting or 
cohosting a fundraising event that brought in the contribution.
  Mr. OBAMA. That brings up a question that I wanted to clarify. In a 
situation when a fundraising event is cohosted by a number of different 
lobbyists, I am concerned that some might want to avoid reporting 
bundled contributions by dividing up the total receipts of a 
fundraising event among many sponsors or cohosts of the event. 
Certainly, that was not our intention. Does my friend from Wisconsin 
agree with me?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes, the purpose of the bundling reporting provision is 
to get as much disclosure as possible of bundling by lobbyists. In the 
provision, we have specifically asked the FEC to keep that purpose in 
mind as it promulgates regulations. The bill requires a committee to 
report ``each person'' who ``provided 2 or more bundled contributions'' 
in excess of the ``applicable threshold,'' which is an aggregate amount 
of $15,000 in a 6-month period. When two or more lobbyists are jointly 
involved in providing the same bundled contributions--as, for instance, 
in the case of a fundraising event co-hosted by two or more lobbyists--
then each lobbyist is responsible for and should be treated as 
providing the total amount raised at the event, for purposes of 
applying the applicable threshold to the funds raised by that lobbyist, 
and for purposes of reporting by the committee of ``the aggregate 
amount'' of bundled contributions ``provided by each'' registered 
lobbyist ``during the covered period.''
  It would be acceptable, of course, to report that certain funds were 
raised jointly in a single event so that by crediting each of the 
lobbyists involved with the total amount and reporting each lobbyist on 
the new schedule, the campaign does not suggest that the total amount 
of contributions bundled is far greater than the amount actually 
raised. But a campaign should not be able to avoid disclosing, for 
example, that three lobbyists raised $30,000 in a single fundraiser by 
claiming that each lobbyist has been credited with only one-third of 
the total amount. If this evasion were allowed, reporting for any 
fundraising event could be avoided simply by adding enough lobbyist 
cohosts for the event so that all of the lobbyists fall below the 
threshold. We certainly did not intend that result.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I appreciate the explanations and 
clarifications offered by the Senator from Wisconsin. The provision in 
the bill is aimed at requiring the disclosure of bundling, not 
prohibiting bundling. It must be broadly interpreted by the Federal 
Election Commission, consistent with its purpose. Indeed, section 204 
specifically directs the FEC ``to provide for the broadest possible 
disclosure'' of bundling activities.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I agree. The Commission should not allow evasion or 
game playing of any kind, by campaigns, candidates, or lobbyists, to 
avoid reporting the activities of lobbyists. Section 204, the bundled 
contributions reporting section, along with section 203, which requires 
reports of campaign contributions and other payments by lobbyists 
themselves, is about giving information to the American people about 
how lobbyists provide financial assistance to Members of Congress and 
candidates. This information will allow the public to understand much 
better how Washington works. I congratulate the Senator from Illinois 
for successfully seeing his amendment through the process and into the 
final bill.
  Mr. OBAMA. I commend my good friend from Wisconsin for his leadership 
on this issue. He has championed ethics and lobbying reform for many 
years, and he deserves much of the credit for the crafting of this 
important bill.


                    Limited Tax and Tariff Benefits

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to ask the chairman of the 
Finance Committee a question regarding the implementation of the 
provisions of the ethics reform bill as they apply to limited tax and 
tariff benefits. This legislation establishes the principle that the 
Members of this body and the American people at large should have full 
disclosure of the source and beneficiaries of legislative provisions 
that are directed to benefit a limited number of people or entities. 
The disclosure requirement would apply to limited tax and tariff 
benefits as well as to congressionally directed appropriations.
  Specifically, the new rule states that it shall not be in order to 
vote on a motion to proceed to consider a bill or joint resolution 
unless the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction or the majority 
leader or his or her designee certifies that each limited tax or tariff 
benefit, if any, has been identified; that the Senator who submitted 
the request for such item has been identified; and that this 
information has been available on a publicly accessible congressional 
Web site in a searchable format at least 48 hours before such vote.
  For the purpose of implementing this requirement, a ``limited tax 
benefit'' is defined as a revenue provision that ``(A) provides a 
Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to a particular 
beneficiary or limited group of beneficiaries under the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986; and (B) contains eligibility criteria that are 
not uniform in application with respect to potential beneficiaries of 
such provision.'' A ``limited tariff benefit'' is defined as ``a 
provision modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
in a manner that benefits 10 or fewer entities.''
  Under the rule, a Senator who requests a limited tax or tariff 
benefit is required to provide a written statement to the chairman and 
ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction, including, among other 
things, the name of the Senator and ``in the case of a limited tax or 
tariff benefit, identification of the individual or entities reasonably 
anticipated to benefit, to the extent known to the Senator.'' It is the 
responsibility of the requesting Senator to provide such information to 
the chairman and ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction. The 
chairman will expect this information to be provided by the requesting 
Senator and will disclose this information to the public if a requested 
provision is included in a bill in the chairman's jurisdiction.
  The intent of this new rule is to ensure that any Senator who 
requests a limited tax or tariff benefit discloses to the chairman and 
ranking member of the Finance Committee the identity of any individual 
or entities reasonably anticipated to benefit from the provision and 
that the identity of the Senator who requested the provision and the 
identity of the individual or entities reasonably anticipated to 
benefit are made available on a publicly accessible congressional Web 
site at least 48 hours before a vote on a motion to proceed to the 
measure that contains the provision. This disclosure applies when a 
limited number of taxpayers receive a benefit from a provision and the 
benefit is not uniformly available to other

[[Page S10700]]

similarly situated taxpayers solely because the provision does not 
encompass those other similarly situated taxpayers. Does the chairman 
agree with this understanding of the proposed rule?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Yes, the Senator from Illinois has accurately described 
the proposed rule and its intent.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I may inquire further, I would like to have a clear 
understanding of how the chairman will implement this rule. Once this 
rule is adopted, I expect that, as bills and joint resolutions that 
contain tax or tariff provisions are brought to the Senate floor, the 
chairman will, before a vote on a motion to proceed to such a measure, 
publish a list of all limited tax or tariff benefits therein, 
identifying each of these provisions, the Senator or Senators 
requesting the provision, and the entities reasonably anticipated to 
benefit, to the extent known to the requesting Senator.
  Am I correct in my understanding that the chairman will make such 
information public for each tax or tariff provision in the measure that 
provides a benefit to a limited group of beneficiaries where the 
provision results in those beneficiaries being treated more 
advantageously than entities that, in the absence of such a provision, 
would be considered similarly situated with regard to the portion of 
the Tax Code affected by the provision?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Yes, I plan to provide such a list with regard to 
legislation in my committee's jurisdiction.


                   disclosure of limited tax benefits

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
the ranking Republican member of the Finance Committee about language 
in this bill regarding the disclosure of limited tax benefits. The 
ranking member and I have each been chairman of the committee in recent 
years. And we try whenever possible to work together. And nowhere is 
that more true than with regard to tax policy.
  We have worked together to try to join in a policy about how to 
interpret the provisions in this bill on limited tax benefits. We hope 
that by explaining this joint policy now, we can help observers of the 
tax process to know how we intend to apply this new rule. I believe 
that the policy that I am about to tribe reflects our jointly held 
views.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the distinguished chairman, my friend from 
Montana, for initiating this important discussion. I would like to put 
this discussion into a broader historical context. For over 20 years, 
chairmen of the Finance Committee have employed a practice of opposing 
narrow tax provisions, commonly known as ``rifleshots.'' The 
legislative change we will discuss in some detail is really a 
formalization of the practice the Finance Committee has maintained over 
the past two decades.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator from Iowa. And I agree.
  So here is our view. We wish to clarify the operation of the proposed 
rule change related to limited tax benefits. We know that it is 
impossible to foresee every possible application of the proposed 
disclosure rule for limited tax benefits. But we hope that this 
discussion will provide a more complete explanation of how the rule 
will operate.
  For more guidance, we also recommend the interpretative guidelines 
developed by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation in response 
to the prior-law line item veto. These guidelines may also be 
applicable to the interpretation of the proposed earmark disclosure 
rules for limited tax benefits in this bill. The Joint Committee on 
Taxation documents are called, first, the ``Draft Analysis of Issues 
and Procedures for Implementation of Provisions Contained in the Line 
Item Veto Act, Public Law 104-130, relating to Limited Tax Benefits,'' 
that's Joint Committee on Taxation document number JCX-48-96, and 
second, the ``Analysis of Provisions Contained in the Line Item Veto 
Act, Public Law 104-130, relating to Limited Tax Benefits,'' that's 
Joint Committee on Taxation document number JCS-1-97.
  The proposed rule in this bill would require the disclosure of 
limited tax benefits. It would define a limited tax benefit to mean any 
revenue provision that, first, 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 second, 
contains eligibility criteria that are not uniform in application with 
respect to potential beneficiaries of such provision.
  The proposed rule would apply in most cases where the number of 
beneficiaries is 10 or fewer for a particular tax benefit. But the 
Finance Committee will not be bound by an arbitrary numerical limit 
such as ``10 or fewer.'' Rather, we will apply the standard 
appropriately within the unique circumstances of each proposal. For 
example, if a proposal gave a tax benefit directed only to each of the 
11 head football coaches in the Big Ten Conference, we may conclude 
that the rule would nonetheless require disclosure of this benefit, 
even though the number of beneficiaries would be more than 10.
  We will not limit the application of the proposed rule to proposals 
that result in a reduction in Federal receipts relative to the 
applicable present-law baseline. We believe that the proposed rule 
would have application to limited tax benefits that provide a tax cut 
relative to present law for certain beneficiaries, like, for example, a 
tax rate reduction for certain beneficiaries. But we also believe that 
the rule would apply to limited tax benefits that provide a temporary 
or permanent tax benefit relative to a tax increase provided in the 
proposal, like, for example, exempting a limited group of beneficiaries 
from an otherwise applicable across-the board tax rate increase.
  For example, a new tax credit for any National Basketball Association 
players who scored 100 points or more in a single game would be covered 
by the rule. And the rule would also cover a new income tax surtax on 
players in the National Hockey League that exempted from the new income 
surtax any players who were exempted from the league's requirement that 
players wear helmets when on the ice.
  The rule defines a beneficiary as a taxpayer; that is, a person 
liable for the payment of tax, who is entitled to the deduction, 
credit, exclusion, or preference. Beneficiaries include entities that 
are liable for payroll tax, excise tax, and the tax on unrelated 
business income on certain activities.
  The rule does not define a beneficiary as the person bearing the 
economic incidence of the tax. For example, in some instances, a 
taxpayer may pass the economic incidence of a tax liability or tax 
benefit to that taxpayer's customers or shareholders. The proposed rule 
would look to the number of taxpayers. That number is easier to 
identify than the number of persons who might bear the incidence of the 
tax.
  In determining the number of beneficiaries of a tax benefit, we will 
use rules similar to those used in the prior-law line item veto 
legislation. For example, we will treat a related group of corporations 
as one beneficiary for these purposes. Without such a rule, a parent 
corporation could avoid application of the disclosure rule by simply 
creating a sufficient number of subsidiary corporations to avoid 
classification as a limited tax benefit under the proposed rule.
  For example, if a related group of corporations--like parent-
subsidiary corporations or brother-sister corporations--owns a football 
team, then the related group will be considered one beneficiary. That 
treatment is analogous to the team being one entity, not separate 
entities, like the coaching staff, offensive unit, defensive unit, 
specialty unit, and practice squad.
  The time period that we will use for measuring the existence of a 
limited tax benefit will be the same time period that is used for 
Budget Act purposes. That is the current fiscal year and 10 succeeding 
fiscal years. Those are also all the fiscal years for which the Joint 
Committee on Taxation staff regularly provide a revenue estimate.
  For purposes of determining whether eligibility criteria are uniform 
in application with respect to potential beneficiaries of such a 
proposal, we will need to determine the class of potential 
beneficiaries. In the case of a closed class of beneficiaries--for 
example, all individuals who hit at least 755 career home-runs before 
July 2007--that class is not subject to interpretation, since only 
Henry Aaron satisfies this criteria. If, instead, the defined class of 
beneficiaries is all individuals who hit at least 755 career home-runs, 
then we will determine the class of potential beneficiaries by 
assessing the

[[Page S10701]]

likelihood that others will join that class over the time period for 
measuring the existence of a limited tax benefit.
  Whether the eligibility criteria are not uniform in application with 
respect to potential beneficiaries will be a factual determination. To 
continue with the previous hypothetical, a proposal that provides a tax 
benefit to all individuals who hit at least 755 career home-runs may 
still not require disclosure if it is uniform in application. If the 
same proposal is altered so as to exclude otherwise eligible career 
home-run hitters who played for the Pittsburgh Pirates at some point in 
their career, then that kind of a limited tax benefit would require 
disclosure under the proposed rule.
  Some of the guidelines in the Joint Taxation Committee's reports 
numbered JCX-48-96 and JCS-1-97 would not be directly applicable, but 
may be helpful in determining the class of potential beneficiaries. For 
example, the same industry, same activity, and same property rules 
might provide useful analysis.
  So that is how we propose to apply the new rule.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank Senator Baucus for taking the time today to 
shed some light on implementing the limited tax benefits standard. I 
look forward to working with the chairman as we proceed.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, while I support S. 1, I strongly oppose 
the provision within it which will require members to fully reimburse 
private plane flights at so-called fair market value. This requirement 
is unnecessarily excessive for intrastate travel, it places an undue 
burden on Members from rural States, and its enactment will come at 
great expense to American taxpayers.
   The Senate's current rule requires members to pay the cost of a 
first-class ticket any time we travel by private plane. In areas with 
no regularly scheduled air service, Members pay their proportionate 
cost of chartering the same or similar aircraft. This rule ensures that 
Members pay the fair market value of traveling on such aircraft, while 
at the same time recognizing that private air travel is, at times, a 
necessity. Because these flights often represent the only way to access 
rural areas, most Members who travel by private plane do so to complete 
official business.
  While I understand the desire to stem the perception and practice of 
members traveling in lush private jets, in reality, traveling on these 
types of aircraft is the exception rather than the rule. In my home 
state, my staff and I routinely travel in propeller and float planes. 
These are not luxurious jets. If any Member believes differently, I 
welcome them to travel with me as I traverse the State from 
Tuntatooliak to Savoonga.
   Alaska does not have the transportation infrastructure found in more 
densely populated areas of the country. More than 70 percent of our 
State's towns and villages are not accessible by road year-round. We 
need to fly in order to reach these remote communities. If a private 
plane with others aboard is going to the same village I am, I should be 
able to get on that plane at a reasonable price.
   During initial consideration of S. 1 in January, Members of the 
Senate raised concerns regarding the impact that the revised travel 
rules had on their ability to meet with their constituents. That 
measure, as drafted, would not have affected lobbyists--it impacted 
real people and prevented their elected representatives from responding 
to the issues they face. As such, I offered an amendment designed to 
address the concerns of rural State Senators in ensuring their ability 
to continue to travel around their States. I declined to pursue the 
amendment on the Senate floor when leadership on both sides of the 
aisle agreed to consider this matter during conference.
  Unfortunately, this matter was not addressed because of the Senate's 
inability to conference the legislation.
   While other travel matters were addressed, such as permitting 
Members to travel on their own planes or on the planes of their family 
members, the issue of rural transportation costs was not. Given this 
unfortunate circumstance, I have again introduced an amendment to 
address this situation. My amendment would require travel on private 
planes to be precleared by each Chamber's Ethics Committee to avoid 
even the appearance of a conflict of interest. It would also allow the 
committee to set and publicly disclose the rate we pay for each trip.
  The private plane provision in S. 1 will not produce meaningful 
reform and will only increase the amount of money Members need from the 
Treasury to pay for these flights. Ultimately, it will be the taxpayer 
who foots this bill, and the only real change will be more money in the 
pockets of those who own and operate private planes.
  A perfect example will come later this month, when a Cabinet 
Secretary and staff travel to Alaska. We plan to visit several western 
Alaska communities, and private plane is the only way to reach them in 
a single day.
  Under the Senate's current rule, each individual would pay their 
share of the charter rate or an equivalent first-class fare. This rule 
is equitable: The operator of the flight would be paid a reasonable 
expense for our travel.
   Under S. 1, my staff and I would pay fair market value--the entire 
price of the private plane. The Cabinet Secretary and their staff, 
according to their department's rules, would also reimburse the company 
for the costs associated with their travel. Any State and local 
officials who travel with us will likewise be required to pay for their 
seats.
   The end result of this legislation will be a windfall for companies 
and a travesty for taxpayers--the very opposite of intended effects. 
Our system needs transparency, not additional financial burdens for 
hard-working Americans.
   I am told that another provision of this legislation may be of 
interest to many Members of this Chamber--in fact, I may be the only 
one it will not affect.
   Section 601 of S. 1 will require a sitting President, or a 
President's campaign, to pay for Members who travel on Air Force One. 
This provision will make campaigns even more expensive than they are 
today, and again do very little to increase transparency.
   Lobbying reform is necessary, but it cannot harm our ability to do 
our jobs. Members should disclose flights on private planes, provide 
the reasons for their travel, and receive approval from the Ethics 
Committee prior to any travel. However, there is absolutely no reason 
why each seat should be paid for more than once. By requiring the 
reimbursement of private flights at fair market value, S. 1 will 
prevent many Members from serving their constituents effectively. While 
the majority leader's interest in passing this legislation is 
understandable, the Senate should ensure it does not adversely impact 
taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to consider these consequences and 
adopt my amendment.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I strongly support S. 1, the Legislative 
Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007. I urge my colleagues to 
support this measure, which is the most sweeping reform of ethics and 
lobbying laws and rules in many years.
  I am pleased that we have worked in a bipartisan fashion on ethics 
and lobbying reform. The American people made their views clear in last 
year's election, and sent a strong message to Congress to clean up our 
act.
  In January the Senate passed this legislation as our first order of 
business by a vote of 96 to 2, and the House followed suit by a vote of 
411 to 8 earlier this week. I hope that the Senate will once again give 
overwhelming, bipartisan approval of this legislation, and send it to 
the President for his signature into law.
  I have been privileged to serve as a legislator--first in the 
Maryland House of Delegates, then in the United States House of 
Representatives, and now in the United States Senate. I appreciate the 
trust that the people of Maryland placed in me. And I appreciate how 
important it is that we adhere to the strictest ethical standards. The 
American people need to believe their Government is on the up and up.
  The legislation represents a significant change in the way elected 
officials, senior staff, and lobbyists would do business.
  When it comes to how we treat ourselves, this legislation provides 
much greater transparency in earmarking. It requires that the sponsors 
of all earmarks, including limited tax and tariff benefits, that are 
inserted into bills

[[Page S10702]]

and conference reports be identified on the Internet at least 48 hours 
before a Senate vote. The bill requires Senators to certify that they 
and their immediate family members have no financial interest in the 
earmark. The bill also creates a point of order against new earmarks 
added in conference reports for the first time.
  When it comes to making how Congress works more transparent, the bill 
requires conference reports to be available for public review on the 
Internet 48 hours before a Senate vote. It ends the practice of secret 
Senate holds which can kill legislation or nominations. It requires all 
Senate committees and subcommittees to post video recordings, audio 
recordings, or transcripts of all public meetings on the Internet.
  This legislation makes needed reforms to the lobbying industry as 
well. The bill prohibits lobbyists and their clients from giving gifts, 
including free meals and tickets, to Senators and their staffs. It 
requires Senators to pay charter rates for trips on private planes. The 
bill prohibits Senators and their staff from accepting multiday private 
travel from registered lobbyists. It requires much greater transparency 
for lobbyist bundling and political campaign fund activity. The bill 
requires lobbyists' disclosure filings to be filed quarterly instead of 
semiannually, and requires these disclosures to be filed electronically 
and in a publicly searchable Internet database. It increases civil and 
criminal penalties for lobbyists who break the law.
  The bill also takes major stops in slowing the revolving door between 
Members of Congress, staff, and the private sector. It stops partisan 
attempts like the K Street Project to influence private-sector hiring. 
It strengthens the revolving door restrictions by increasing the 
cooling off period for Senators from 1 to 2 years before they can lobby 
Congress, and prohibits senior Senate staff from lobbying contacts 
within the entire Senate for 1 year. It eliminates floor, parking, and 
gym privileges for former Members who become lobbyists.
  Finally, the bill holds Members of Congress and staff accountable by 
making ongoing ethics training mandatory for Members and staff. It 
increases civil and criminal penalties for Members of Congress and 
senior staff who falsify or fail to report items on their financial 
disclosure forms. It denies congressional retirement benefits to 
Members of Congress who are convicted of serious crimes related to 
their official duties, such as bribery.
  Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis' famous dictum still 
holds true today: ``Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' 
The leadership and Members of Congress will have delivered on their 
promise to the American people by passing this bill. That is what the 
American people have asked us to do, and that is what we need to do to 
regain their trust.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Honest 
Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. This bill has taken on many 
names and many forms over the last year. While I am pleased to see this 
Congress at last addressing ethics issues, I am disappointed that the 
bill is being brought to the floor in this manner and in this form.
  Last year, when I was chairman of the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee, the committee produced a bipartisan 
bill that the Senate passed in March 2006 by a vote of 90 to 8. That 
bill never became law, and as a result those issues were never 
addressed. But when Congress failed to take action, the American people 
stood up and sent a powerful message. The last election took place in 
the shadow of far too many revelations of questionable--or downright 
illegal--conduct by Members of Congress. When we returned to Washington 
in January, the first priority of this Senate was to take steps to 
restore the confidence of the American people in their Government.
  It is unfortunate that we now find ourselves nearly 7 months later--
taking up yet another version of this bill with several provisions that 
are far weaker than they should be. In particular, I am disappointed 
that in spite of a 98-0 Senate vote in favor of strong earmark 
disclosure rules, the provision now before us is weak and riddled with 
loopholes. I cannot understand why the majority leadership has chosen 
to ignore the clearly expressed will of the Senate in this way.
  I draw my colleagues' attention to the first page of this new bill, 
in which its purpose is stated as, ``To provide greater transparency in 
the legislative process.'' This declaration--made without a trace of 
irony--belies the fact that this version of the bill was developed in 
closed-door discussions between the majority leader of the Senate and 
the Speaker of the House. Ethics is not an issue of the right or the 
left, so why has the process of drafting ethics legislation suddenly 
become so partisan?
  In spite of these reservations, I will support this bill because I 
believe that it does contain positive provisions that are long overdue. 
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is said to have once noted, ``Sunlight is 
the best disinfectant,'' and this bill does bring sunlight into some of 
the dark corners of the legislative process.
  The bill requires more frequent filings under the Lobbying Disclosure 
Act, and more detailed disclosure of lobbyist activities in those 
reports. In addition, it makes that information readily available to 
the public via the Internet.
  The bill also contains a change to the Senate rules to eliminate, at 
long last, the undemocratic practice of anonymous holds in the Senate. 
The hallmark of this body should be free and open debate, and a process 
that allows a secret hold to kill a bill without a word of debate on 
the floor is antithetical to that principle.
  The bill contains important provisions to slow the so-called 
revolving door problem where Members of Congress and their senior 
staffs leave Government jobs and then turn around to lobby the 
institution they once served.
  These provisions--which I note, are substantially the same as those 
that the Senate passed earlier this year--are a step forward in 
restoring the American people's confidence in the integrity of their 
leadership.
  In November 2006, the American people sent Congress a message that 
they had lost faith in the integrity this institution. I will support 
this bill because it takes a step forward in restoring the people's 
faith in the work we do here, but unfortunately I am left to conclude 
that had there been a better process, there would have been a better 
bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the Honest Leadership and Open 
Government Act.
  I have worked for many years to enact meaningful lobbying and ethics 
reform. In 1995, I helped lead the effort to pass the Lobbying 
Disclosure Act which helped to open up the world of lobbying, and the 
billions of dollars spent in it, to the light of day. By requiring paid 
lobbyists to register and disclose whom they represent, how much they 
are paid, and the issues on which they are lobbying, this act was a 
real step forward. A number of scandals over the past few years have 
illustrated the importance of taking these reforms a step further and 
this bill does just that.
  This bill includes much needed lobbying and ethics reforms, some of 
which I sought to include in the Lobbying Disclosure Act 12 years ago. 
It includes provisions to ensure greater transparency and disclosure of 
lobbyist activities by requiring lobbyists to file their reports 
quarterly and electronically in an online, public, searchable database. 
This bill requires lobbyists to disclose to the Federal Election 
Commission when they bundle or gather over $15,000 in campaign 
contributions for any Federal elected official, candidate or political 
action committee. Additionally, lobbyists will be required to disclose 
their own campaign contributions as well as payments they make to 
Presidential libraries, inaugural committees or other organization 
controlled by or named for Members of Congress.
  This bill also includes an important provision I authored to require 
reporting by foreign lobbyists. Foreign lobbyists file their 
disclosures under the Foreign Agents Registry Act. The forms are 
difficult to find and hard to understand. This bill will require a 
publicly accessible, electronic database containing FARA disclosures in 
the same format that will be in place for registrants under the 
Lobbying Disclosure Act.

[[Page S10703]]

  Also included is a strict ban on gifts from lobbyists or their 
clients to Members of Congress and congressional staff. These perks 
have no place in Government and I am glad that this legislation will 
eliminate them.
  Strong travel restrictions are also an essential component of this 
bill. The new rules will ensure that Members traveling on corporate 
jets would have to pay for them at the charter rate, not at the current 
level of a first class commercial ticket, which is but a fraction of 
the cost.
  This bill strengthens restrictions on lobbying for former Senators 
and former senior Senate staff by prohibiting Senators from lobbying 
Congress for 2 years after they leave office and prohibiting senior 
Senate staff from lobbying any Senate office for 1 year after leaving 
Senate employment. Also included is a provision that prohibits Members 
and their staff from influencing the hiring decision of private 
organizations in exchange for political access.
  This bill strengthens penalties for Members of Congress who are 
convicted of crimes that involve violations of the public trust by 
revoking Federal retirement benefits. It also increases the penalties 
for Members of Congress, senior staff and senior executive officials 
who falsify or fail to file financial disclosure forms.
  I am also pleased that this bill includes earmark reforms to ensure 
transparency in the legislative process. Requiring that earmarks 
included in bills and conference reports are available to the public on 
line will allow the average American the opportunity to know where 
their tax dollars are going and it is my hope that it will help ensure 
the quality of the projects which are funded.
  I commend my colleagues in both the House of Representatives and the 
Senate for working in a bipartisan way to pass this important 
legislation. Though this bill is not perfect, it is a significant 
improvement over current law. Some will continue to find ways to 
circumvent it and undermine the safeguards we put in place. Standing 
for honesty, openness and accountability in Government will forever be 
an unfinished task. We must continue to be aware of abuses and 
understand that further legislation may be necessary in the coming 
years to ensure the integrity of the legislative process.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as elected representatives, I believe we 
must hold ourselves to the highest ethical standards. The principle is 
a simple one. I want to take this opportunity to express my 
appreciation to Majority Leader Reid, Chairman Lieberman and Chairman 
Feinstein for their work to keep that faith by increasing the ethical 
standards of the Congress in the legislation that the Senate is 
considering today.
  While not perfect, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 
2007 will expand public disclosure of lobbyist activities, increase the 
transparency of the congressional earmarking process, strengthen the 
existing gift bans and ``cooling-off periods'' for Members of Congress 
and their staff, and prohibit Congress from attempting to influence 
employment decisions in exchange for political access.
  I very much appreciate the assistance of Majority Leader Reid, 
Chairman Lieberman, and Senator Salazar in including a provision in 
this legislation that will prohibit Members of Congress who are 
convicted of serious ethics crimes such as bribery and fraud from 
receiving Federal pensions. This provision, based on my amendment to 
the Senate Ethics bill in January, which in turn was based on the 
Congressional Pension Accountability Act which I introduced with 
Senator Salazar, will go a long way toward rebuilding the trust of the 
American people. Those who abuse the public trust shouldn't be allowed 
to exploit the Federal retirement system at taxpayer expense. That is 
simply unacceptable and this legislation will finally change that 
inequity in the law.
  We all remember just last year, when former Representative Randy 
``Duke'' Cunningham received the longest prison sentence ever imposed 
on a former Member of Congress. His crime? He collected approximately 
$2.4 million in homes, yachts, antique furnishings and other bribes 
including a Rolls Royce from defense contractors. This disgraceful 
conduct a crime which lies beyond comprehension for honest, hardworking 
American taxpayers has earned him 8 years and 4 months in a Federal 
prison and has required him to pay the Government $1.8 million in 
penalties and $1.85 million in ill-gotten gains.
  Unfortunately, the American taxpayer will continue to pay his Federal 
pension--a pension worth approximately $40,000 per year. Thanks to this 
legislation, no longer will taxpayers' hard-earned dollars be used to 
pay for the pensions of Members of Congress who are convicted of 
serious ethics abuses in the future.
  I believe this legislation will significantly improve our Government 
by changing the way business is done and helping to ensure that 
Congress once again responds to the needs of our people, not special 
interests.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to support the reauthorization 
of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. It is critically 
important that we continue and improve upon this successful effort that 
has made a difference in the lives of so many children.
  I would like to thank my colleagues, Senator Baucus, Senator 
Rockefeller, Senator Grassley and Senator Hatch, as well as their 
staffs, for the countless hours they have spent in order to bring this 
bipartisan compromise before us today.
  Like all compromises, the bill is not perfect. I, along with several 
of my colleagues, voted for a budget resolution that included an 
additional $50 billion for the reauthorization of the Children's Health 
Insurance Program. I understand that fiscal constraints make it 
difficult to fund a sum of that magnitude. But at the same time, no 
dollar spent to insure a child is wasted.


                         History of the Program

  I am proud to have supported this program since its inception in 
1997. At that time, there were too many working families who played by 
the rules and could not afford health insurance for their children. 
They had just a little too much to qualify for Medicaid or other 
Government programs, but not enough income to be able to afford the 
premiums that private insurance requires.
  So a Republican Congress and a Democratic President came together to 
create the Children's Health Insurance Program, which has enjoyed a 
decade of broad bipartisan support.
  The success has been clear. Twenty-one percent of the children in 
California were uninsured when the Children's Health Insurance Program 
launched. Six years later, in 2005, that rate had fallen to 14 percent, 
despite economic downturns, which commonly lead to increases in the 
number of uninsured.
  It is now time for a Republican President and a Democratic Congress 
to come to together to allow this program to continue to fulfill its 
promise.


                         Summary of Legislation

  The bill we are considering today will allow this program's success 
to continue and make significant improvements. This legislation would:
  Invest $35 billion to provide health insurance coverage to 3.2 
million children who are currently uninsured. This will keep the 6.6 
million children already enrolled in the program from losing coverage.
  Give States the tools they need to find and enroll these uninsured 
children. Six million of the nine million uninsured children in the 
United States today are eligible for Medicaid, or they are eligible for 
the Children's Health Insurance Program. These families deserve to know 
they are eligible for coverage, and they ought to receive it without 
unnecessary bureaucracy and additional paperwork.


                          Tobacco Tax Increase

  These improvements are funded with an increase in the Federal tobacco 
tax, to $1 per package of cigarettes. Not only will this increase fund 
needed health insurance for children, it will create significant health 
improvements.
  We must be very clear about the serious implications of tobacco use. 
It has to be understood that:
  Tobacco is linked to at least 10 different kinds of cancer.
  Tobacco use accounts for about 30 percent of all cancer deaths.
  Tobacco use remains the top cause of preventable death in the United 
States.
  According to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, this tax will 
prevent an additional 1,873,000 children alive

[[Page S10704]]

today from ever becoming smokers. And this prevents them from becoming 
cancer victims later in life. Of this I am certain.
  During my time in the Senate, I have worked to make the eradication 
of cancer a top priority. I strongly believe that we can eliminate the 
death and suffering caused by cancer in my lifetime. I have worked with 
the American Cancer Society, and the National Cancer Institute. I have 
spoken to leading cancer researchers, and patients and their families.
  And over and over again, I have heard that tobacco is a leading cause 
of cancer.
  There is much about cancer that we still do not understand and that 
we cannot control. But the relationship between tobacco and cancer 
could not be clearer.
  The one thing we can do, immediately, to stop cancer deaths, is to 
reduce tobacco use. This legislation takes a step in that direction, 
while providing health coverage for children in the process.


              Importance of health insurance for children

  We know that when it comes to children, health insurance matters. It 
can determine whether a child receives appropriate treatment, and even 
if he lives or dies. According to a Families USA study conducted this 
year,
  An uninsured child admitted to the hospital as the result of an 
injury is twice as likely to die during his or her hospital stay than a 
child with insurance.
  Uninsured children admitted to the hospital with middle ear 
infections are less than half as likely to get ear tubes inserted than 
children with insurance.
  These are not rare occurrences. As any parent will attest, children 
get into plenty of accidents, and children get lots of ear infections. 
No child should suffer a worse outcome because her parents could not 
afford health insurance.


                   CHIP is not Government Health Care

  Frankly, I am quite surprised that the Senate is not unanimously 
endorsing the compromise we have before us today. I was stunned when 
President Bush indicated he would veto it.
  Unfortunately, some are attempting to use this debate to score 
political points, and in the process, are portraying the Children's 
Health Insurance Program in an unfair light.
  Let us be clear. The Children's Health Insurance Program is not 
Government-run health care. Doctors, nurses and parents still make 
medical decisions. And in California, our Healthy Families program 
relies on commercial managed care plans.
  California offers 24 health plans, 6 dental plans, and 3 vision 
plans.
  In fact, 99.72 percent of Californians in Healthy Families have a 
choice between two health plans.
  In four of our largest counties, families can choose between as many 
as seven plans.
  Twenty-four different health plans in one State. That is certainly 
not a form of ``socialized medicine.'' Many employers providing private 
insurance cannot afford to give their workers more than one choice.
  This legislation remains targeted at the children and families most 
in need of assistance. I am from San Francisco, one of the most 
expensive cities in one of the most expensive States in the Nation. No 
one will deny that it costs more to live in San Francisco than just 
about any other place in the country. You spend more on groceries, more 
on housing, more on transportation, and not surprisingly, more on 
health care. The California Association of Realtors estimates that in 
order to purchase the average entry level home in California, a family 
must have a household income of over $96,000 per year.
  Yet, with the exception of Alaska and Hawaii, we have a uniform 
Federal poverty level, which is $20,650 for a family of four. President 
Bush insists that no family above twice this poverty level, or $41,300, 
could possibly need additional help to afford health insurance. I 
strongly disagree.
  I would like to challenge anyone to support two children on $41,300 
annual income in California, and find the $11,480 necessary to purchase 
the average family insurance policy. It is nearly impossible. This is 
precisely why we created the Children's Health Insurance Program 10 
years ago, to prevent hard-working families from falling through the 
cracks.
  This legislation maintains the State flexibility necessary to do just 
that.


                           California Stories

  As a mother and grandmother, I know that there are few things worse 
than having a sick child. I cannot imagine the dilemma of a mother or 
father who knows that their child needs medical attention, but must 
also consider whether that treatment will have a catastrophic impact on 
their family's finances.
  The Herman family from Sonoma County, CA, found themselves in this 
situation, twice in 1 month. Daughter Amber Herman fell and hurt her 
arm. Three-year-old Jacob shoved a rock in his ear during a family 
camping trip. Parents Penny and Peter Herman are self-employed small 
business owners, unable to afford private insurance.
  The Hermans faced a $5000 out-of-pocket medical bill for their care. 
And Penny was pregnant with the couple's third child, Abraham. The 
family learned they were eligible for Healthy Families, and enrolled in 
the program. Penny received coverage for her pregnancy from Medi-Cal. 
All three children now have comprehensive health care coverage.
  The Nunez family in Solano County, California never worried about 
health insurance; they were always covered under their father Pablo's 
union health plan. Pablo started his own business and he, wife Sandra, 
and their four children lost their coverage. Through outreach efforts, 
the family learned a few months later that their kids might qualify for 
coverage. They did, and all four Nunez children were enrolled in 
Healthy Families before they had a health care emergency.
  These stories show that a robust Children's Health Insurance Program, 
coupled with good information and a straightforward enrollment process, 
makes a real difference in the lives of countless families.


                               Conclusion

  Without action, these children and many others will risk losing this 
insurance coverage. It is my hope that the President will reconsider 
his ill-advised veto threat and sign this bipartisan legislation into 
law. While the President may want to advance his own health care reform 
ideas, it is not fair to hold millions of uninsured children hostage in 
the process. I welcome a wide-ranging debate on how to reform our 
health care system, after this bill is signed and the State Children's 
Health Insurance Program is protected.
  This is a successful bipartisan program. It must be reauthorized, and 
the American people must make it clear to President Bush that they will 
accept no less.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
legislation.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the legislation before us today is labeled 
as an ethics and lobbying reform measure. Unfortunately, legislative 
labels don't guarantee performance. Just calling a bill ``reform'' 
doesn't guarantee it will improve the transparency of legislative 
operations so that the American people can better see what Congress is 
doing and hold its representatives accountable for their actions.
  In this case, I am troubled by the bill we are being asked to support 
today--a bill prepared without input from Republicans and outside the 
normal bipartisan, consensus-building legislative procedures of the 
Congress.
  While it contains a number of worthwhile provisions, I cannot agree 
that it makes the kind of fundamental improvements that its label 
promises in a number of critical areas.
  For example, there has been significant focus on how this bill would 
change Senate rules concerning ``earmarks''--that is, congressionally 
directed funding. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I have 
been asked about earmarks and have talked frankly with my Idaho 
constituents and others about this practice. I don't believe in secret 
earmarks and, in fact, on my Web site I have published a list of all 
the earmarks I have secured in appropriations legislation since I have 
been a member of the committee, so that anybody can review them.
  In my opinion, the so-called ``earmark reforms'' in this bill are 
more likely to result in misleading people and gaming the process, 
rather than opening it up to public scrutiny.
  There is more to the bill than its earmark provisions--there are 
other

[[Page S10705]]

flawed provisions as well as worthwhile provisions. It is not unusual 
for us to be asked to vote on a package including both provisions we 
agree with and those we don't. Sometimes we overlook the bad, if the 
package on balance does more good than harm.
  But it would be perverse indeed for me to sanction, with my vote, a 
measure that I believe will frustrate the very goal of ethics reform 
that it is supposed to accomplish. I cannot pretend that the earmark 
provisions or other flaws in this bill are unimportant. I cannot ignore 
the real harm that some provisions of this bill will likely do. For 
these reasons, I cannot support this legislation.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the bill before us contains, in section 
542, a provision to prohibit Senators from attending parties to honor 
them at the national party conventions if those parties are paid for by 
lobbyists or organizations that employ or retain lobbyists. The 
provision originated with an amendment that I offered to S. 1 when the 
Senate considered S. 1 at the beginning of the year. My amendment 
passed the Senate on January 17, 2007, by a vote of 89 to 5. I am 
pleased that the final bill retains this provision and also contains in 
section 305 a similar provision that will apply to Members of the House 
of Representatives. I wanted to take a minute to explain the purpose 
and operation of the provision and why I believe it was an important 
addition to the bill.
  When the Senate adopted the Reid amendment in January to strengthen 
the lobbyist gift ban, we took a huge step toward eliminating gifts to 
Members of Congress from lobbyists and groups that lobby. The final 
bill retained that language, and it is one of the most significant 
provisions in the bill. But it is important to remember that the 
lobbyist gift ban is subject to the same exceptions in the gift rule 
that now apply. Some of these exceptions, like the personal friendship 
exception and the informational materials exception, are sensible and 
limited. Others, particularly the widely attended event exception, 
sometimes allow items of great value to be given to Members. Over the 
next few years, the Senate should look closely at whether lobbyists 
will now flock to these exceptions in order to continue to give us 
gifts. We may need to revisit some of the exceptions in the future.
  One application of the widely attended event exception needed to be 
addressed immediately. At the political party conventions, which many 
of us attend, lobbyists and groups that lobby have fine-tuned the 
widely attended event exception and turned it into almost a competition 
over who can throw the most lavish, the most over-the-top, the most 
excessive party in honor of a powerful Member of Congress. These 
parties have become huge gifts to the honored Members. Essentially they 
allow a Member to host a gigantic party, with an unlimited expense 
account granted by the generous lobbyist sponsor.
  Mr. President, I will ask to have a USA Today story about these 
parties at the Republican convention in 2004 printed in the Record at 
the conclusion of my remarks.
  Here is how that story begins:

       On Tuesday night, a few fortunate Republicans attending the 
     party's convention will have a chance to try on ``the most 
     exclusive and prestigious jewels in the world'' at the 
     Cartier Mansion on the edge of New York's Diamond District.
       The point is not only to ``indulge yourself,'' as an 
     invitation says. It's also to honor a Republican congressman 
     from Texas, Henry Bonilla, at a cocktail reception under 
     chandeliers that sparkle almost as brightly as the diamonds 
     and emeralds beneath them.
       The event is hosted by a group of Washington lobbyists who 
     hope to reinforce their ties with Bonilla, a powerful 
     chairman of a House appropriations subcommittee. It's but one 
     among more than 200 lavish parties being thrown this week by 
     corporations, lobbyists, trade groups and other interests 
     whose fortunes rise and fall on the actions of government 
     policymakers.

  The article continues:

       Bonilla is just one of many committee chairmen and members 
     of the House and Senate leadership who will be feted at what 
     may be the most expensive round of receptions, dinners, 
     concerts, golf outings and cruises ever at a political 
     convention.

  The USA Today story lists some of the other parties. Let me quote 
again from the article:

       House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois was the honoree at 
     a reception Sunday afternoon sponsored by General Motors at 
     Tavern on the Green, a glittering Victorian gothic restaurant 
     on the edge of Central Park. The Distilled Spirits Council of 
     the United States threw a reception at the New York Yacht 
     Club for Rep. Thomas Reynolds of New York, chairman of the 
     party's House campaign committee. And AT&T, Chevron Texaco, 
     Target and Time Warner were among the sponsors of a martinis-
     and-bowling night for House Rules Committee Chairman David 
     Dreier of California.
       AT&T also is among the sponsors of a Tuesday ``Texas Honky 
     Tonk for Joe Barton,'' the Texas congressman who chairs the 
     House Energy and Commerce Committee. Barton's panel has wide 
     jurisdiction over telecommunications, health and energy. And 
     members of the House Financial Services and Senate Banking 
     committees will be toasted at Madame Tussaud's Tuesday night, 
     sponsored by JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs.

  The conventions have thus become giant lobbying festivals. Everyone 
who wants to get close to powerful Members of Congress is there, or at 
least everyone with the money to spend on a lavish party honoring a 
Member.
  Here is what one lobbyist said about these parties at the 2004 
Republican convention, according to USA Today:

       ``The Republicans are the majority party. They run the 
     administration, they run the House, they run the Senate. So 
     anyone who wants to talk to them is there,'' says David 
     Hoppe, a lobbyist at the Washington firm Quinn Gillespie & 
     Associates. ``It is a good time to see people and establish 
     personal relationships.''

  Another lobbyist commented about the importance of these types of 
events as follows:

       ``You go (to the convention) with a targeted plan of who 
     you need to see, and you can get a lot of work done,'' says 
     Scott Reed, a Republican lobbyist and political strategist. 
     Approaching policymakers in a social setting puts them more 
     at ease, he says, ``unlike in Washington, where you are 
     normally coming to ask a favor or to help get somebody out of 
     trouble.''

  I don't know about my colleagues, but my stomach turns when I read an 
article like this. And we all know that similar events take place at 
the Democratic convention. The brazenness of these events as places 
where monied interests have special access to lawmakers is just 
shocking. We simply could not go back to our constituents and claim 
credit for getting rid of gifts from lobbyists if we allowed these 
kinds of events to continue at the conventions. And so I offered my 
amendment, and I am pleased that it was adopted in January and included 
as section 542 in the final bill.
  Section 542 does not prohibit parties at the convention, but it does 
prohibit Senators from accepting free attendance at parties thrown in 
their honor at the conventions. If an industry group wants to throw a 
party, fine, but they won't have a congressional guest of honor to use 
as a lure to get other lobbyists to pitch in and fund the party. And a 
Senator won't be able to accept a gift of hosting a huge party at the 
expense of lobbyists and groups that lobby.
  According to USA Today, these huge parties honoring Members date back 
to 1996, just a year after the gift ban was passed. They have increased 
in recent years, especially since the soft money ban we passed in 2002 
prevents corporations from making huge contributions to the political 
parties. These convention events are one of the few ways that 
corporations and the lobbyists they employ can show their loyalty to a 
Member of Congress in a big way. It is time that we close this brazen 
evasion of the spirit of the gift rules. I am pleased that section 305 
and section 542 will do just that.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the USA Today 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:

               Lobbyists' Lure to GOP: `Indulge Yourself'

                           (By Jim Drinkard)

       New York.--On Tuesday night, a few fortunate Republicans 
     attending the party's convention will have a chance to try on 
     ``the most exclusive and prestigious jewels in the world'' at 
     the Cartier Mansion on the edge of New York's Diamond 
     District.
       The point is not only to ``indulge yourself,'' as an 
     invitation says. It's also to honor a Republican congressman 
     from Texas, Henry Bonilla, at a cocktail reception under 
     chandeliers that sparkle almost as brightly as the diamonds 
     and emeralds beneath them.
       The event is hosted by a group of Washington lobbyists who 
     hope to reinforce their ties with Bonilla, a powerful 
     chairman of a House appropriations subcommittee. It's but

[[Page S10706]]

     one among more than 200 lavish parties being thrown this week 
     by corporations, lobbyists, trade groups and other interests 
     whose fortunes rise and fall on the actions of government 
     policymakers. They are taking advantage of New York's bounty 
     of interesting event sites, from the aircraft carrier USS 
     Intrepid to the 56th floor panorama of the Sky Club on Fifth 
     Avenue.
       While similar events were held at the Democratic convention 
     in Boston last month, the New York partying will be more 
     purposeful for one reason: ``The Republicans are the majority 
     party. They run the administration, they run the House, they 
     run the Senate. So anyone who wants to talk to them is 
     there,'' says David Hoppe, a lobbyist at the Washington firm 
     Quinn Gillespie & Associates. ``It is a good time to see 
     people and establish personal relationships.''
       Among the hosts for Bonilla's bash are the Wine Institute, 
     which represents California vintners; Christine Pellerin, a 
     former Bonilla aide who lobbies on appropriations matters; 
     and UST, whose tobacco and wine interests fall under the 
     jurisdiction of Bonilla's agriculture subcommittee. Bonilla 
     is just one of many committee chairmen and members of the 
     House and Senate leadership who will be feted at what may be 
     the most expensive round of receptions, dinners, concerts, 
     golf outings and cruises ever at a political convention.
       ``The entry fee for participation has gone up 
     dramatically,'' says David Rehr, president of the National 
     Beer Wholesalers Association, who is contributing either beer 
     or money to help sponsor nine parties this week. To get 
     top billing as a sponsor for an elaborate event can cost 
     $100,000 or more; lower-level sponsorships are available 
     for $50,000 or $25,000.
       Rehr attributes that at least in part to a new campaign-
     finance law that bars corporations, unions and trade groups 
     from giving big checks known as ``soft money'' to the 
     political parties. Staging lavish parties ``is now the only 
     legitimate outlet for soft money,'' he says. ``People have 
     this pool of money and want visibility, or to show their 
     commitment or loyalty, and to advance the reputation of a 
     particular member (of Congress) or cause. So the parties are 
     more lavish, the venues are bigger, the bands are bigger 
     names than ever before.''
       Top sponsorship for a Wednesday night benefit concert at 
     Rockefeller Center costs $250,000. The event is being 
     organized by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee 
     for his World of Hope foundation, which seeks to alleviate 
     AIDS and other health problems in Africa. Frist's aides 
     declined to name top sponsors.
       The longest-running convention party is the one being 
     thrown all four nights of the convention to honor Rep. John 
     Boehner, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Committee on Education 
     and the Workforce. It's at the Tunnel, a former nightclub on 
     Manhattan's West Side.
       The party-every-night tradition goes back to the GOP's San 
     Diego convention in 1996, where nightly bashes for Boehner--
     then a member of the House leadership--got a reputation as 
     the best events in town. Boehner's lobbyist friends 
     replicated it at a Philadelphia warehouse in 2000 and are 
     doing it again this year. The effort is led by Bruce Gates, a 
     lobbyist for Washington Council Ernst & Young, a firm whose 
     client list includes employers such as General Electric, 
     Ford, AT&T and Verizon.
       House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois was the honoree at 
     a reception Sunday afternoon sponsored by General Motors at 
     Tavern on the Green, a glittering Victorian gothic restaurant 
     on the edge of Central Park. The Distilled Spirits Council of 
     the United States threw a reception at the New York Yacht 
     Club for Rep. Thomas Reynolds of New York, chairman of the 
     party's House campaign committee. And AT&T, Chevron Texaco, 
     Target and Time Warner were among the sponsors of a martinis-
     and-bowling night for House Rules Committee Chairman David 
     Dreier of California.
       AT&T also is among the sponsors of a Tuesday ``Texas Honky 
     Tonk for Joe Barton,'' the Texas congressman who chairs the 
     House Energy and Commerce Committee. Barton's panel has wide 
     jurisdiction over telecommunications, health and energy. And 
     members of the House Financial Services and Senate Banking 
     committees will be toasted at Madame Tussaud's Tuesday night, 
     sponsored by JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs.
       Koch Industries, a Kansas-based oil company, is putting on 
     a reception Thursday for Sen. George Allen of Virginia at the 
     Rainbow Room at Rockefeller Center. BellSouth, Coca-Cola, 
     Home Depot, UST and the Southern Co. are throwing a late-
     night party on Wednesday for Sens. Lindsey Graham of South 
     Carolina and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia at the Supper Club in 
     midtown Manhattan.
       Among the busiest sponsors this week will be the American 
     Gas Association, a trade group that represents 192 local 
     natural gas utilities. They're putting on at least nine 
     shindigs, from a ``Wildcatter's Ball'' honoring Sen. James 
     Inhofe of Oklahoma, chairman of the Senate Environment and 
     Public Works Committee, to a ``Wild West Saloon'' with the 
     Charlie Daniels Band for Rep. Richard Pombo of California, 
     chairman of the House panel that oversees natural resources.
       All of it provides lobbyists with an efficient way to do 
     their work. ``You go (to the convention) with a targeted plan 
     of who you need to see, and you can get a lot of work done,'' 
     says Scott Reed, a Republican lobbyist and political 
     strategist. Approaching policymakers in a social setting puts 
     them more at ease, he says, ``unlike in Washington, where you 
     are normally coming to ask a favor or to help get somebody 
     out of trouble.''


                        GOP's week event-packed

       Some of this week's events at the Republican convention:
       Welcome reception for party donors aboard the aircraft 
     carrier USS Intrepid, now a museum in the Hudson River with a 
     view of the Manhattan skyline from its flight deck.
       Golf tournament for donors at the Trump National Golf Club 
     in Westchester County.
       Brunch for Senate candidate John Thune of South Dakota 
     aboard the Enterprise V, Amway Corp.'s gleaming, 165-foot, 
     blue-and-white yacht.
       ``Space Jam 2004'' party for House Majority Leader Tom 
     DeLay of Texas at Studio 450.
       Dinner for the staff of the House and Senate commerce 
     committees at Blue Water Grill, one of Manhattan's most 
     popular restaurants with a ``sultry downstairs jazz room.''
       A Metropolitan Museum of Art reception for Senate Majority 
     Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee at the ``Temple of Dendur,'' 
     an Egyptian temple dating to 15 B.C.
       A Yankee Stadium fundraiser at the Yankees-Indians baseball 
     game for Rep. Jerry Weller of Illinois. Tickets: $1,500, or 
     two for $2,500.
       ``Breakfast at Tiffany's'' with Libby Pataki, wife of the 
     New York governor.
       The Republican Governors Association ``Rocks the Planet'' 
     at Planet Hollywood in Times Square.
       Martina McBride concert for Georgia's congressional 
     delegation at the Roseland Ballroom.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, earlier this week the House and Senate 
Democratic Leadership--forced to forgo a formal conference by one 
Republican Senator's insistence on blocking this bill--made public 
their comprehensive new ethics reform legislation. This legislation is 
historic, an important next step in the process of restoring the 
confidence of Americans in the legislative process. Designed to bolster 
congressional accountability, make the legislative process fairer and 
more transparent, and regulate more tightly the relationships between 
Members of Congress, executive branch officials, and lobbyists, it 
deserves our full support.
  After being stymied by serious procedural hurdles in the last 
Congress, earlier this year in the Senate we passed a tough, 
comprehensive, bipartisan bill of which this body can be very proud. 
Regrettably, this week we had to overcome a filibuster by my Republican 
colleagues to get this bill to this point--a filibuster on a bill very 
similar to the earlier Senate-passed bill for which many of them voted. 
I congratulate my colleagues on voting earlier today to overcome 
objections from those who attempted to block its progress.
  We should adopt this bill today without changes and send it to the 
President for his signature. It is important that Congress act quickly 
on this bill to help restore the confidence of all Americans in the 
legislative process and in the laws we write. That confidence, already 
low, has been further shaken by recent lobbying scandals and 
investigations, some involving funding earmarks. Bringing this bill to 
the floor as the first piece of legislation in this Congress was an 
indication of the depth of our commitment to restore the confidence of 
Americans in that process; I commend the majority leader for making 
this measure a priority and for pressing forward relentlessly, through 
many obstacles, to get this final version to the floor.
  This bill, which passed the House by an overwhelming vote of 411 to 8 
earlier this week, reflects the approach we took last year in 
developing reform legislation. I commend our Rules Committee chair 
Senator Feinstein, along with Chairman Lieberman of the Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, for working with our 
leaders to develop this strong bill. It is the final step in a lobbying 
reform process which has taken several years to come to fruition.
  Let's remember why we are here: because of a need to respond to the 
crisis in confidence of the American people following the Jack Abramoff 
scandal in the House, a matter involving the bribery conviction of a 
Member of that body, and legal proceedings against certain other 
congressional and administration officials involving allegations of 
lobbying-related improprieties. The serious violations that have lead 
to last year's guilty pleas by former House Members and staff and the 
activities of Abramoff and his cronies in

[[Page S10707]]

which they violated lobbying, gift, and ethics rules have helped to 
create a climate of disillusionment and distrust of Congress. Americans 
made very clear in the last elections that cleaning up this process was 
a priority for them; it must also be a priority for us.
  This comprehensive reform bill will help reduce the risk of future 
wrongdoing by lobbyists and officeholders. It is important to 
strengthen our current rules and procedures, where we can, to avoid 
future problems. But enforcing current rules is not enough; that is why 
we should adopt these tough new reforms today. And let me say that by 
making these changes we impugn no one in this body--I know my 
colleagues, many of whom I have worked with for decades, to be men and 
women of integrity, their behavior above reproach.
  Regulating the relationships between lawmakers and lobbyists is not 
new. In 1876, the House tried to require lobbyists to register with its 
clerk, but enforcement was weak and not much came of these efforts. In 
the early 1930s, Congress held hearings on lobbying abuses, with little 
result. In 1938, the Foreign Agents Registration Act was enacted, 
followed by the 1946 Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act, the scope of 
which the Supreme Court soon narrowed. Additional minor reforms were 
implemented in the sixties, and then the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 
1995 and new Senate gift and travel rules followed. And now this reform 
measure, the most sweeping of its kind since Watergate, will help shed 
further sunlight on the legislative process and illuminate how special 
interests influence that process.
  It is clear that real, enforceable ethics reforms do work. Such 
reforms have over the years worked to improve the way Congress 
operates. Conflict of interest rules, earned-income limits, lobbying 
disclosure laws, the McCain-Feingold law and the honoraria ban, both of 
which I was privileged to play a role in, and other key reforms have 
helped ensure greater transparency and accountability to those whom we 
represent. But we must do more, and that is what this effort is about.
  When we initially considered this legislation many months ago, 
Members from both sides of the aisle offered their ideas to improve the 
bill on the floor, which were incorporated into the final bill. That 
measure then passed 96 to 2. While some may quibble with the way one or 
another provision was finalized, virtually all of the bill's major 
elements have been retained in some form, and that is why this is a 
very strong product. Our leader rightly called it the strongest reform 
bill since the Watergate era; we should be proud to support it.

  Since others have detailed what is in this bill--including provisions 
to slow the revolving door between Congress and the lobbying industry; 
tough new conflict of interest and postemployment rules; expanded 
disclosure of lobbyists' activities, including campaign-related 
activities; tightening of gift and travel rules; increased enforcement; 
requiring Members to pay charter rates to fly on private aircraft, and 
the like--I will not spend time doing that here. Suffice it to say this 
is a very strong bill, worthy of our support.
  Finally, let me say a word about what I think is the elephant in the 
room on congressional reform efforts, and that is the need to enact 
comprehensive reforms of the way we organize and finance campaigns in 
this country.
  As I have said, gift and lobby reforms do matter and are important. 
But while it is clear serious reform of the way some in Congress and 
their lobbying allies do business is needed, these changes alone won't 
address the core problem: the need for campaign finance reform which 
breaks once and for all the link between legislative favor-seekers and 
the free flow of inadequately regulated, special interest private 
money. Ultimately, this is more significant than lobbying, gift and 
travel rules, or procedural reforms on earmarks and conference 
procedures and reports.
  My preferred reform approach would include a combination of public 
funding, free or reduced media time, spending limits, and other key 
reforms. Others will have different views and approaches. But I hope 
this will be just the first step in a process that will include 
comprehensive campaign finance reform. It took us years to enact the 
McCain-Feingold law, and it will likely take at least as long to enact 
a more comprehensive bill; we should get started on that effort as soon 
as possible. Real campaign finance reform must address not just 
congressional campaigns but also the urgent need to renew and repair 
our Presidential public funding system, which has served Democratic and 
Republican candidates--and all Americans--for 25 years.
  The American public is way ahead of us on this issue. Too many 
believe the interests of average voters are usurped by the money and 
influence of lobbyists, powerful individuals, corporations, and 
interest groups. Too many believe their voices go unheard, drowned out 
by the din of special interest favor-seekers.
  Our system derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. 
That is put at risk if the governed lose faith in the system's 
fundamental fairness and in its capacity to respond to the most basic 
needs of our society because narrow special interests hold sway over 
the public interest. Nowhere is the need for reform more urgent than on 
campaign finance. In the Rules Committee we held a recent hearing on 
the issue; I hope we will keep moving forward on it, and I intend to 
contribute to that debate as I have before.
  I end where I began, with a concern about the confidence of Americans 
in Congress. Our credibility, and the credibility of the legislative 
process, is at stake. Let's not fool ourselves that these issues will 
ultimately be resolved without a fundamental overhaul of our campaign 
finance system. But in the wake of overwhelming approval by the House, 
let's adopt this measure and get it signed by the President, 
recognizing that it is an important next step in the reform process.
  I again congratulate the majority leader for bringing this 
legislation back to the Senate floor and look forward to seeing it 
enacted into law so that we can help to begin to restore the confidence 
of the American people in the legislative process. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in voting aye.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, in the past few years, the newspapers were 
consistently laden with stories of scandal at every level of 
government. In November, the American people told us that they were 
tired of Congressional corruption. And today, the Senate finally acted. 
Despite countless hurdles and setbacks, today Congress will pass the 
most significant overhaul of lobbying and ethics rules in decades, and 
in doing so will fundamentally change the way we do business here.
  Just as I did last year when I spoke on similar legislation, I want 
to make it clear to my constituents that I take no contributions from 
special interest PACS or lobbyists. I am beholden to no one except the 
people of Wisconsin, and I hold myself and my office to the highest 
standard of conduct regardless of any legislation.
  But the growing number of scandals--and the strengthened voice of the 
American people against that corruption--made clear the need for this 
legislation. I have heard some of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle argue that this bill does not constitute true change. While 
these individuals focus on what they see as shortcomings, I choose to 
focus on the monumental reforms contained in the bill. The bill 
includes important restrictions on gifts and travel from lobbyists. It 
prevents a ``revolving door'' scenario, one in which Senators and 
senior staff are given complete access to lobby their former 
colleagues. Finally, the legislation restores common sense in its 
treatment of convicted Members of Congress by denying them 
Congressional retirement benefits.
  I also support the earmark provisions contained in the bill. These 
bring an unprecedented amount of transparency to the earmarking 
process. It requires earmarks included in bills and conference reports 
to be identified on the Internet at least 48 hours before the Senate 
votes. Last minute additions to conference reports are subject to a 60-
vote point of order under this bill. Every American deserves to know 
how their tax dollars are being spent, and I believe this bill helps 
our constituents do just that.
  I will continue to represent the people of Wisconsin without regard 
to special interests. And I will continue to

[[Page S10708]]

hold myself and my office to the highest levels of accountability. It 
is my hope that this legislation will restore the trust of the American 
people, a trust eroded by so many Congressional scandals. It has been a 
long time coming, but the passage of this legislation today marks a new 
way of doing business in Washington, one that the voters have demanded 
and the people deserve.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1, the 
Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. I would first like to extend 
my condolences to all those affected by the tragedy in Minneapolis. I 
watched the dramatic footage with horror and I can only hope we can 
quickly find the cause of this disaster and do all we can to prevent 
something like this from happening again.
  This ethics bill is the product of many hours of hard work, and I 
commend Leader Reid and Senators Feinstein and Lieberman for their 
leadership and determination in getting this done. Make no mistake. 
Today, this body is considering the greatest overhaul of legislative 
rules and procedure in generations. This ethics bill has passed the 
House overwhelmingly, and we should do the same without any further 
delay.
  Last November, the American people sent a strong message to its 
leaders and that message read, ``Enough is enough!'' The people said, 
``No more scandals! No more shady dealings!'' The people saw that 
Congress had needed to fix gaping holes in its ethics rules, and they 
voted for people they believed would make those changes.
  So keeping with our promise to the American people, we developed 
comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform with an eye towards a quick 
passage. Back in January, this reform passed with a vote of 96-2. 
Unfortunately, the will of the people and the efforts of the Senate 
were stymied and we had to return to square one.
  With this bill, however, we have overcome this obstruction and have a 
chance to pass what is being called ``landmark'' legislation by the 
reform community. And not a moment too soon. The American people expect 
their elected leaders to abide by the highest moral and ethical 
standards. We need to do everything we can to not disappoint them. The 
conversation at the dinner table should not be about how we let them 
down. It should not be about how the American people have lost trust in 
us. And that is why this legislation--and the corresponding message--is 
so important. It seeks to restore that trust that eroded over the past 
decade.
  With this reform, we are closing loop-holes, enacting restrictions, 
and creating transparency. These new rules are substantively the same 
as those passed by this body back in January; any statements to the 
contrary are simply false.
  First and foremost, this bill will improve the culture in Washington 
by substantively changing the way that lobbyists interact with elected 
officials. The American public neither wants nor deserves another 
Abramoff scandal. With this bill, they can now be assured of clean and 
transparent interactions between K Street and the Hill. Rules will be 
placed on the travel and gifts that legislators can accept from 
lobbyists, and the revolving door between public and private employment 
will be slowed.
  Additionally, lobbyists now face additional disclosure requirements. 
They must now file their disclosure forms twice as often, and certify 
that they have not given gifts of travel in violation of Senate or 
House rules. Lobbyists' participation in the campaign process must also 
be disclosed. Lobbyists must list their campaign contributions, and 
campaign committees must disclose the names of lobbyists that 
``bundle'' contributions to the candidate.
  These sweeping changes do not just apply to the lobbyists 
interactions but also to us and our conduct in the legislative process. 
This bill will change Senate procedure in various ways and seeks to end 
``anonymous holds'' that hamper and disrupt the business of this body.
  Additionally, this bill will shine new light onto the sometimes murky 
earmark process with new levels of transparency. For the first time, 
all earmarked appropriations and their sponsors must be disclosed to 
the public on the Internet at least 48 hours prior to Senate action. 
Not only will this provide the American people with a greater 
understanding of how their tax dollars are being spent, but it allows 
for a more comprehensive debate on the Senate floor to help ensure we 
are spending those same tax dollars wisely. Furthermore, each Senator 
must now certify that neither they nor their immediate family members 
will profit from any earmark they are requesting. This lends legitimacy 
to the projects that we fund, reassuring Americans that they are indeed 
necessary, and not just enriching politicians and their friends.
  When we were all voted into office, the public enlisted their trust 
in us to act appropriately. We must not take that responsibility 
lightly. We must always strive for the high ground--where the process 
is clean and clear, and where the behavior is exemplary.
  America expects nothing less from us.
  So, Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues to support this 
monumental bill, and I hope that the Senate sends a message to the 
American public that we too are sick of corruption, shady dealings, and 
lies. This bill will take a giant leap forward to end that behavior. We 
cannot--and should not--wait any longer.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a section-by-section analysis of the bill we are about to vote on, 
including legislative history endorsed by the three principal Senate 
authors of the legislation: myself, Chairman Lieberman and Majority 
Leader Reid.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 Section by Section 
                    Analysis and Legislative History


                   Title I Closing the Revolving Door

     Section 101. Amendments to restrictions on former officers, 
         employees and elected officials of the executive and 
         legislative branches
       This section prohibits very senior executive personnel from 
     lobbying the department or agency in which they worked for 2 
     years after they leave their position. It bans Senators from 
     lobbying Congress for 2 years after they leave office and 
     bans senior Senate staff and officers from lobbying the 
     Senate for 1 year after they leave Senate employment. Senior 
     employees of the Senate are those who, for at least 60 days, 
     during the 1-year period before they leave Senate employment, 
     are paid a rate of basic pay equal to or greater than 75 
     percent of the basic rate of pay payable to a Senator. 
     Section 101 also makes technical and conforming changes to 18 
     U.S.C. Sec. 207(e).
     Section 102. Wrongfully influencing a private entity's 
         employment decisions or practices
       Section 102 prohibits members from influencing hiring 
     decisions of private organizations on the sole basis of 
     partisan political gain. It subjects those who violate this 
     provision to a fine and imprisonment for up to 15 years. This 
     section is not intended to preclude Senators from providing 
     references or writing letters of recommendation that speak to 
     the credentials of an individual.
     Section 103. Notification of post-employment restrictions
       This provision directs the Clerk of the House and the 
     Secretary of the Senate to inform Members, officers, and 
     employees of the beginning and end dates of their post-
     employment lobbying restrictions under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 207. It 
     also requires the Clerk and Secretary to post such 
     notifications on their Internet sites.
     Section 104. Exception to restrictions on former officers, 
         employees, and elected officials of the executive and 
         legislative branch
       This section removes any confusion as to whether lobbying 
     rules apply to former federal legislative and executive 
     senior staffers who go to work for Indian tribes, tribal 
     organizations and inter-tribal consortia immediately after 
     their federal employment.
       The amended tribal provision applies lobbying restrictions 
     to those former federal employees who do not work directly 
     for tribes or the exempted tribal entities or who represent 
     an entity in an unofficial capacity or on non-governmental 
     matters.
       Section 104 removes any ambiguity that federal employees 
     who are assigned to Indian tribes, tribal organizations or 
     inter-tribal consortia may represent the Indian entity before 
     a federal agency, department or court without violating 
     lobbying laws. Further, this section removes any ambiguity 
     that only those former federal executive and legislative 
     branch employees who go to work for tribes, tribal 
     organizations and inter-tribal consortia and who perform 
     official governmental duties associated with tribal 
     governmental activities or Indian programs and services are 
     exempt from lobbying laws.

[[Page S10709]]

     Under the provision, only ``tribal organizations'' (for 
     example, a tribal or village governing body) or ``inter-
     tribal consortia'' (defined as, a coalition of tribes who 
     join to undertake self-governance activities) may employ 
     former officials, who may be exempted. And, only employees of 
     these entities who act on behalf of these entities and who 
     participate in matters related to a tribal governmental 
     activity or federal Indian program or service may be 
     exempted.
       Importantly, the amendment preserves federal policy that 
     encourages former federal employees to go to work directly 
     for Indian tribes and tribal organizations that provide 
     governmental services.
     Section 105. Effective date
       The effective date for section 101 is for individuals that 
     leave federal office or employment on or after the date of 
     adjournment of the first session of the 110th Congress sine 
     die, or December 31, 2007, whichever is earlier. Section 102 
     will become effective upon enactment. Section 103 requires 
     the Secretary to begin issuing notifications after 60 days, 
     and all notifications must be published on the Internet as of 
     January 1, 2008. Section 104 goes into effect upon enactment; 
     however the post-employment restrictions go into effect for 
     individuals that leave federal employment on or after 60 days 
     after enactment.
       The new ``revolving door'' restrictions are effective only 
     for officials or employees that terminate office or 
     employment on or after the relevant effective date. A delayed 
     effective date was deemed more reasonable and practical than 
     an immediate effective date.


              Title II Full Public Disclosure of Lobbying

     Section 201. Quarterly filing of lobbying disclosure reports
       Section 201 increases the frequency of lobbying disclosure 
     reports from semiannually to quarterly filings, with required 
     adjustments to dates, thresholds, etc. A number of practical 
     consequences result from the changes in section 201. For 
     instance, exempted from filing are those whose total income 
     from lobbying activities does not exceed $2,500 or for whom 
     total expenses in connection with lobbying activities do not 
     exceed $10,000. The changes in the section decrease the 
     threshold amounts that trigger required disclosures of earned 
     income or expenses from clients on lobbyist disclosure 
     reports from $10,000 to $5,000, and require registrants to 
     round income and expenses to the nearest $10,000.
     Section 202. Additional disclosure
       This provision requires that lobbyists disclose whether 
     their client is a State or local government or a department, 
     agency, or other instrumentality of a state or local 
     government on their reports filed under the Lobbying 
     Disclosure Act.
     Section 203. Semiannual reports on certain contributions
       This section requires lobbyists to disclose semiannually 
     their name, their employer, the names of all political 
     committees that they established or control, the name of each 
     Federal candidate, officeholder, leadership PAC or political 
     party committee to whom they have contributed more than $200 
     in that semiannual period, payments for events honoring or 
     recognizing federal officials, payments to an entity named in 
     honor of a covered federal official or to a person or entity 
     in recognition of such official, payments made to 
     organizations controlled by such official, or payments made 
     to pay the costs of retreats, conferences or similar events 
     held by or in the name of one or more covered federal 
     officials, and contributions to Presidential library 
     foundations and Presidential inaugural committees in that 
     semiannual period. To avoid duplicative reporting, the bill 
     provides an exception for payments made to committees 
     regulated by the Federal Election Commission with respect to 
     the provisions relating to disclosure of payments made to 
     events honoring or recognizing federal officials, to entities 
     named in honor or recognition of federal officials, to 
     organizations controlled by such officials, and to pay the 
     costs of meetings, etc. held by officials. All of this 
     information would already be reported elsewhere under 
     provisions in this bill or under reporting required by the 
     Federal Election Commission Act.
       Section 203 also requires a certification by the lobbyist 
     filing the disclosure report that the person is familiar with 
     House and Senate gift and travel rules, and has not provided, 
     requested, or directed a gift, including a gift of travel, to 
     a Member, officer, or employee of Congress with knowledge 
     that receipt of the gift would violate the relevant rules.
       The bill directs the Clerk of the House and the Secretary 
     of the Senate to submit a report to Congress on the 
     feasibility of requiring such reports to be made on a 
     quarterly rather than semiannual basis and expresses the 
     sense of Congress in favor of moving to quarterly reporting 
     in the future if it is practically feasible to do so. After 
     the report is filed by the Clerk and the Secretary, an 
     affirmative vote of Congress will be required to alter the 
     frequency of the filing period.
     Section 204. Disclosure of bundled contributions
       This section requires certain political committees to 
     disclose to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) the name, 
     address and employer of each current registered lobbyist who 
     has provided the committee with bundled contributions in 
     excess of $15,000 in each six month period defined 
     in statute. The aggregate amount of contributions is 
     measured on a non-cumulative basis in each six month 
     period.
       The definition of ``bundled contribution'' in this section 
     contains two prongs. Subparagraph 204(a)(8)(A)(i) covers the 
     situation where a lobbyist physically forwards contributions 
     to the campaign. Subparagraph 204(a)(8)(A)(ii) covers the 
     situation where contributions are sent directly by 
     contributors to the committee, but where the committee or 
     candidate credits a registered lobbyist for generating the 
     contributions and where such credit is reflected in some form 
     of record, designation or recognition. An example of such 
     designations would include honorary titles within the 
     committee; examples of such recognition include access to 
     certain events reserved exclusively for those who generate a 
     certain level of contributions or similar benefits provided 
     by the committee as a reward for successful fundraising.
       The disclosure requirement is not triggered by general 
     solicitations of contributions, or where a registered 
     lobbyist attends an event or an event is held on the premises 
     of a registrant. An event hosted by a registered lobbyist may 
     trigger the disclosure requirement if the committee credits 
     the lobbyist with the proceeds of the fundraiser through 
     record, designation or other form of recognition, as 
     described in the preceding paragraph.
       This provision covers only contributions credited to 
     registered lobbyists, as defined in subsection 204(a)(7). 
     Contributions credited to others, including others who may 
     share a common employer with, or work for a lobbyist, are not 
     covered by this section so long as any credit is genuinely 
     received by the non-lobbyist and not the lobbyist.
       Subparagraph 204(a)(8)(A)(ii) requires that the 
     contribution be credited by the committee or ``candidate 
     involved.'' The candidate ``involved'' in the case of a 
     principal campaign committee is the candidate for whom the 
     committee is the principal campaign committee; the candidate 
     ``involved'' in the case of a Leadership PAC is the candidate 
     who directly or indirectly establishes, finances, maintains 
     or controls the Leadership PAC; and the candidate 
     ``involved'' in the case of a political party committee is 
     the chairman of the committee.
       The definition of ``Leadership PAC'' in 204(a)(8)(B) is 
     intended to recognize the FEC rule on a related topic at 68 
     Fed. Reg. 67013 (December 1, 2003)--a Leadership PAC 
     associated with a given Member of Congress is not deemed to 
     be ``affiliated'' with that office holder's principal 
     campaign committee for purpose of contribution or expenditure 
     limits under the Federal Election Campaign Act.
     Section 205. Electronic filing of lobbying disclosure reports
       Section 205 requires lobbying disclosure reports to be 
     filed in electronic form, and directs the Clerk of the House 
     and Secretary of the Senate to use the same electronic 
     software for receipt and recording of the filings.
     Section 206. Prohibition on provision of gifts or travel by 
         lobbyists that are registered or required to register 
         under the LDA, to Members of Congress and to 
         congressional employees
       This provision prohibits registrants and lobbyists from 
     providing gifts or travel to covered legislative branch 
     officials with knowledge that the gift or travel is in 
     violation of House or Senate rules.
     Section 207. Disclosure of lobbying activities by certain 
         coalitions and associations
       This section amends existing rules in section 4(b)(3) of 
     the Lobbying Disclosure Act requiring reporting of 
     ``affiliated organizations.'' The bill closes a loophole that 
     has allowed so-called ``stealth coalitions,'' often with 
     innocuous-sounding names, to operate without identifying the 
     interests engaged in the lobbying activities. Section 207 
     requires registrants to disclose the identity of any 
     organization, other than the client, that contributes more 
     than $5,000 toward the registrant's lobbying activities 
     (either directly to the registrant or indirectly through the 
     client) in a quarterly period and actively participates in 
     the planning, supervision, or control of such lobbying 
     activities.
       The new provision includes several exceptions to narrow the 
     rule. First, it does not require disclosure of an 
     organization or entity that would otherwise be identified if 
     the client already lists the organization or entity as a 
     member or contributor on its publicly-accessible website. In 
     such cases, the registrant must report the specific web page 
     that includes the relevant information. If the entity would 
     have been disclosed under the existing rule 4(b)(3) language 
     (as adjusted, i.e., the entity contributes $5,000 per quarter 
     to the lobbying activities and in whole or in major part 
     plans, supervises, or controls the lobbying activities), 
     however, that entity must still be disclosed. Second, the new 
     rule makes clear that it does not require disclosure of 
     individuals that are members of or donors to a client or an 
     entity identified as an affiliated entity.
       The provision requires disclosure only of organizations or 
     entities that ``actively participate'' in the planning, 
     supervision, or control of the lobbying activities described 
     in the report. Entities or organizations that have only a 
     passive role--e.g., mere donors, mere recipients of 
     information and reports, etc.--would not be considered to be 
     ``actively participating'' in the lobbying activities.

[[Page S10710]]

     Section 208. Disclosure by registered lobbyists of past 
         executive branch and congressional employment
       This provision amends the requirement under the Lobbying 
     Disclosure Act that lobbyists disclose their executive or 
     legislative employment in the preceding two years. 
     Specifically, section 208 extends the disclosure to include 
     executive and legislative branch employment in the preceding 
     20 years.
     Section 209. Public availability of lobbying disclosure 
         information; maintenance of information
       Section 209 directs the Secretary of the Senate and the 
     Clerk of the House to maintain and provide online access to 
     an electronic database in a searchable, sortable, and 
     downloadable manner, that includes the information contained 
     in registrations and reports filed under this Act for a 
     period of 6 years after they are filed and provides an 
     electronic link to relevant information in the database of 
     the Federal Election Commission.
     Section 210. Disclosure of enforcement for noncompliance
       This section requires the Secretary of the Senate and the 
     Clerk of the House to publicly disclose on a semi annual 
     basis the aggregate number of lobbyists and lobbying firms 
     referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia 
     for noncompliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act. It also 
     requires the Attorney General to report semiannually to 
     Congress on the aggregate number of enforcement actions taken 
     by the Department of Justice under the Lobbying Disclosure 
     Act and the amount of fines and prison sentences imposed.
     Section 211. Increased civil and criminal penalties for 
         failure to comply with lobbying disclosure requirements
       Section 211 increases the civil penalty for violations of 
     the Lobby Disclosure Act from $50,000 to $200,000. It imposes 
     a criminal penalty of up to five years for knowing and 
     corrupt failure to comply with the Act.
     Section 212. Electronic filing and public database for 
         lobbyists for foreign governments
       This provision amends the Foreign Agents Registration Act 
     (FARA) to require that mandatory registration statements or 
     updates be filed electronically, in addition to any other 
     form that may be required by the Attorney General. It 
     requires the Attorney General to maintain a searchable and 
     sortable electronic database, made publicly available on the 
     Internet, that includes the information contained in 
     registration statements and updates filed under FARA.
     Section 213. Comptroller general audit and annual report
       Under Section 213, the Comptroller General will annually 
     review random samples of publicly-available registrations and 
     reports filed by lobbyists, lobbying firms, and registrants 
     and evaluate compliance by those individuals and entities 
     with the Lobbying Disclosure Act--i.e., it will review the 
     same registrations and reports that are available to the 
     public. The GAO is required to report annually to Congress on 
     its findings. The report will include recommendations to 
     Congress on improving compliance and providing the Department 
     of Justice with the resources and authorities necessary for 
     effective enforcement. Under this provision, it is intended 
     that the GAO audit lobbyist compliance with the Lobbying 
     Disclosure Act; the provision does not give the GAO authority 
     to audit the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the 
     House's activities under the LDA, including receipt, 
     compilation, dissemination and/or review of information filed 
     under the LDA.
       Section 213(c) authorizes the Comptroller General to 
     request and receive information from lobbyists, lobbying 
     firms and registrants. This section provides the Comptroller 
     General with the tools necessary to evaluate whether the 
     information included by lobbyists, lobbying firms and 
     registrants in the reports filed under this Act is accurate 
     and complete, and thus whether these individuals and entities 
     are complying with the Act. Nothing in this section provides 
     authority for the GAO to obtain information protected by the 
     attorney-client privilege.
     Section 214. Sense of Congress regarding lobbying by 
         immediate family members
       Section 214 expresses the Sense of Congress that the use of 
     family relationships by a lobbyist who is an immediate family 
     member of a Member of Congress to gain special advantage over 
     another lobbyist is inappropriate.
     Section 215. Effective date
       Sections 201, 202, 205, 207, 208, 209 and 210 apply to 
     information in periods on or after January 1, 2008, and for 
     subsequent registrations and reports. Section 203 goes into 
     effect on the first semi-annual reporting period that begins 
     after enactment. Section 204 goes into effect 90 days after 
     the FEC has promulgated final regulations. Sections 206 and 
     211 go into effect upon enactment. Section 212 goes into 
     effect 90 days after enactment. Section 213 requires the 
     first audit to be done with respect to filings in the first 
     calendar quarter of 2008 and the report to Congress be 
     completed within 6 months after that quarter, with annual 
     reports thereafter.


                 Title III Standing Rules of the House

       Title III includes changes to the Rules of the House. 
     Information provided with respect to Title III simply 
     summarizes the provisions of the Act and is not meant to be 
     authoritative legislative history with respect to the 
     provisions in that Title.
     Section 301. Disclosure by Members and staff of employment 
         negotiations
       This provision prohibits House Members from engaging in any 
     agreements or negotiations with regard to future employment 
     or salary until his or her successor has been selected unless 
     he or she, within three business days after the commencement 
     of such negotiations or agreements, files a signed statement 
     disclosing the nature of such negotiations or agreements, the 
     name of the private entity or entities involved, and the date 
     such negotiations commenced with the Committee on Standards 
     of Official Conduct. It requires that Members recuse 
     themselves from any matter in which there is a conflict of 
     interest or an appearance of a conflict, and that Members 
     submit a statement of disclosure to the Clerk for public 
     release in the event that such a recusal is made. It requires 
     senior staff to notify the Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct within three days if they engage in negotiations or 
     agreements for future employment or compensation.
     Section 302. Prohibition on lobbying contacts with spouse of 
         Member who is a registered lobbyist
       Section 302 amends House Rules to require that Members 
     prohibit their staff from having any lobbying contact with 
     the Member's spouse if such individual is a registered 
     lobbyist or is employed or retained by a registered lobbyist 
     to influence legislation.
     Section 303. Treatment of firms and other businesses whose 
         members serve as House committee consultants
       This section clarifies that when a person is serving as a 
     House committee consultant, other members and employees of 
     that person's employing firm, partnership, or other business 
     organization, shall be subject to the same lobbying 
     restrictions that apply to that individual under the Rules.
     Section 304. Posting of travel and financial disclosure 
         reports on public website of Clerk of the House of 
         Representatives
       Section 304 directs the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives to develop a publicly available, searchable, 
     sortable and downloadable website by August 1, 2008 to post 
     Members' travel information that is required to be disclosed 
     under rule XXV of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
       It directs the Clerk of the House of Representatives to 
     post on a publicly available website by August 1, 2008 
     Members' financial disclosure reports required to be filed 
     under section 103(h)(1) of the Ethics in Government Act. 
     Allows Members to omit personally identifiable information 
     from these forms.
     Section 305. Participation in lobbyist sponsored events 
         during political conventions
       This section prohibits Members from attending parties held 
     in their honor at national party conventions if they have 
     been directly paid for by lobbyists, unless the Member is the 
     party's presidential or vice presidential nominee.
     Section 306. Exercise of rulemaking authority
       This provision acknowledges that the House adopts the 
     provisions in this title as an exercise of its rule making 
     power with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     the House to change those rules at any time.


             Title IV Congressional Pension Accountability

     Section 401. Loss of pensions accrued during service as a 
         Member of Congress for abusing the public trust
       Section 401 prohibits Members from receiving their pension 
     earned while serving in Congress if convicted of bribery, 
     perjury, conspiracy or other related crimes in the course of 
     carrying out their official duties as a Member of Congress.


       Title V Senate Legislative Transparency and Accountability

     Section 511. Amendments to Rule XXVIII
       Section 511 amends certain provisions of Rule XXVIII of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate, and adds a new provision to the 
     Rule. Rule XXVIII currently provides for a point of order to 
     be made against a conference report if the conferees add 
     ``new matter'' ``not committed to them by either House.'' 
     (The current rule also includes language purporting to 
     prevent conferees from ``strik[ing] from the bill matter 
     agreed to by both Houses.'' The bill authors, in consultation 
     with the Parliamentarian, could not identify a situation in 
     which this language could ever have effect. When there are 
     amendments in disagreement, the conferees have no authority 
     over matter not in disagreement, and thus could not strike 
     such material. When a disagreement to any amendment, 
     including an amendment in the nature of a substitute, has 
     been referred to conferees, nothing has been ``agreed to by 
     both Houses.'') As Rule XXVIII notes, conferees may include 
     in their report matter which is a germane modification of 
     subjects in disagreement, and the amendments made in this 
     section do not change that rule.
       Section 511 does, however, change the parliamentary 
     consequences if conferees violate the rule by adding new 
     matter. Rule XXVIII currently provides a very blunt 
     instrument--if a point of order is sustained, the conference 
     report is rejected or recommitted to the conference if the 
     House has not already acted. Because many times the House 
     will have already acted, successful invocation of Rule XXVIII 
     would often spell the death knell for legislation. This 
     result has two negative consequences. When successfully 
     invoked, Rule XXVIII may derail legislation

[[Page S10711]]

     that otherwise has strong bipartisan support. At the same 
     time, because of the dramatic consequences from making a 
     point of order under Rule XXVIII, it is rarely invoked. In 
     fact, some Senators believe that the very blunt nature of 
     Rule XXVIII has provided conferees more leeway to add new 
     matter on ``must pass'' bills.
       Section 511 amends the current Rule XXVIII point of order 
     in two ways. First, it changes Rule XXVIII from a blunt 
     instrument to a ``surgical'' one--if new matter is added by 
     conferees, then a point of order may be made and, if 
     successful, the new matter shall be struck, and the Senate 
     will then proceed to consider whether to concur in the bill 
     as so amended by the removal of the material stricken on the 
     point(s) of order, and send it back to the House. Second, 
     Section 511 adds the possibility of 60-vote waivers for 
     points of order under the rule. The language in Section 511 
     is similar to that used in the so-called ``Byrd'' rule and is 
     intended to be interpreted similarly--waivers may be as to 
     one, multiple, or all points of order under the rule; waivers 
     may be made after a point of order has been raised or 
     prospectively. Section 511 also ensures that appeals from 
     rulings of the Chair may be sustained only by an affirmative 
     vote of three-fifths of all Senators (generally, 60 votes).
       Separately, Section 511 adds a new paragraph 9 to Rule 
     XXVIII, which requires that all conference reports be posted 
     on a publicly accessible website controlled by Congress 48 
     hours prior to the vote on adoption of the conference report, 
     as reported to the Presiding Officer by the Secretary of the 
     Senate. This new rule is enforceable via a point of order, 
     which may be waived by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of 
     all Senators. The requirements of the rule may be fulfilled 
     by posting the conference report on any publicly accessible 
     website controlled by a Member of Congress, committee of 
     either the House or Senate, the Library of Congress, another 
     office of the House, the Senate, or Congress, or the 
     Government Printing Office. Section 511 directs the Committee 
     on Rules and Administration, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House, and the 
     GPO to issue regulations to help harmonize practice among 
     conference committees for the convenience of Senators and the 
     public. Paragraph 9 may be waived by an affirmative vote of 
     three-fifths of all Senators. Waivers may be made after a 
     point of order is made or prospectively.
       Under well-established Senate precedent, a new directed 
     spending provision added in conference does not constitute 
     ``new matter'' if it relates to the matter in conference. The 
     modifications to rule XXVIII do not change the well-
     established rule. The new rule XLIV includes a separate 
     provision relating to the addition of ``new directed spending 
     provisions'' in conference.
     Section 512. Notice of objecting to proceeding
       Section 512 relates to the concept of so-called ``secret 
     holds.'' Section 512 provides that the Majority Leader or 
     Minority Leader or their designees shall recognize another 
     Senator's notice of intent to object to proceeding to a 
     measure or matter subsequent to the six-day period described 
     below only if that other Senator complies with the provisions 
     of this section. Under the procedure described in section 
     512, after an objection has been made to a unanimous consent 
     request to proceeding to or passage of a measure on behalf of 
     a Senator, that Senator must submit the notice of intent to 
     object in writing to his or her respective leader, and within 
     6 session days after that submit a notice of intent to 
     object, to be published in the Congressional Record and on a 
     special calendar entitled ``Notice of Intent to Object to 
     Proceeding.'' The Senator may specify the reasons for the 
     objection if the Senator wishes.
       If the Senator notifies the Majority Leader or Minority 
     Leader (as the case may be) that he or she has withdrawn the 
     notice of intent to object prior to the passage of 6 session 
     days, then no notification need be submitted. A notice once 
     filed may be removed after the objecting Senator submits to 
     the Congressional Record a statement that he or she no longer 
     objects to proceeding.
     Section 513. Public availability of Senate committee and 
         subcommittee meetings
       Section 513 requires that, 90 days after enactment, Senate 
     committees and subcommittees shall make available through the 
     Internet a video recording, an audio recording or a 
     transcript of all public meetings of the committee not later 
     than 21 business days after the meeting occurs. This 
     requirement may be waived by the Rules Committee upon request 
     should the committee or subcommittee be unable to comply due 
     to technical or logistical issues. To be issued a waiver, a 
     committee will be expected to prove that none of the three 
     means of recording a committee meeting are technically or 
     logistically feasible in the space that the meeting is being 
     held.
     Section 514. Amendments and motions to recommit
       Section 514 amends Rule XV of the Senate to require that an 
     amendment and any instruction accompanying a motion to 
     recommit be reduced to writing and read, and that identical 
     copies be provided to the desks and the Majority and Minority 
     Leaders before being debated. Section 514 further amends Rule 
     XV to require motions to be reduced to writing if desired by 
     the Presiding Officer or any Senator, and be read before 
     being debated.
     Section 515. Sense of the Senate on conference committee 
         protocols
       Section 515 expresses the Sense of the Senate that 
     conference committees should hold regular, formal meetings of 
     all conferees that are open to the public, that conferees 
     should be given adequate notice of the time and place of such 
     meetings, and be allowed to participate in full and complete 
     debate on the matter before the committee, and that the text 
     of the report of a conference committee should not be changed 
     after the signature sheets have been signed by a majority of 
     the Senate conferees.
     Section 521. Congressionally directed spending
       Section 521 establishes a new Senate Rule XLIV, which 
     provides sweeping reforms to the treatment of so-called 
     ``earmarks,'' limited tax benefits, and limited tariff 
     benefits in legislation before the Senate. With respect to 
     ``earmarks,'' the Rule provides a more accurate term--
     congressionally directed spending items--because 
     congressional ``earmarks'' merely reflect the spending 
     priorities of Congress, just as Presidential ``earmarks'' 
     reflect the spending priorities of the President. The 
     Constitution provides Congress control over the 
     appropriations of the federal government, and congressionally 
     directed spending constitutes a legitimate and important 
     exercise of that authority. Rule XLIV also creates rules for 
     ``limited tax benefits'' and limited tariff benefits in 
     legislation--essentially, tax provisions and tariff 
     suspensions that assist only a small number of beneficiaries. 
     The provisions of Rule XLIV fall into three main categories--
     transparency, accountability, and discipline.
       Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the new rule require the Chairman of 
     the committee of jurisdiction (or the Majority Leader or his 
     or designee) to certify that all congressionally directed 
     spending items, limited tax benefits, and limited tariff 
     benefits in bills and joint resolutions (and accompanying 
     reports), have been identified through lists charts, or other 
     similar means, including the name of each Senate sponsor, on 
     a publicly accessible congressional website, in a searchable 
     format, at least 48 hours before the vote on the motion to 
     proceed to consider the bill or joint resolution. If a point 
     of order is sustained, then the motion to proceed shall be 
     suspended until the sponsor of the motion (or his or her 
     designee) has requested resumption and compliance with the 
     requirements of the relevant paragraph has been achieved. In 
     light of the possibility that it may take a day or more for 
     compliance to be achieved and/or for a request for 
     resumption, suspended motions under these paragraphs shall 
     not terminate when Congress adjourns.
       Paragraph 3 establishes a similar rule for conference 
     reports the Chairman of the committee of jurisdiction (or the 
     Majority Leader or his or her designee) must certify that all 
     congressionally directed spending items, limited tax 
     benefits, and limited tariff benefits in bills and joint 
     resolutions (and the accompanying joint statement of 
     managers), have been identified through lists, charts, or 
     other similar means, including the name of each Senate 
     sponsor, on a publicly accessible congressional website at 
     least 48 hours before the vote on adoption of the conference 
     report. If a point of order is sustained under paragraph 3, 
     then the conference report shall be set aside.
       The bill follows the basic approach taken by the House, 
     which has ensured broad transparency throughout the 
     appropriations process for the FY08 bills. In each case under 
     paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, the point of order lies as to the 
     existence or not of the certification. Especially given that 
     the definition of ``congressionally directed spending'' 
     requires that the item be included in the bill ``primarily at 
     the request of a Senator,'' the Parliamentarian has no 
     capacity to determine whether a given item is or is not a 
     ``congressionally directed spending'' item and thus is not in 
     a position to determine the accuracy of the list. Requiring 
     the Parliamentarian to make such a determination 
     independently is not only unworkable in practice (e.g., even 
     if the Parliamentarian could make a determination, it would 
     take a tremendous amount of time and resources to compile the 
     lists that are already compiled by numerous committees, each 
     with their own staff), it is impossible--the Parliamentarian 
     has no choice but to defer to the Committee Chair in 
     determining why a particular item was included in a bill. 
     Similarly, the Parliamentarian is not in a position to know 
     the number of individuals or entities impacted by a tax or 
     tariff provision, and so must defer to the relevant Committee 
     Chair on that information.
       The authors fully expect that Committee Chairs (and in the 
     unusual case that the Majority Leader or his or her designee 
     must provide the certification, the Majority Leader or 
     designee) will fully, honestly, and in good faith, comply 
     with the requirements of the new Rule. Given the role of the 
     Ranking Member in compiling the bill and the list of 
     congressionally directed spending items, a Chairman may 
     request that the Ranking Member (and the Chair and Ranking 
     Member of a relevant subcommittee) join him or her in making 
     the certification. In addition, it is consistent with the 
     spirit of the rule if a Committee Chair chooses to identify 
     Presidential earmark requests.
       Rule XLIV provides rules on waivers and appeals from 
     paragraphs 1, 2, and 3. Waivers may be made after a point of 
     order has been raised or prospectively. The rule also places 
     limits on appeals, because a successful appeal would 
     eviscerate the paragraph under

[[Page S10712]]

     which the appealed ruling had been made, eliminating the new 
     transparency to which the Senate has committed itself. Rule 
     XLIV places limits on debate for appeals and waivers, so that 
     these are not used as dilatory measures.
       Paragraph 4 of new Rule XLIV requires Senators that propose 
     amendments containing congressionally directed spending 
     items, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits to 
     identify each such item, and the Senate sponsor, in the 
     Congressional Record as soon as practicable. Paragraph 4 also 
     directs Committees to make publicly available on the Internet 
     as soon as practicable after reporting a bill or joint 
     resolution, the list of congressionally directed spending 
     items, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits 
     included in the bill, joint resolution or accompanying 
     report. Finally, paragraph 4 states that, to the extent 
     technically feasible, information provided under paragraphs 3 
     and 4 shall be provided in a searchable format. The 
     electronic version of the Congressional Record constitutes 
     one option for a ``searchable'' publication.
       Paragraph 7 provides that, for congressionally directed 
     spending items in classified portions of a report 
     accompanying a bill, joint resolution, or conference report, 
     the committee of jurisdiction shall, to the greatest extent 
     practicable consistent with the need to protect national 
     security, provide a general program description, funding 
     level, and name of Senate sponsor.
       In addition to the requirement that Senate sponsors of 
     congressionally directed spending items, limited tax 
     benefits, and limited tariff benefits be identified, Rule 
     XLIV requires accountability through paragraphs 6 and 9. 
     Paragraph 6 requires Senators who request congressionally 
     directed spending items, limited tax benefits, and limited 
     tariff benefits to provide a written statement to the 
     relevant Chairman and Ranking Member that identifies the name 
     and location of the intended recipient or activity, the 
     purpose of the item, and a certification that neither the 
     Senator nor the Senator's immediate family has a pecuniary 
     interest in the item, consistent with the requirements of 
     paragraph 9. Paragraph 9 makes the requirements of Rule 
     XXXVII(4)--the longstanding Senate Rule against financial 
     interest by Senators and Senate employees relating to any 
     legislative action--specific to actions relating to 
     congressionally directed spending items, limited tax 
     benefits, and limited tariff benefits. It is anticipated that 
     the Select Committee on Ethics will apply the requirements of 
     paragraph 9 (including as incorporated by reference into 
     paragraph 6) identical to the way in which it has applied 
     Rule XXXVII(4).
       Finally, Rule XLIV provides an important tool for 
     disciplining the conference process to ensure that new 
     directed spending provisions--i.e., directed spending 
     provisions not included in either the House or the Senate 
     bill committed to conference--are not added in conference. 
     Specifically, paragraph 8 allows any Senator to raise a point 
     of order against one or more new directed spending provisions 
     added in conference. (It is important to note that the term 
     ``new directed spending provision'' is defined differently 
     than the term ``congressionally directed spending item.'') 
     The term ``measure'' as used in paragraph 8 refers only to 
     the bill or amendment committed to the conferees by either 
     House. If the point of order is sustained, then the provision 
     is struck from the bill and the Senate will then proceed to 
     consider whether to concur in the bill as so amended by the 
     removal of the material stricken on the point(s) of order, 
     and send it back to the House. The rule includes the 
     possibility of 60-vote waivers for points of order under the 
     rule. The language is similar to that used in the so-called 
     ``Byrd'' rule and is intended to be interpreted similarly--
     waivers may be as to one, multiple, or all points of order 
     under the rule; waivers may be made after a point of order 
     has been raised or prospectively.
       Rule XLIV provides for a number of points of orders, and 
     sets out rules for accompanying waivers and appeals. If Rule 
     XLIV does not expressly provide for a point of order with 
     respect to a provision, then no point of order shall lie 
     under that provision. Rule XLIV also includes in paragraph 
     11, a waiver of all points of order under the rule with 
     respect to a pending measure. As with other waivers in the 
     rule, it may be made after a point of order has been made 
     or prospectively.
     Section 531. Post employment restrictions
       Section 531 amends the current ``revolving door'' 
     restrictions in Rule XXXVII of the Senate Rules. 
     Specifically, Section 531 amends the rule to prohibit 
     Senators from lobbying Congress for two years after they 
     leave office and prohibits officers and senior employees from 
     lobbying the Senate for one year after they leave Senate 
     employment. Senior employees of the Senate are those who, for 
     at least 60 days, during the 1-year period before they leave 
     Senate employment are paid a rate of basic pay equal to or 
     greater than 75 percent of the basic rate of pay payable to a 
     Senator.
       The new ``revolving door'' restrictions are effective only 
     for Senate staff that terminate Senate employment on or after 
     the date that the 1st session of the 110th Congress adjourns 
     sine die or December 31, 2007, whichever is earlier. A 
     delayed effective date was deemed more reasonable and 
     practical than an immediate effective date.
     Section 532. Disclosure by Members of Congress and staff of 
         employment negotiations
       Section 532 amends Senate Rule XXVIII to add new disclosure 
     requirements for employment negotiations. This provision 
     requires Senators to disclose within 3 business days any 
     negotiations they engage in to secure future employment 
     before their successor is elected. The new addition to Rule 
     XXXVII also prohibits Senators from seeking employment at all 
     as a registered lobbyist until his or her successor has been 
     elected. It requires senior staff to notify the Ethics 
     Committee within 3 days of beginning negotiations for future 
     employment, and to recuse themselves from involvement in a 
     matter should employment negotiations create a conflict of 
     interest or the appearance of a conflict.
     Section 533. Elimination of floor privileges for former 
         Members, Senate officers, and Speakers of the House who 
         are lobbyists or seek financial gain
       This section amends Senate Rule XXIII to revoke floor 
     privileges and the use of the Members' athletic facilities 
     and parking for former Senators, former Secretaries of the 
     Senate, former Sergeants at Arms of the Senate and former 
     Speakers of the House who are registered lobbyists. The Rules 
     Committee will issue guidelines to allow those affected by 
     this provision to participate in ceremonial functions and 
     events on the Senate floor.
     Section 534. Influencing hiring decisions
       Section 534 amends Senate Rule XLIII to specifically 
     prohibit members from taking official action or threatening 
     to take official action in an effort to influence hiring 
     decisions of private organizations on the sole basis of 
     partisan political affiliation. This section is not intended 
     to preclude Senators from providing references or writing 
     letters of recommendation that speak to the credentials of an 
     individual.
     Section 535. Notification of post-employment restrictions
       Section 535 requires the Secretary of the Senate to notify 
     Members, officers or employees of the Senate of the beginning 
     and end dates of their post-employment lobbying restrictions 
     under the Senate Rules. It is expected that the Secretary of 
     the Senate will encourage Senators and staff to contact the 
     Ethics Committee for a full explanation of the terms of their 
     post-employment lobbying restrictions. This provision goes 
     into effect 60 days after the date of enactment.
     Section 541. Ban on gifts from lobbyists and entities that 
         hire lobbyists
       Section 541 amends the gift rules in Rule XXXV of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate. This provision prohibits 
     Senators and their staff from accepting gifts from registered 
     lobbyists or entities that hire or employ them. The provision 
     does not alter the exceptions under Rule XXXV(1)(c).
     Section 542. National party conventions
       This provision prohibits Senators from attending parties 
     held in their honor at national party conventions if they 
     have been directly paid for by lobbyists, unless the Senator 
     is the party's presidential or vice presidential nominee.
     Section 543. Proper valuation of tickets to entertainment and 
         sporting events
       Section 543 specifies that the market value of a ticket to 
     an entertainment or sporting event shall be the face value of 
     the ticket, or in the case of a ticket without a face value, 
     the value of the highest priced ticket to the event. It 
     allows the ticket holder to establish that a ticket without a 
     face value is equivalent to a ticket priced less than the 
     highest priced ticket by providing information related to the 
     primary features of the ticket to the Ethics Committee. In 
     order for a ticket holder to have the option to establish 
     ``equivalency,'' he or she must provide information to the 
     Ethics Committee prior to attending the event. The Committee 
     may accept information obtained on the Internet from venues 
     and third-party ticket vendors.
     Section 544. Restrictions on lobbyist participation in travel 
         and disclosure
       Section 544 makes significant changes to the provisions in 
     paragraph 2 of Rule XXXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate 
     relating to reimbursement for travel for Senators and staff 
     from third parties. Section 544 prohibits certain types of 
     travel altogether, restricts other travel, and imposes new 
     requirements applicable to all privately funded travel.
       Section 544 generally prohibits privately funded travel 
     paid for by entities that hire lobbyists or foreign agents. 
     It creates two exceptions from this general rule. First, 
     section 544 allows trips paid for by entities that hire 
     lobbyists or foreign agents if they are for one-day's 
     attendance/participation at an appropriate event (exclusive 
     of travel time and an overnight stay). The Select Committee 
     on Ethics is given authority to issue guidelines that would 
     allow a two-night stay when practically required to 
     participate in an event (e.g., an event requiring travel 
     across the country). With respect to these ``one day 
     trips,'' in addition to the other restrictions described 
     below, the new rule prohibits lobbyists from accompanying 
     the Member, officer, or employee on any ``segment of the 
     trip'' in other than a de minimis way, and requires a trip 
     sponsor to provide a certification to that effect. It is 
     intended that this language be interpreted identically to 
     the interpretation given similar language by the House 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in its 
     memorandum dated March 14, 2007.
       Second, section 544 allows trips paid for by 501(c)(3) 
     organizations, regardless of whether

[[Page S10713]]

     the organization hires a lobbyist or foreign agent. The 
     Senate made the judgment that 501(c)(3)s, due to their non-
     profit and often educational or public-interest nature were 
     not likely to be a source of abuse. In this respect, 
     501(c)(3)s are treated similar to entities that do not hire 
     lobbyists or foreign agents.
       Section 544 also establishes new rules across the board for 
     all trips. It requires pre-approval from the Select Committee 
     on Ethics for all trips. The Select Committee on Ethics must 
     issue guidelines on the factors it will use to pre-approve a 
     trip.
       Additionally, regardless of trip sponsor, section 544 
     prohibits Senators, officers, or staff from participating in 
     trips planned, organized, or arranged by or at the request of 
     a lobbyist or foreign agent in other than a de minimis way, 
     and a trip sponsor must provide a certification to that 
     effect. As a general matter, the term ``de minimis'' means 
     negligible or inconsequential. It would be ``negligible or 
     inconsequential'' for a lobbyist to respond to a trip 
     sponsor's request that the lobbyist identify Members or staff 
     with a possible interest in a particular issue relevant to a 
     planned trip or to suggest particular aspects of a Member or 
     staffer's interest known to the lobbyist. For instance, if a 
     trip sponsor that was a 501(c)(3) asked a lobbyist which 
     staffers might be most interested in joining a trip to the 
     U.S.-Mexican border and the lobbyist knew that a potential 
     trip participant had a particular interest in the DEA's 
     activities at the border, or in a particular border facility, 
     then the conveyance and receipt of that information (in light 
     of the trip sponsor's request), in and of itself, would not 
     exceed a de minimis level of participation. Additionally, the 
     mere presence of one or more lobbyists on the board of an 
     organization does not exceed a de minimis involvement. If a 
     lobbyist solicits or initiates an exchange of information 
     with a trip sponsor, however, that would go beyond de 
     minimis. Additionally, if the lobbyist has ultimate control 
     over which Members or staff are actually invited on the trip, 
     or determines the trip itinerary, each of these would go 
     beyond de minimis. Certainly, if a lobbyist actually extends 
     or forwards an invitation to a participant, or if an 
     invitation mentions a referral or suggestion of a lobbyist, 
     each of these would go beyond de minimis.
       For all trips other than one day trips paid for by entities 
     that hire lobbyists, the new rule prohibits a lobbyist from 
     accompanying the Member, officer, or employee ``at any point 
     throughout the trip'' in other than a de minimis way. This 
     language should be interpreted in a manner different--and 
     more broadly--than the concept of ``any segment of the 
     trip.''
       Both lobbyist ``accompaniment'' standards include a de 
     minimis exception. The Act directs the Select Committee on 
     Ethics to issue guidance on what constitutes ``de minimis.'' 
     If the trip includes attendance at an event that meets the 
     definition of a ``widely attended event'' under Rule 
     XXXV(1)(c)(18), the trip sponsor is unlikely to know all 
     attendees at the event. Accordingly, a lobbyist's attendance 
     at a ``widely attended event'' also attended on the trip 
     would be a type of de minimis ``accompaniment.'' Similarly, 
     an organization cannot possibly know the other passengers 
     that might be on a common carrier used during a trip if the 
     organization has had no contact or coordination with these 
     other passengers. Accordingly, the new rule does not require 
     a sponsor to certify that it knows for certain that no 
     lobbyist will be on such a common carrier.
       Section 544 also improves disclosure of privately funded 
     travel. It requires Members, officers and Senate employees to 
     disclose the expenses reimbursed by a private entity not 
     later than 30 days after the travel is completed and requires 
     disclosure of greater detail on the types of meetings and 
     events attended on the trip.
       Section 544 includes a separate provision relating to 
     flights on private jets. This provision requires Senators to 
     pay full market value--defined as charter rates--for flights 
     on private jets, with an exception for jets owned by 
     immediate family members (or non-public corporations in which 
     the Senator or an immediate family member has an ownership 
     interest).
       In general, the changes made by section 544 go into effect 
     60 days after enactment, or the date that the Select 
     Committee on Ethics issues the required guidelines under the 
     rule, whichever is later. Until the new rules take effect, 
     the existing rules for travel will remain in place. In light 
     of the transition to the new rule relating to reimbursement 
     for flights on private jets and the lack of experience in 
     many offices in determining ``charter rates,'' the Select 
     Committee on Ethics may treat reimbursement at current rates 
     as reimbursement at charter rates for a transition period not 
     to exceed 60 days.
       Section 544 includes an important caveat--nothing in 
     section 544 or section 541 is meant to alter law or treatment 
     under Senate rules, of gifts and travel that fall under the 
     Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act or the Mutual Educational 
     and Cultural Exchange Act. Gifts and travel under those 
     provisions are governed by a separate regulatory regime.
       Section 544 directs the Legislative Branch Appropriations 
     subcommittee, and the Committee on Rules to examine within 90 
     days whether congressional travel allowances will need to be 
     adjusted in light of the new restrictions on privately funded 
     travel.
     Section 545. Free attendance at a constituent event
       Section 545 creates a new, narrow exception, to the gift 
     rule for small constituent events. Specifically, section 545 
     allows Senators, officers or employees to accept free 
     attendance at a conference, convention, symposium, forum, 
     panel discussion, dinner event, site visit, viewing, 
     reception or similar event in their home state if it is 
     sponsored by constituents or a group of constituents, and 
     attended primarily by at least 5 constituents, provided that 
     there are no registered lobbyists in attendance, and that the 
     cost of any meal served is less than $50.
     Section 546. Senate privately paid travel public website
       This provision directs the Secretary of the Senate to 
     develop a publicly available, searchable website by January 
     1, 2008 to post Senators' travel information that is required 
     to be disclosed under rule XXXV of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate.
     Section 551. Compliance with Lobbying Disclosure
       Section 551 makes clear that former members and staff who 
     are registered lobbyists may contact the staff of the 
     Secretary of the Senate regarding compliance with the 
     lobbying disclosure requirements of the Lobbying Disclosure 
     Act of 1995 despite post-employment lobbying restrictions.
     Section 552. Prohibit official contact with spouse or 
         immediate family member who is a registered lobbyist
       This provision prohibits Senate spouses who are registered 
     lobbyists from engaging in lobbying contacts with any Senate 
     office, but exempts Senate spouses who were serving as 
     registered lobbyists at least one year prior to the most 
     recent election of their spouse to office, or at least one 
     year prior to their marriage to that Member.
       The provision also prohibits a Senator's immediate family 
     members (including a spouse) who are registered lobbyists, 
     from engaging in lobbying contacts with the Senator's staff.
     Section 553. Mandatory Senate ethics training for Members and 
         staff
       This section requires the Ethics Committee to conduct 
     ongoing ethics training and awareness programs for Senators 
     and Senate staff.
     Section 554. Annual report by Select Committee on Ethics
       Section 554 directs the Ethics Committee to issue an annual 
     report that describes the number of alleged violations of 
     Senate rules received from any source, a list of the number 
     of alleged violations that were dismissed, the number of 
     alleged violations in which the committee conducted a 
     preliminary inquiry, the number of alleged violations that 
     resulted in an adjudicatory review, the number of alleged 
     violations that the committee dismissed, the number of 
     letters of admonition issued and the number of matters 
     resulting in disciplinary sanction. Nothing in this section 
     requires or allows the Ethics Committee to violate the 
     confidential nature of its proceedings.
     Section 555. Exercise of rule making power
       This section acknowledges that the Senate adopts the 
     provisions in this title as an exercise of its rule making 
     power with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     the Senate to change those rules at any time.
     Section 556. Effective dates and general provisions
       All sections in this title go into effect upon enactment 
     except for section 513, which goes into effect 90 days after 
     enactment; section 531: This title shall take effect on the 
     date of enactment unless otherwise noted.


              Title VI--Prohibited Use of Private Aircraft

     Section 601. Restrictions on Use of Campaign Funds for 
         Flights on Non Commercial Aircraft
       Section 601 amends the Federal Election Campaign Act to 
     require that candidates, other than those running for a seat 
     in the House of Representatives, pay the fair market value of 
     airfare when using non-commercial jets to travel. Fair market 
     value is to be determined by dividing the fair market value 
     of the charter fare of the aircraft, by the number of 
     candidates on the flight. This provision exempts aircraft 
     owned or leased by candidates or candidates' immediate family 
     members (or non-public corporations in which the Senator or 
     his or her immediate family member has an ownership 
     interest). The bill prohibits candidates for the House of 
     Representatives from any campaign use of privately-owned, 
     non-chartered jets.
       Many candidates are not accustomed to determining charter 
     rates. The FEC may, during a transition period of no more 
     than 60 days, deem reimbursement at current rates to be 
     charter rates while committees determine how to calculate 
     charter rates.


                   Title VII Miscellaneous Provisions

     Section 701. Sense of the Congress that any applicable 
         restrictions on Congressional branch employees should 
         apply to the Executive and Judicial branches
       This section expresses the Sense of Congress that any 
     applicable restrictions on Congressional branch employees in 
     this title should apply to the executive and judicial 
     branches.
     Section 702. Knowing and willful falsification or failure to 
         report
       This provision increases from $10,000 to $50,000 the 
     penalty for knowingly and willfully falsifying or knowingly 
     and willfully failing to report financial disclosure forms

[[Page S10714]]

     required by the Ethics in Government Act. It imposes a 
     criminal penalty of up to one year of imprisonment and/or a 
     fine for knowingly and willfully falsifying such report and 
     imposes a fine for knowingly and willfully failing to file 
     such report.
     Section 703. Rule of construction
       Section 703 provides that nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to prohibit any conduct or activities protected by 
     the free speech, free exercise, or free association clauses 
     of the First Amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, how much time does our side have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 3 minutes 19 
seconds.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I would like to 
say something in response.
  Basically, the earmark language is formed on the DeMint language that 
was in the Senate bill. What happened was that staff sat down with all 
of the Parliamentarians for several hours to determine the workability 
under Senate rules and procedures of the language. Amendments were made 
that would make the language workable.
  Now the Senator from South Carolina contends that the 
Parliamentarians should review the entire bill and rule on whether each 
and every earmark is listed by the Chair and vet that earmark.
  When our offices spoke with the Parliamentarian's office, we realized 
that this was not a workable situation and could lead to gridlock in 
the Senate. Now, maybe that is what the junior Senator from South 
Carolina wants, but I, for one, believe the American people want us to 
carry out their business.
  There is full disclosure. There is full transparency. The committee 
chairs must certify that the earmark list is complete. It must be 
published on the Internet 48 hours before it comes before the Senate. 
Disclosure and transparency is what earmark reform is all about. No 
more dark of night additions to bills, even when the conference 
committee is often closed.
  Once again, if the junior Senator from South Carolina had allowed a 
conference, Members would have been able to sit down in the full light 
of day and, Member to Member, House to Senate, discuss this. But 
instead, he alone--he alone--despite importation after importation to 
allow the conference to go ahead, would not allow it to go ahead. One 
Member. That effectively would have stopped the bill--stopped the bill. 
Instead, the majority leader and the Speaker of the House, after the 
bill passed the House by a wide margin, believed this was too important 
to let one Member--one Member--stop it. So they figured a way to bring 
a bill from the House, which is what is now before us.

  To me, this is all sour milk, spoiled milk. He would have stopped the 
bill dead if he could have his way. But it didn't happen that way. And 
you know, there is more than one Member of the Senate. There are more 
than 2, 3, 4 or 5; there are 100 Members. Members' views have to be 
taken into consideration.
  Yes, there was some change in the language, but there is nothing in 
the change of language that in any way, shape or form stops full 
disclosure or the certification of the committee chair or stops putting 
it on the Internet 48 hours before it comes to the board. It is real 
reform.
  I hope there will be the votes here for cloture. I urge the Senate of 
the United States to vote for cloture on what is the most significant 
ethics and lobbying reform bill since Watergate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for this good and 
open debate. I remind them that I supported this bill in the beginning 
and have asked unanimous consent a number of times that it go to 
conference. As many of us have pointed out, the earmark provision is a 
Senate rule that doesn't need to be conferenced with the House. The 
only reason to make it part of a conference bill is so it can be 
changed.
  I offered all along that if there were changes the majority wanted to 
make, we were very open to that. We wanted to end up with some real 
earmark transparency that all of us have voted on. As we have pointed 
out this morning, it is not disclosed, and it is not transparent if the 
majority can simply say it is, without having to prove its accuracy. 
That has been the cause of so much corruption. I think it is certainly 
worth stopping and looking at what we have done.
  This language is hardly minor, as far as the change that has taken 
place. If it were, the majority would not insist that their version 
rule today. I urge all my colleagues to vote against cloture--not to 
vote against ethics reform, which we all support, but to vote against 
this process that will not allow us to reinsert something we all voted 
for and we all said in public is the right way to handle earmark 
reform.
  I thank the majority leader for all his work. I yield back the 
remainder of my time.
  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. McCONNELL. 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, more than 6 months after the Senate 
passed its own lobby reform bill, we are now being asked to vote on a 
Democrat-written alternative that promises to be less effective but in 
some ways stronger than current law.
  I was a cosponsor of the original version, and its passage by an 
overwhelming vote of 96 to 2 in January marked an early high point of 
bipartisanship in this session and it was an unmistakable sign of the 
strength of that original bill.
  Americans were right to be outraged by the scandals that surfaced 
last year. They were right to hold their lawmakers to the highest 
standards of conduct, and passing this bill will send a strong and 
necessary signal that the Senate has recommitted itself to that trust.
  As I said, in some key areas, this bill is an improvement over the 
status quo. But this isn't the bill I would have written, and it would 
have benefited from a lot of Republican input.
  The earmarks provision was passed unanimously in January and was 
supported by every single Democrat in the Senate, and it was strong; 
the earmarks provision in this bill is not.
  Several new provisions make hardly any sense at all. My largest 
concern is what we are doing to our own staff. It is unclear to me why 
in this bill we treat House staff more leniently than our most trusted 
advisers in the Senate or even those in the executive branch, for that 
matter. I find this provision particularly offensive.
  The gift ban and the new travel restrictions are tricky and vague by 
extending the ban to not just lobbyists but also to any entities that 
employ or retain them. Does that mean I have to refuse the key to a 
city, since cities have their own lobbyists and mayors belong to 
associations that employ and retain them?
  How about a 22-year-old staff assistant who has to wait tables to 
make ends meet? What happens when they wait on a lobbyist or someone 
who works for an organization that retains one? Do they have to refuse 
their tips? You get the drift.
  This provision is bound to create problems for well-intentioned 
Members and staff. I look to the Ethics Committee to provide some 
clarity to what, at the very least, can be described as a rather murky 
and unworkable provision.
  The new rule on charter flights is seriously deficient. Members who 
are rich enough, or have family members rich enough, to own their own 
planes have nothing, of course, to worry about. Everybody else does.
  For example, all Presidents, who are required by the Secret Service 
to travel on Air Force One, will have to reimburse the Government at 
the full charter rate--which is roughly $400,000 per hour--if they use 
it for campaign travel. That not only means the end of Presidential 
fundraisers outside Washington for Democrats and Republicans, it means 
the end of Presidents doing fundraisers for Members outside the 
District of Columbia. You would have to have a $5 million fundraiser to 
pay

[[Page S10715]]

for the trip. I assume this was not the intent of the authors of the 
bill, but it will be the effect of what they have written. I know some 
Members, in particular, who might be surprised to learn about this. We 
have many of them in this body running for President on both sides.
  Every one of these weaknesses would have been improved with 
Republican input, but we were unable to do so because there was not a 
conference.
  I assure you we will return to the earmarks provision. It will be 
back. This bill isn't nearly as tough as it would have been on earmarks 
if Republicans had been involved in writing it. But weighing the good 
and the bad, many provisions are stronger than current law. I will 
support its passage.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that all time has 
been used.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, last November, there was a call across this 
country that culminated in the November election. It was a call for a 
change in the way Congress does its business. We had nine new 
Democratic Senators. During the campaign, they called for change--and 
they will achieve change today.
  The legislation before us shows Congress heard this call for change. 
The change we have in this legislation, in fact, is big-time change. It 
is the most significant change in lobbying and ethics rules in the 
history of our country--some have said since Watergate, but I say in 
the history of our country.
  This is S. 1, which was the first bill introduced in this body this 
year--our first and most important bill of the new Congress. Why was it 
No. 1? The American people--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--
knew our progress would depend on renewing the people's faith in the 
integrity of Congress. What does this legislation do?
  Among other things, it requires Senators to pay fair market prices 
for charter flights, putting an end to abuses of corporate travel.
  This legislation slows the revolving door by extending the ban on 
lobbying by former Members of Congress and senior staffers, and it 
prevents Senators from even negotiating for a job as a lobbyist until 
their successor has been elected.
  It puts an end to pay-to-play schemes such as the notorious K Street 
Project. It shines the light of day on lobbying activities by vastly 
increasing disclosure requirements, including disclosure of bundled 
campaign contributions.
  It requires the Senate to disclose all earmarks for the first time 
ever.
  We originally passed it by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 96 to 
2.
  In June, I tried to send the bill to conference. I tried and I tried, 
but we were unable to go to conference because of objections by the 
minority. Some Republican colleagues expressed concern that this bill 
might lead to legislation that doesn't achieve the goals of the 
original bipartisan bill. I assured them then, and I assure them now, 
this bill has teeth. I asked them to withhold judgment until the final 
bill was complete.
  I have heard a number of statements today about this bill from some 
of my friends on the other side of the aisle. They say we gutted 
earmark disclosure, that we have tried to hide earmarks, keep them in 
the shadows. This claim is just absurd.
  For the first time ever, Senate Democrats have required all 
committees to disclose their earmarks and earmark sponsors. We didn't 
have to. It wasn't the law. But we did it. Last year, when the 
Republicans controlled this institution, not one earmark was disclosed. 
I don't recall a single speech about that failure last year by any of 
the Republicans who have spoken today.
  Now, for the first time ever, we are already being transparent--fully 
transparent--about earmarks, and we are here to talk about that. But we 
hear these breathless claims made today that earmarks are being hidden. 
How can you describe how ridiculous that is? That is what it is.
  Thirty-four pages of this legislation deal with earmarks. I might 
boast a little bit. Other staffs have worked on this, but I had two of 
the finest legal minds in this community working on it: Ron Weich, a 
graduate of Yale Law School, who worked on Capitol Hill for many years 
with Senator Kennedy, went downtown and became a very successful 
lawyer. He decided he wanted to engage in more public service, so he 
came back to Congress to work with me. He is an experienced attorney, 
and he worked on this. He also worked with a Harvard law graduate, Mike 
Castellano, a wonderful young man who has spent months--not weeks, not 
days, not hours but months--working on this. So for anyone to castigate 
this legislation, they are castigating these two fine men, who have 
worked with numerous people throughout this body.
  For each of the 11 appropriations bills reported so far this year, 
similar earmark disclosure is available on the Internet. It is already 
searchable. Those talking about earmarks, my Republican friends, are 
either ignorant of what is already happening or they are living in a 
parallel universe.
  This legislation puts into the Senate rules the revolution in earmark 
disclosure and accountability we began this year. It requires all 
earmarks in bills, joint resolutions, and conference reports be 
disclosed on the Internet 48 hours prior to action on the floor. We 
don't intend to have to wait until 48 hours, so the bill directs 
committees to issue earmark lists as soon as possible after the bill is 
reported.
  The bill requires that earmarks and amendments be posted on the 
Internet as soon as possible after being introduced. The language 
originating in S. 1 did not have any rules on amendments. We put them 
in there. If we were trying to hide amendments and hide earmarks, why 
would we add that to the bill?
  This legislation, for the first time ever, allows a point of order to 
be raised against new earmarks added in conference.
  One of the main arguments used by the opponents of reform is that the 
certification required by the committee chair or the majority leader 
would be a sham. We deal all the time with budget points of order. Do 
my colleagues think the Parliamentarians will say: Let's see, does this 
amendment exceed scoring levels? No, they have to depend on the 
chairman of the Budget Committee. The Budget Committee reports to them. 
They depend on the Budget Committee. The Parliamentarians--that is what 
they do, they are referees but they get their information from the 
committee chairman.
  The argument of my opponents is beyond the pale. If effect, these 
Senators are arguing that the committee chairs and the leaders would 
cheat and lie. Who other than the chairman of the committee, similar to 
the Budget Committee, can tell the Parliamentarian where there are 
earmarks? It is impossible for the Parliamentarian to know if a Senator 
has requested an item. Someone has to tell him. I'm sure these Senators 
are not saying that Senator Byrd or Senator Cochran would lie. That is 
not a very good argument to use in this body. To say that would be an 
affront to what we do around here.
  Further, the opponents have ignored a simple and unavoidable fact. 
The definition of ``earmark'' requires that the provision be added 
primarily at the request of a Senator. The Parliamentarian can't know 
that. The only person who could ever know for sure how a provision got 
added to the bill is the author of the legislation, the committee 
chair. The Parliamentarian has no capacity to figure out that a 
provision was added primarily at the request of a Senator, or was added 
because the President wanted it, or because everyone agreed it was a 
good policy. Under any circumstances, the Parliamentarian would have no 
choice but to defer to the committee chair.
  I ask my friend, the junior Senator from South Carolina, as an 
example, to understand the hard work put into this legislation--hard 
work, really hard work. If there is something that is wrong with the 
legislation, talk to us about it. We will try to change it in 
subsequent legislation if this doesn't work. If there is a problem, I 
am happy to work with him, but don't denigrate this bill. We worked 
hard on it.
  I so appreciate the work of Chairman Feinstein. I so appreciate the 
work of Chairman Lieberman. They both have reputations that are 
impeccable. One may not always agree with their policy, but their 
ability for honesty and integrity is above reproach.

[[Page S10716]]

  I must also talk about Russ Feingold. When this session started, I 
asked Russ Feingold to draw up legislation, and he did that, and we 
have worked around that. Does anyone question the integrity of Russ 
Feingold? You cannot question his integrity, Dianne Feinstein's, or Joe 
Lieberman's integrity. That is what this legislation is all about.
  Anyone saying this bill is an obscenity--that is what one Senator 
said in the press, that this legislation is obscene--is impugning the 
integrity of three of the finest public servants we have in this 
country.
  Another important leader on this issue is Senator Obama. He was in 
many ways the face of this bill last year. He has played an important 
role last year and this year, and I appreciate his input into this 
legislation.
  This bill is not just a little bit of reform. Just listen to the 
outside reformers. Fred Wertheimer, a man who has been in this town 
since I have been here, talking about how we can improve this body in 
many different ways, Fred Wertheimer said this is ``landmark 
legislation.'' Those are his words, not mine.
  The effort by opponents to try to denigrate this legislation is 
shameful. I don't care if they disagree with this legislation, but 
don't impugn the integrity of the people who are trying to do something 
that is positive and good.
  This is good legislation. We have succeeded, the Democratic majority 
has succeeded. I appreciate the support of the minority, but the 
Democrats have succeeded in what Republicans couldn't do last year or 
the year before, and they have seized on one issue, earmarks, and blown 
it way out of all proportionality or rationality and have ignored 
reality to create doubts in people's minds.
  The fact is, we have sweeping reform legislation in a whole host of 
areas--gifts, travel, lobbyist disclosure, stealth coalitions, 
reporting of lobbyist contributions, the revolving door. It is 
sweeping. The bill will change the way we do business.
  Our work on this issue is done for now. I am confident the judgment 
of Democrats and Republicans alike will be favorable. The vote was 411 
to 8 in the House of Representatives. Let us do the same. Let us send a 
message from coast to coast that this Congress is serious about 
delivering to the American people a government as good and as honest as 
the people it serves.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will report.
  The 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, hereby move to bring to 
a close debate on the motion to concur in the House amendment on S. 1, 
the Ethics Reform bill.
         Joe Lieberman, Harry Reid, Byron L. Dorgan, Patty Murray, 
           Mark Pryor, Jeff Bingaman, Jack Reed, Dick Durbin, Jon 
           Tester, Tom Carper, Pat Leahy, Benjamin L. Cardin, 
           Debbie Stabenow, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Ted 
           Kennedy, Ken Salazar.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 1, an act to provide 
greater transparency in the legislative process, and for other 
purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. 
Coleman) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 80, nays 17, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 293 Leg.]

                                YEAS--80

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

                                NAYS--17

     Allard
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Graham
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     McCain

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Coleman
     Johnson
     Klobuchar
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 80, nays are 17. 
Two-thirds of the Senators voting, a quorum being present, having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have two Senators who have requested to 
speak on this matter. Senator Byrd wishes 20 minutes, Senator 
McCaskill, 10 minutes. Following that, we would return to SCHIP and the 
vote on this bill--cloture was just invoked--will occur at 1:50 this 
afternoon. The time between 1:30 and--the time after Senators Byrd and 
McCaskill speak will be controlled by Senators Baucus and Grassley.
  I ask unanimous consent that be the case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask the motion to concur with the 
amendments be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, at the beginning of this Congress, I 
committed to adding transparency and accountability to the process of 
earmarking funds for specific projects.
  I see my friend from Mississippi here, the ranking member, on the 
Senate floor. I will say that again. Hear me.
  At the beginning of this Congress, I committed to adding transparency 
and accountability to the process of earmarking funds for specific 
projects. While awaiting action by the Congress on ethics reform 
legislation, Senator Cochran, the able and very highly respected 
Senator from Mississippi who is on the Appropriations Committee, 
Senator Cochran and I--Senator Cochran is on the Senate floor at this 
point, I say for the record--Senator Cochran and I established rigorous 
standards for increasing such transparency. Based on those standards, 
the Appropriations Committee has reported, on a bipartisan basis, 11 
appropriations bills that have identified the earmarks, and who--in 
other words, what Senator--requested them, meaning the earmarks.
  We have required and we have received certification letters from 
every Senator who has an earmark that he or she and/or their spouses--
meaning he or she and/or his or her spouse--that they have no financial 
interest in their earmarks. We are talking about Senators, 100 of them, 
who sit in this Chamber.
  I want to say that once again. We, meaning the Senate Appropriations 
Committee, have required and received certification letters from every 
Senator who has any earmark--that Senator and his or her spouse--that 
they have no financial interest in their earmarks. Is that clear?
  I have always maintained the highest standards. I will say that 
again. I have always maintained the highest standards for myself, 
Robert C. Byrd, myself, and for my staff, on ensuring that there are no 
conflicts of interest for

[[Page S10717]]

earmarks that I include in any legislation. Consistent with the 
standards that we established for the appropriations process, S. 1 now 
establishes a new Senate rule that will impose requirements for 
transparency and accountability for all bills.
  In establishing these rules, the public should not conclude that the 
rules are somehow a sanction on the Congress for wasteful spending. In 
recent months there has been considerable attention to the issue of the 
earmarking of funds by Congress for specific projects. Some Members 
have asserted that all earmarked funding is wasteful spending or an 
abuse of power. All Senators endeavor--they had better. All Senators 
endeavor to weed out wasteful spending. But this notion that earmarked 
spending is inherently wasteful spending is flat-out wrong.
  I am going to say that again. Hear me.
  Some Members have asserted that all earmarked funding is wasteful 
spending or an abuse of power. Hogwash. All Senators endeavor to weed 
out wasteful spending. But this notion that earmarked spending is 
inherently wasteful spending is flat-out wrong. This notion that 
earmarked spending is inherently wasteful spending is flatout wrong.
  Congress has the power of the purse and has had the power of the 
purse. That is the only real power that we Senators and Members of the 
other body and the President have. Congress has the power of the purse.
  Since the beginning of the Republic, Congress has allocated money to 
specific projects and purposes. Did you get that? Listen.
  Since the beginning of the Republic, Congress has allocated money to 
specific projects and purposes. For example, in 1798, $3,500 was 
appropriated for firewood and candles for the Treasury Department, and 
$454.41 was appropriated for rent of a house near Grays Ferry on the 
Schuylkill River.
  Earmarks are arguably the most criticized and the least understood of 
congressional practices. There is nothing inherently wrong with an 
earmark. There is nothing inherently wrong with an earmark. An earmark 
is an explicit direction from the Congress about how the Federal 
Government should spend the people's money. It is absolutely consistent 
with the intentions of the Framers, codified in article I of the 
Constitution of the United States, giving the power of the purse, the 
power of the purse to the elected representatives of the people.
  I shall quote:

       All legislative powers herein granted--

  That is the Constitution, the Framers speaking, the words of the 
Constitution--
     legislative powers herein granted shall--

  not may but shall--

     be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall 
     consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

  Those are the words, the immortal words of the Constitution written 
by the Framers, the Framers of the Constitution. I quote it again:

       All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a 
     Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a 
     Senate and House of Representatives.

  In using this power, Congress has an obligation to be good stewards 
of the Public Treasury and to prevent imprudent expenditures. Congress 
has an obligation to guard against the corruption of any--I say any--
public officials who would sell their soul and the trust of their 
constituency in order to profit from an official act.
  But Congress does not err in using an earmark to designate how the 
people's money should be spent. This is a power. This is a power that 
does not belong to the President of the United States or to any of the 
unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch. It belongs where and to 
whom? It belongs to the people, the people out there on the hills and 
in the valleys, across this great land. It belongs to the people 
through their elected representatives in Congress. That is here. Their 
elected representatives. I am one of them, the elected representatives.
  Earmarks are not specific to appropriations bills. Earmarks can be 
found in revenue bills. Hear me now. Earmarks can be found in revenue 
bills. You get that? Hear me now. Earmarks can be found in revenue 
bills as tax benefits for narrowly defined constituencies. Earmarks can 
be found in authorization bills. Did you get that? On authorization 
bills. Those are not bills that come out of the Appropriations 
Committees in the House and Senate; they are authorization bills. They 
may come out of the Committee on Ways and Means in the other body or 
out of the Senate Finance Committee. They can be found in authorization 
bills.
  Earmarks can be found in the President's budget request. Hear that 
now. Listen. Are you listening? Earmarks can be found in the 
President's budget request. I want to say that again. I want to hear 
that again. Earmarks can be found in the President's budget request.
  Well-intentioned though they may be, the civil servants making budget 
decisions in the executive, in agencies and offices of the Federal 
Government, do not understand the communities Senators represent. They 
do not meet with the constituencies of Senators. They do not know 
Members' States and their people. They can be a poor judge of what is 
necessary and what is frivolous from the perspective of the States and 
the people. These bureaucrats are not elected; therefore, they are not 
accountable to the people. I will say that once more. These bureaucrats 
are not elected; therefore, they are not accountable to the people.
  If the Congress does not specify how funds are to be spent, then the 
decision falls to the executive branch--the executive branch--and the 
so-called experts at 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 may never know 
how a spending decision is made. The American people may never hear 
anything about it. And with the executive bureaucrats, there is far 
less accountability to the people.
  Critics of congressional earmarks--hear me--critics of congressional 
earmarks often overlook the success stories from earmark spending 
directed by Congress. Now, listen. Listen, all you skeptics, all you 
cynics, wherever you are. Do you hear me, the skeptics and the cynics? 
Congressional earmarks often overlook the success stories from earmark 
spending directed by Congress.
  Let me give an example of earmark spending. Hear me. 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--are you listening? 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. That, I say, that is not--n-o-t--wasteful 
spending.
  In 1969 and 1970, Congress earmarked $25 million for a children's 
hospital in Washington, DC--that is here in Washington, DC, a 
children's hospital--even overcoming a Presidential veto. In 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 now known as the Children's 
National Medical Center. That started out with an earmark, 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 
young children. That is not wasteful spending.
  Let me go on. 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. The 
homeless. Have you ever been homeless? That is not wasteful spending.
  I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for an additional 20 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair, and I thank all Senators.
  In 1987, Congress earmarked--hear me--funds for the mapping of the 
human gene. This project became known as the human genome project. This 
research has led to completely new strategies for disease prevention 
and treatment. The human genome project has led to discoveries of 
dramatic new methods of identifying and

[[Page S10718]]

treating breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and colon cancer. I will say 
that once more: The human genome project has led to discoveries of 
dramatic new methods of identifying and treating breast, ovarian, and 
colon cancer, saving many, many lives. Senators, hear me: This is not 
wasteful spending.
  In 1988 and 1995, Congress earmarked funds for the development of 
unmanned aerial vehicles. I have to say that once more. In 1988 and 
1995, Congress--that is us, your representatives, out there in the 
land, in the hills and valleys of this country--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. This is not wasteful 
spending. I am talking about earmarks, the word ``earmarks.'' A lot of 
things have been said about the word ``earmarks.''
  Each of these earmarks was initiated by Congress and produced lasting 
gains for the American people--not for me, not for you, but for all of 
us, the American people. In the rush to label earmarks as the source of 
our budgetary woes and amid calls to expand the budgetary authorities 
of the President, Members should remember why deficits have soared to 
unprecedented levels. Senators will recall that the President has not 
exercised his current constitutional authority. The President has not 
submitted a single rescission proposal under the Budget Act. The 
President has signed every regular appropriations bill that has 
produced the unprecedented growth in earmarks. What has wrought these 
ominous budget deficits is the administration's grossly flawed and 
impossible budget assumptions.
  The war in Iraq has required the Congress--that is us--to appropriate 
$450 billion--billion, I say, billion dollars; there have been 
approximately 1 billion minutes since Jesus Christ was born; so the war 
in Iraq has required the Congress to appropriate $450 for every minute 
since Jesus Christ was born. I am talking about the war in Iraq. I 
didn't get us into that war. I was against going into Iraq. The war in 
Iraq has required the Congress to appropriate $450 billion of the 
people's money. Only 2 to 3 percent of discretionary funds is 
earmarked. Earmarking is hardly the fiscal wedge driving the deficit. 
Rather than dealing with these fiscal failures, too many would rather 
propagate specious argument that enlarging the President's role in the 
budget process and doing away with congressional earmarks will somehow 
magically reduce these foreboding and menacing deficits. It will not.
  There is no question that the earmarking process has grown to 
excessive levels in recent years. From 1994 to 2006, the number of 
earmarks nearly tripled. Between 1956 and 2002--I was here during all 
of those years--Congress passed 20 highway bills that contained a total 
of 739 earmarks. In 2005, the Republican Congress passed and the 
President signed a single highway bill that contained 5,000 earmarks. 
Talk about earmarks. There is no question that the earmarking process 
has run amok. There was a single highway bill that contained 5,000 
earmarks. This kind of excess in earmarking must end. It must go. That 
is why the Appropriations Committee took the lead to add transparency 
and accountability to the process.
  In the joint funding resolution for fiscal year 2007, enacted in 
February, we implemented a 1-year moratorium on earmarks for fiscal 
year 2007. In that joint resolution, we eliminated over 9,300 earmarks 
from the fiscal year 2006 bills and reports. No new earmarks were 
contained in the bill for fiscal year 2007. While awaiting final action 
on S. 1, the Appropriations Committee took the lead by establishing 
guidelines for approving earmarks in the fiscal year 2008 bill. The 
Appropriations Committee has reported 11 of the 12 appropriations 
bills. For earmarks contained in the fiscal year 2008 bills and 
reports, the committee reports identify the names of any Member making 
a request or, where appropriate, the President, and the name and 
location of the intended recipient of such earmark.
  Let me say that once again. The Appropriations Committee has reported 
11 of the 12 appropriations bills. For earmarks contained in the fiscal 
year 2008 bills and reports, the committee reports identify the name of 
the Member--maybe it is Robert C. Byrd; perhaps it could be the 
distinguished Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania, a great Senator--making 
the request or, where appropriate, the President, Mr. Bush, and the 
name and location of the intended recipient of such earmark.
  For each earmark contained in the fiscal year 2008 bills and reports, 
a Member is required to certify in writing that he or she has no 
pecuniary interest in such earmark, consistent with Senate rule XXXVII, 
paragraph 4. Such certifications are available to the people, the 
public. All committee bills and reports, including all of the above 
information, are available to the people, available to the public, on 
the Internet and in printed form prior to floor action, meaning action 
here on this Senate floor.
  Through the 11 committee reports, we have identified over 5,700 
earmarks, totaling about $28 billion. Of the $28 billion in earmarks, 
over $23 billion, or over 80 percent of the earmarks, was requested by 
the President. Now, let me say that once again, please. Through the 11 
committee reports, we have identified over 5,700 earmarks, totaling 
about $28 billion. Of the $28 billion in earmarks, over $23 billion, or 
over 80 percent of the earmarks, was requested by the President--the 
President of the United States, President Bush.
  The level of nonproject-based earmarks is a substantial reduction 
below the level approved for 2006. We are not hiding these earmarks. We 
are highlighting them for the scrutiny of the American people. We are 
accountable for the decisions in these bills and reports.
  The status quo is not satisfactory, and the Appropriations Committee 
has taken the lead in adding transparency and accountability to the 
process. Eliminating waste and abuse in the Federal budget process is 
important. Protecting the character and design of the Constitution is 
essential. Get it, get it, now. Let us not lose our heads--but keep our 
heads on our shoulders--let us not lose our heads, and subsequently the 
safeguards of our rights and liberties as American citizens.
  S. 1 strikes the right balance. I urge its adoption.
  Madam President, I have a parliamentary inquiry: Section 511 of S. 1 
amends rule XXVIII concerning out-of-scope matter in conference 
reports, and section 521 establishes a new rule XLIV concerning 
congressionally directed spending in all legislation pending before the 
Senate. Specifically, section 521 contains rules concerning new 
congressionally directed spending that might be included in a 
conference report.
  Madam President, am I correct that points of order concerning new 
directed spending will be considered pursuant to the new rule XLIV, 
rather than the amended rule XXVIII?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. Excuse me, Madam President.
  I will repeat that. Am I correct that points of order concerning new 
directed spending will be considered pursuant to the new rule XLIV, 
rather than the amended rule XXVIII?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Inquiring further, Madam President, am I correct that in paragraph 
8(e) of the new rule XLIV--the new rule XLIV--the term ``measure'' 
refers to the bill or amendment committed to the conferees by either 
House, and not to the statement of managers?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Inquiring further, Madam President, the new rule XLIV requires the 
chairman--this is the new rule XLIV--requires the chairman of the 
committee of jurisdiction to certify that mandated information on 
congressionally directed spending, limited tax benefits, and limited 
tariff benefits is available on a publicly accessible congressional Web 
site at least 48 hours before a vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Am I correct, Madam President, that the Parliamentarian will rely on 
that certification for determining compliance with paragraphs 1, 2, and 
3 of rule XLIV?

[[Page S10719]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________