[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 17 (Thursday, February 2, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S290-S315]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STOP TRADING ON CONGRESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE ACT OF 2012

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 2038, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2038) to prohibit Members of Congress and 
     employees of Congress from using nonpublic information 
     derived from their official positions for personal benefit, 
     and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 1470, in the nature of a substitute.
       Reid (for Lieberman) amendment No. 1482 (to Amendment No. 
     1470), to make a technical amendment to a reporting 
     requirement.
       Brown (OH) amendment No. 1478 (to amendment No. 1470), to 
     change the reporting requirement to 10 days.
       Brown (OH)/Merkley modified amendment No. 1481 (to 
     amendment No. 1470), to prohibit financial conflicts of 
     interest by Senators and staff.
       Toomey amendment No. 1472 (to amendment No. 1470), to 
     prohibit earmarks.
       Thune amendment No. 1477 (to amendment No. 1470), to direct 
     the Securities and Exchange Commission to eliminate the 
     prohibition against general solicitation as a requirement for 
     a certain exemption under Regulation D.
       McCain amendment No. 1471 (to amendment No. 1470), to 
     protect the American taxpayer by prohibiting bonuses for 
     Senior Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while they 
     are in conservatorship.
       Leahy/Cornyn amendment No. 1483 (to amendment No. 1470), to 
     deter public corruption.
       Coburn amendment No. 1473 (to amendment No. 1470), to 
     prevent the creation of duplicative and overlapping Federal 
     programs.
       Coburn/McCain amendment No. 1474 (to amendment No. 1470), 
     to require that all legislation be placed online for 72 hours 
     before it is voted on by the Senate or the House.
       Coburn amendment No. 1476, in the nature of a substitute.
       Paul amendment No. 1484 (to amendment No. 1470), to require 
     Members of Congress to certify that they are not trading 
     using material, non-public information.
       Paul amendment No. 1485 (to amendment No. 1470), to apply 
     the reporting requirements to Federal employees and judicial 
     officers.
       Paul amendment No. 1487 (to amendment No. 1470), to 
     prohibit executive branch appointees or staff holding 
     positions that give them oversight, rule-making, loan or 
     grant-making abilities over industries or companies in which 
     they or their spouse have a significant financial interest.

[[Page S291]]

       DeMint amendment No. 1488 (to amendment No. 1470), to 
     express the sense of the Senate that the Senate should pass a 
     joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution 
     that limits the numbers of terms a Member of Congress may 
     serve.
       Paul amendment No. 1490 (to amendment No. 1470), to require 
     former Members of Congress to forfeit Federal retirement 
     benefits if they work as a lobbyist or engage in lobbying 
     activities.
       Blumenthal/Kirk amendment No. 1498 (to amendment No. 1470), 
     to amend title 5, United States Code, to deny retirement 
     benefits accrued by an individual as a Member of Congress if 
     such individual is convicted of certain offenses.
       Shelby amendment No. 1491 (to amendment No. 1470), to 
     extend the STOCK Act to ensure that the reporting 
     requirements set forth in the STOCK Act apply to the 
     executive branch and independent agencies.
       Inhofe/Hutchison amendment No. 1500 (to amendment No. 
     1470), to prohibit unauthorized earmarks.
       Boxer/Isakson amendment No. 1489 (to amendment No. 1470), 
     to require full and complete public disclosure of the terms 
     of home mortgages held by Members of Congress.
       Tester/Toomey amendment No. 1492 (to amendment No. 1470), 
     to amend the Securities Act of 1933 to require the Securities 
     and Exchange Commission to exempt a certain class of 
     securities from such act.
       Tester/Cochran amendment No. 1503 (to amendment No. 1470), 
     to require Senate candidates to file designations, 
     statements, and reports in electronic form.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time until 2 p.m. is equally divided.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader. I thank 
Senator Collins, Senator Brown of Massachusetts, Senator Gillibrand, 
and a lot of others, who have worked to get us to this point where we 
can do two things. Most important to those of us who have worked on the 
STOCK Act is that we are now in a position this afternoon of adopting a 
clear statement that Members of Congress and our staffs are covered by 
anti-insider trading rules and that we can also provide for fuller 
disclosure by Members, making it accessible to the public online.
  Instead of coming to a point where the system broke down again and 
Senator Reid being forced to file a cloture motion, we worked out an 
agreement here, people were reasonable, and there will be votes on a 
number of germane amendments--and some that are not, but we have agreed 
to a 60-vote threshold.
  This is the way I think the Senate is supposed to work. Some of these 
votes will be controversial, some difficult. But that is why we are 
here. I thank everybody who was part of getting to this point.
  I note the presence of the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Brown, and 
I yield to him.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I also stand and commend 
the majority leader for allowing this process to unfold in a thoughtful 
and fair manner, the way it should. We are starting the new year off 
correctly and allowing everybody to feel as if they are participating 
in the democratic process, not moving for cloture, shutting off debate, 
and filling the tree, but allowing us to stay late and work together in 
a bipartisan manner to work through the amendments, allowing me and 
Senator Collins, and on their side, Senators Lieberman and Gillibrand, 
to call individual Members and say: You have four amendments up; which 
ones do you want? Is there a modification or can we combine them with 
other similar amendments? That is how it should work.
  This is what I have been saying for the last 2 years and why I have 
continuously moved to work across the aisle: to allow that democratic 
process to work.
  I am thankful we are here. These are some tough votes, but we are the 
Senate. We should be taking tough votes. That is why the people sent us 
here. I am thankful that we can send the message to the American people 
that we are trying to reestablish that trust that seems to have been 
lost with them by moving on the STOCK Act.
  There are other issues we are taking up. I hope they are just as 
thoughtful and methodical and respectful. I hope we are going to do the 
postal bill next. It is something Senators Lieberman, Collins, Carper, 
and I have spearheaded. It is a solid bill and a good framework. If we 
allow it to move forward and everybody has their say and their day in 
the Sun, and we do as we have done today, we will have another good 
deed and, who knows, maybe we will be in double figures in terms of the 
approval rating pretty soon.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1472

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I rise today to speak against the Toomey 
amendment that would impose a permanent ban on congressional 
initiatives or earmarks.
  The Constitution grants to the Congress the power of the purse. There 
is no authority more vital to the separation of powers than the one 
that prevents the executive branch from directly spending the tax 
dollars collected from its citizens. Depriving the Congress of the 
ability to direct money to specific projects does not save money or 
reduce the deficit; it simply gives additional power to the President 
and weakens the legislative branch.
  As I stated when I announced the initial moratorium on appropriations 
earmarks last February, I continue to support the constitutional right 
of Members of Congress to direct investments to their States and 
districts under the fiscally responsible and transparent earmarking 
process we have established.
  Hawaii is a long way from the Capital City. It is simply not possible 
for a bureaucrat here in Washington to understand the needs of my home 
State as well as I do. And I believe such is the case with all 50 
States. Each one is unique, each one has individual challenges, and 
each one has issues that cannot be fully understood by civil servants 
located thousands of miles away.
  This amendment has nothing to do with lowering the deficit. Let me 
state that again. Eliminating earmarks will not save a single penny in 
spending. It will simply take decisions that were rightfully made by 
Congress and delegate them to the executive branch.
  In truth, this is a political amendment meant to give cover to those 
who seek to mislead the American people into thinking earmarks are 
responsible for our current deficit, and that simply is not the case. 
Our deficit is driven by entitlement spending that is rising at a rate 
three times that of inflation, not by discretionary spending that is 
now capped at less than the rate of inflation. Our deficit is driven by 
the fact that revenues are at their lowest level in 50 years. A 
permanent ban on earmarks addresses neither of these matters.
  Madam President, finally, I note for my colleagues that the voluntary 
moratorium in appropriations bills for fiscal year 2012 was 100 percent 
successful, and the committee will continue the moratorium for fiscal 
year 2013. Prior to the moratorium taking effect, the Appropriations 
Committee had to put into place a series of reforms that ensured 
openness and transparency for earmark requests. Every earmark request 
was posted online. Every earmark that was approved was listed along 
with the sponsor's name in committee reports and posted online. There 
were no secrets and no backroom deals.
  The reality is that without congressional earmarks, we find ourselves 
at the mercy of the bureaucrats to ensure that our local needs are 
fulfilled. If we approve this amendment, from now on earmarks will be 
at the sole discretion of the executive branch. Local needs will either 
go unmet or will be included through deals made between our elected 
officials and the White House or unelected bureaucrats. No longer will 
we show the American people what earmarks we are funding and why. 
Instead, they will be part of a tradeoff between Members and 
bureaucrats--a bridge in return for support of a trade agreement.
  By permanently banning earmarks, the spending decisions will move 
from the transparent process to discussions that are hidden from the 
public. So we face a choice between an open and transparent method for 
allocating targeted funding or one that will be done with phone calls, 
conversations, winks,

[[Page S292]]

and nods. One method allows for accountability and another leaves us 
all at the whim of unelected bureaucrats.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Toomey amendment. This 
amendment will serve to deprive the Congress of essential congressional 
prerogatives. It has no impact on the debt, and it is simply designed 
to give political cover to those who refuse to address the core drivers 
of our fiscal imbalance--lack of revenues and ever-increasing 
entitlement spending.
  I yield the floor, Madam President, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, on behalf of the Leader, I ask unanimous 
consent that any time spent in quorum calls be equally divided between 
the two sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I rise to speak on the pending Toomey 
amendment, an amendment that we will be voting on here after a little 
bit, amendment No. 1472, known as the Earmark Elimination Act.
  I thank Senators Toomey and McCaskill for continuing this important 
discussion and commend them as well as numerous other Senators, 
including my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, and Senators 
Coburn and DeMint, who have championed reforms to Washington's earmark 
culture. The concern, as noted by Senators Toomey and McCaskill, is 
that the earmark process lacks transparency and scrutiny. I support 
their efforts to reform the process in a manner that reflects the 
principles of our Founders and the trust the American people instill in 
us to represent them.
  I wish to confirm, however, that this effort does not restrict 
Congress's ability to protect the American taxpayer from unnecessary 
expenses and significant legal exposure. In certain situations, the 
United States is required to fulfill legal obligations. For example, 
the United States must resolve water rights claims that American Indian 
tribes assert against the United States and other water users within an 
affected State. In those instances, as is common in other litigation, 
it is in the interest of the United States and the American taxpayer to 
limit ongoing legal exposure by settling the tribe's water rights 
claims. Effectuating the terms of such a settlement requires 
congressional review and approval. Congress will undoubtedly employ the 
searching scrutiny required to understand whether the settlement is in 
the best interests of the American people. Such settlements, however, 
are not amenable to a formula-driven or competitive award process. 
Rather, the settlements must be addressed and negotiated if and when 
the claims are asserted against the United States.
  Congressionally enacted Indian water rights settlements have not 
previously fallen within the earmark moratorium. In that vein, I want 
to confirm with my colleague from Pennsylvania that the Earmark 
Elimination Act does not restrict Congress's authority to protect 
taxpayers by limiting the exposure of the United States to similar 
legal challenges.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, the Senator from Arizona is absolutely 
correct. The Earmark Elimination Act is not intended to preclude 
Congress from effectuating legal settlements, such as Indian water 
rights settlements, that resolve claims against the United States. This 
body must maintain its ability to avoid costly litigation and to limit 
the legal exposure of the United States in a manner that ultimately 
benefits American taxpayers.
  Mr. KYL. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania. I concur with my 
colleague in expressing a commitment to ensuring that these positive 
efforts to reform the earmark process do not result in an unintended 
consequence whereby Congress's efforts to settle legal claims against 
the United States are subject to a point of order.
  I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for his efforts, and I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for as much 
time as I consume and that at the conclusion of my remarks, the Senator 
from Ohio be recognized for such time as he consumes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1500

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, we are going to have a number of votes 
on amendments this afternoon. I think it is important that we look at 
this in historic perspective. I am referring to the amendments and the 
meaning of the Toomey amendment, which I think is very significant.
  As most people think about earmarks, yes, we want to do away with 
this. I am the first to admit that there has been a lot of abuse in the 
earmark process. I don't want to take sides between authorizers and 
appropriators, but I can remember several times here on the floor when 
appropriations bills are coming through, when people are legislating on 
appropriations bills, when they are swapping out deals. That is the 
kind of thing we want to stop. I think we have an opportunity to do 
that today.
  I have an amendment. It is my understanding, the way the amendments 
are stacked up, there is going to be a vote on the Toomey amendment and 
then a vote on my amendment. Let me talk a little bit about how long we 
have been working on this issue.
  Way back in 2007, I gave a talk to the Grover Norquist group. It was 
on July 25, 2007. I gave the Senate history of the 200-year fight 
between appropriators and authorizers.
  In 1816 responsibilities between authorizing versus appropriating had 
been debated. In that year the Senate created the first 11 permanent 
standing committees.
  I think most people understand that we in the Senate, each one of us 
is on at least two standing committees. Many of these are authorizing 
committees or appropriating committees. Mine happened to be authorizing 
committees. My two major committees I have been on since serving in the 
Senate are the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Environment and 
Public Works Committee. Both are authorizing committees.
  What is significant about this is that there has always been a fight. 
This is not a new fight. People think this is just going on today. This 
has been going on literally since 1816.
  In 1867 the Senate created the Appropriations Committee. The purpose 
of that was to have the tax writing put in the Finance Committee and 
then have the appropriating committee as a separate committee--keeping 
those functions divided. Here it is now a couple of hundred years later 
and we are still trying to do the same thing. Today may be the day we 
can do it, and my amendment actually would do that.
  In 1921--I am reading notes from the speech I made in 2007 at the 
Grover Norquist event--in 1921 the Senate passed the Budget and 
Accounting Act of 1921. The Senate tried to ensure that authorizing had 
to take place in a separate committee.
  There we go. That is what we are talking about today. My amendment 
actually resolves the problem because it defines an earmark as an 
appropriation that hasn't been authorized. In a minute, I am going to 
talk about that because there is a lot of support for that currently 
that should be considered.
  Let me use my committees as an example. If we were to do away with 
all earmarks as they are described in the House bill, the earmarks 
would actually be defined as any appropriation or

[[Page S293]]

authorization. That gets into the huge question we will talk about in a 
minute--what our Constitution says. It says we, the House and the 
Senate, should do the spending or the appropriating. This has been this 
way for a long time.
  I am hoping Members will go back and read Joseph Story and some of 
the great people in the past who have talked about why it is necessary 
for all the authorizing and the spending to take place in this body, in 
the Senate and in the House. If that does not happen, we are going to 
be in a position where we are giving our function to the President. We 
are ceding our constitutional obligation to the President--in this 
case, President Obama.
  Back in the time I was making this speech initially, I talked about 
such things. I mentioned this on the floor yesterday. A lot of people 
do not understand. The budget that comes to us is a budget from the 
President. It is not from Congress, not from the House, not from the 
Senate, not from the Democrats, not from the Republicans, it is from 
the President. The President is the guy who sends the budget down. I am 
so critical of this President because every one of these budgets now--
we have just gotten the fourth budget--has a deficit of over $1 
trillion. Unheard of. I can remember back in the days--1996 was the 
first $1.5 trillion budget. That was during the Clinton administration. 
I remember coming down to the floor and saying: We cannot sustain this 
level of spending. That was $1.5 trillion to run the entire United 
States of America. What President Obama has sent down is $1 trillion to 
$1.5 trillion in each of his budgets, just deficit alone. We can't 
continue to do that.
  I am on the Armed Services Committee. It is an authorizing committee. 
It is a committee staffed with experts in every area--missile defense, 
strike fighters--all of that having to do with defending America. Of 
course, when the budget comes down, historically--I am talking about 
historically from 100 years ago--we have taken that budget and analyzed 
that budget. The Chair is fully aware of this because she sits on that 
committee. We determine what is the best way to spend the given number 
of dollars that come down in the budget to best defend America.

  The example I used yesterday was in one of the first budgets that 
came down. I think it was the first budget from President Obama. It had 
one item that was a $330 million item that was for a launching system 
that was referred to as a box of rockets--a good system, I might add, 
but with the scarce dollars we made a determination in the Armed 
Services Committee that we could take that same $300 million and 
instead of spending it on a launching system, spend it on six new F-18 
strike fighter aircraft. And we did that. That is what we should be 
able to do. But if you have an earmark ban, then you would not be able 
to do that. It depends on how it is going to be interpreted, but the 
way I interpret it, it would mean we cannot change what the President 
sends down because that would be called a congressional earmark. Some 
might argue and say: No, it is that only if it happens to be in your 
district or something like that. That is not what it says, though. The 
way it is defined is anything that would be an authorization or an 
appropriation.
  So we had the example there in the Armed Services Committee, and one 
of the unintended consequences would be--I will just use this as an 
example. I can remember back in the days, I am old enough to remember 
back when Reagan was President and nobody believed we would ever have a 
problem with people sending over a missile with some type of a weapon 
on it that would be very destructive to America, nor did they believe 
it would be possible, if a missile were coming in, that we could knock 
down that missile. Well, we have now settled that. Everyone knows you 
can hit a bullet with a bullet. We have done it before. We are doing a 
good job.
  We also know after having gone through 9/11 that we should have at 
the very top of our concern as representatives of this country to 
defend America and to have an enhanced system. So we had a policy that 
we wanted to have a redundancy in all three phases of missile defense. 
In missile defense, you have three phases--a boost phase, a midcourse 
phase, and a terminal phase--and we want to have that. So when we are 
addressing that, if the President comes in with something that doesn't 
follow that redundancy, we could be in a position where we would not be 
able to do what is in the best interests of the country.
  I am not the only one who believes that when we say we want an 
outright ban on all spending--and that is what we are saying, an 
outright ban on all spending--there is an article that I took out of 
the Hill Magazine--that would have been about 3 or 4 years ago--saying 
``Lobbyists Hitting Up Agencies As Earmark Rate Drops.'' In other 
words, as we quit spending here, it does not save a cent. That money 
goes back into the bureaucracy, and they are spending it at that point. 
So that puts us in the position of, admittedly, what they are talking 
about--they are actually lobbying the bureaucrats as opposed to Members 
because that is where all the power is. In other words, we have ceded 
that power.
  I can see a lot of the Democrats wanting to pass an all-out ban on 
congressional earmarks because they are supporting Obama. Obama wants 
to do the spending. They want him to do that. I understand that, and I 
heard from some of the Democrats who do not agree with that, and I 
appreciate their making that statement on the floor.
  But I think as we address this and go back to things that we did on 
the floor a year and a half ago--this was November 2010--we talked 
about the Constitution and how it restricts spending only to the 
legislative branch and specifically denies that honor to the President.

       We take an oath of office--

  I am reading now from a statement I made on the floor a year and a 
half ago.

       We take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the 
     United States. That means that we take an oath of office to 
     uphold article I section 9 of the Constitution.

  What does that say? That says that the spending in our government 
should be confined to the legislative branch. That is us. If you go and 
look in the Federalist Papers, it talks about this. Over and over, 
judges without exception have reinforced this as the constitutional 
obligation we have.
  Sometimes I miss Senator Bob Byrd more than other times, and this is 
one of the times I do. I can hear him standing on the floor saying: Why 
is it we are giving up our constitutional right? Remember he used to 
carry around the Constitution? He would hold it up. I wish he were here 
today so he could talk about article I, section 9 of the Constitution 
and how we are ceding that authority to the President.
  I mentioned yesterday that one of the problems I have with a 
permanent moratorium without a definition of what an earmark is--one of 
the problems we have in giving the President, ceding our authority to 
him--and there is no better example--a lot of us got quite upset in 
this body when the President had his $800 billion-or-so stimulus plan. 
Remember the stimulus plan that didn't stimulate and he spent all this 
money? And when he signed it, he was talking about how this was going 
to stimulate. As it turned out, only 3 percent went into roads, 
highways, and so forth, and only 3 percent into defending America. When 
he signed it, President Obama said: What I am signing then is a 
balanced law with a mix of tax cuts and investments. It has been put 
together without earmarks or the usual porkbarrel spending. So, anyway, 
we had such examples of earmarks.

  In fact, I remember on Sean Hannity's program, he had the 102 most 
egregious earmarks. In those earmarks was $219,000 to study the hookup 
and behavior of female college co-eds in New York; $1 million to do 
fossil research; $1.2 million to build an underpass for deer crossing 
in Wyoming. There were 102 egregious earmarks and not one of them was a 
congressional earmark. They are all bureaucratic earmarks. We ceded 
that so the President, through our action, was able to do all those 
things he could not otherwise do.
  I have a longer list that I ask to be made a part of the Record at 
this point in my presentation, which includes about 10 or 15 other 
egregious earmarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S294]]

  Fifteen Earmarks From Hannity's List of 102 Most Egregious Earmarks

       1. $219,000 to a university to study the hookup behavior of 
     female college coeds in New York.
       2. $8,408 to a university to study whether mice become 
     disoriented when they consume alcohol.
       3. $712,883 to develop ``machine generated humor'' in 
     Illinois.
       4. $325,394 to study the mating decisions of Cactus bugs in 
     Florida.
       5. $500,000 to Ohio to purchase recycling bins with 
     microchips embedded inside of them.
       6. $800,000 to a company in Arizona to install motion 
     sensor light switches.
       7. $25,000 for socially conscious puppet shows in 
     Minnesota.
       8. $1 million to research fossils in Argentina.
       9. $500,000 to study the impact of global warming on wild 
     flowers in a Colorado ghost town.
       10. $150,000 to develop the next generation football globes 
     in Pennsylvania.
       11. $1.2 million to build a deer underpass in Wyoming.
       12. $50,000 to resurface a tennis court in Montana.
       13. $15,000 for a storytelling festival in Utah.
       14. $14,675 for doormats at the Department of the Army in 
     Texas.
       15. $10,000 for the Colorado Dragon Boat Festival.

  Mr. INHOFE. As it turned out, the President was the one who did the 
earmarks of the $800 billion stimulus program.
  Again, getting back to article I, section 9:

       No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in 
     Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.

  The law, that is us. We are the legislative branch of government. 
That is what we are supposed to do. I think everyone understands that. 
It is unintended, and I know a lot of people out there would say, well, 
we want to kill all earmarks, without stopping to think that that is 
all spending and that is our constitutional duty.
  I would say if we continue on making permanent and current 
moratoriums on congressional earmarks, then we are limiting our ability 
to govern with the President. If all we are doing is handing the 
President pots of money and requiring that he have competitive grants 
to disburse the funds, then we are washing our hands of the outcome. 
There is no light or transparency inherent to the Federal grant-making 
process. So what we are doing is giving up our constitutional 
responsibility in ceding that to the President.
  It could be that things are going to be refined, with further 
definitions, and I have no objection to that. But I am saying we have 
one very simple solution to it. When the votes come up today, I will 
announce right now, if we don't have a definition of earmark, then I 
would vote against a permanent moratorium on earmarks because that is 
our constitutional responsibility.
  My amendment is a little bit different, because what I do is define 
what an earmark is, and an earmark is defined as an appropriation that 
has not been authorized. I was very proud--2 days ago Senator Toomey 
said that some earmarks ought to be funded, but they ought to be funded 
in a transparent and honest way subject to evaluation by an authorizing 
committee. That is exactly what my amendment does. I talked to Senator 
Toomey, and I appreciate the fact that he is very open about this. I 
will repeat that: Some things ought to be funded, but they should be 
funded in a transparent and honest way subject to evaluation by an 
authorization committee. That is my amendment. A definition of an 
earmark is spending or appropriating without authorizing.
  Last year Senator Coburn said: ``It is not wrong to go through an 
authorization process where your colleagues can actually see it. It is 
wrong to hide something in a bill . . . .'' Amen. I agree with that. I 
said earlier, and I said yesterday, I can remember Democrats and 
Republicans on consideration of appropriations bills sitting on the 
floor, swapping out deals, making deals back and forth. That is what we 
want to do something about, and this is not a partisan thing. This is 
something that has been going on, and we have a way now of doing it.
  Senator McCain was kind enough to endorse a freestanding bill I had 
that does the very thing of defining an earmark as an appropriation 
that has not been authorized. Senator McCain said: Some earmarks are 
worthy. If they are worthy, then they should be authorized. Authorized, 
there is the key, and Senator McCain is exactly right. If you authorize 
it, then that is the process we want. When an earmark is considered by 
an authorization committee before it is appropriated, real transparency 
is brought to the process.
  In fact, I remember it was Senator Coburn who said on the floor--and 
this is about a year and a half ago--he agreed with me and said one 
good thing about requiring an authorization before an appropriation is 
that then if it is a bad one, we have two chances to kill it. Senator 
Coburn is right. We can kill it in the authorization phase or we can 
kill it in the appropriations phase.
  The example I use is a good example in terms of what we and the Armed 
Services Committee should be doing and are not doing. But I would say 
to you that this afternoon when we have these votes--it is my 
understanding we are going to have around 20 votes. A lot of these will 
be voice voted, I am sure. But the two votes I am concerned about are, 
No. 1, the vote on the Toomey bill, which I support, but I support it 
if you can define it and make real transparency set in by having the 
authorization process in place.
  I would only say that we go back to the Constitution. As I mentioned, 
let's go back to the statements that were made by Senator Toomey, 
Senator McCain, and Senator Coburn, that we want transparency and we 
don't want to cede the power of our constitutional duty as Members of 
the Senate to the executive branch. I know some in here would probably 
want to do that. Some are stronger supporters of Obama than I am. I am 
very critical of what Obama has done in terms of the deficits, which we 
have already talked about, in terms of what he is doing to the 
military. Some trillion dollars over a period of 10 years would be 
taken out of our military. When you add his budget to the 
sequestration, that is something that should not happen.
  With energy, right now the President is going around talking about 
how he is for developing energy in this country, and yet he is the 
obstacle to the development. He is the one who has in his budget the 
various things that make it very difficult, if not impossible, to get 
our resources that we have out there in oil and gas.
  In fact, it is kind of humorous and very clever of the President. 
Last week during his State of the Union message the President was 
talking about wanting to exploit all of our natural gas when he slipped 
in a little phrase that hardly anyone heard. I know Senator Boxer heard 
it because she was next to me, and we disagree on this whole issue. He 
said: We want to go after this type of formation, all the shale that is 
out there, but we don't want to poison the ground at the same time. 
Well, what he is talking about there is hydraulic fracturing. If you 
take away hydraulic fracturing, as he is trying to do, and put that in 
the hands of the Federal Government, then you might as well say goodbye 
to all these types of formations, oil and gas. We would not be able to 
do it. So I am critical of him in that respect.

  In the fourth area, in addition to what he is doing to the military, 
the deficit spending, and energy in this country is regulations. I am 
the ranking member of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, 
with all of these MACT programs--that is MACT, maximum achievable 
control technology. He is trying to do away with emission requirements 
where there is no technology to get into that type of requirement. So 
it is very expensive.
  The other thing he is trying to do--and I know this is the most 
controversial issue among liberals and conservatives--and that is we 
were able to successfully stop this whole global warming cap-and-trade 
legislation that has been out there ever since we refused to ratify 
Kyoto. It was made very clear that there is one thing nobody argues 
with--we know it is true--if you were to have legislation for cap and 
trade, the cost would be between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. 
We know that is true. That has come from the MIT, it has come from the 
CRA, and it has come from the Wharton School. That is the range they 
talk about. However, now this President is trying to do by regulation 
what we have voted down in legislation.
  Right now in this body of 100 Senators, there are at the very most 25

[[Page S295]]

Members of the Senate who would vote for cap and trade, and yet he is 
trying to do that through regulation. I have to say that would be the 
largest amount of money in terms--that would probably exceed the 
obligations we have to pay back even the deficits he has had. We will 
talk more about that later, but the issue right now is the two votes 
that are coming up.
  I would encourage us to vote for my amendment, which would define an 
earmark as an appropriation that has not been authorized. I have read 
to you quotes from virtually everyone in here who would agree with 
that, except for those individuals who want to cede this power to the 
President of the United States.
  I yield the floor, and I understand under unanimous consent that the 
Senator from Ohio would be the next speaker.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, at the conclusion of my remarks, 
I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley, 
be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank Senator Inhofe for the sensible nature of 
his words in terms of the difference between a Presidential and a 
congressional earmark. I think the Senator brought good sense to this, 
and I appreciate his words.


                           Amendment No. 1481

  Madam President, I rise in support of amendment No. 1481, cosponsored 
by Senator Merkley, our amendment to the STOCK Act. I thank Senator 
Gillibrand for her good work on managing this legislation.
  USA Today had an editorial from Tuesday that said:

       If lawmakers were really concerned with ethics, they'd put 
     their equity holdings in blind trusts, so they wouldn't have 
     the obvious conflict of interest that comes from setting the 
     rules for the companies they own.
       Banking committee members wouldn't invest in financial 
     institutions, Armed Services Committee members wouldn't 
     invest in defense contracts, and energy committee members 
     wouldn't invest in oil companies.

  How simple is that? How straightforward is that? How right is that? 
These stories simply don't reflect well on the world's greatest 
deliberative body. Most of us think these investments don't affect our 
decisions here, and they probably don't, but isn't it time we held 
ourselves to a higher standard?
  Senator Merkley and I are proposing the Putting the People's 
Interests First Act as an amendment to the STOCK Act. It would require 
Senators and their senior staff who are subject to financial 
disclosure--no more than two or three or four of our staff people in 
each office; the most well paid, those in the highest ranking decision-
making position--to sell individual stocks that create conflicts or to 
put their investments in blind trusts or to invest in only widely held 
mutual funds.
  No one is required to avoid equities. We could still invest in broad-
based mutual funds or exchange-traded funds. You can keep your 
ownership interest in your family farm or small business. I will repeat 
that: In no way does this affect your ownership in your family farm or 
small business. If you are setting up a blind trust, you can instruct 
the trustee to hold onto your stock in your family company. This rule 
would be similar to steps that have already been taken to address 
financial conflicts of interest or at least the appearance of financial 
conflicts.
  Senate Ethics rule 37.7 requires committee staff making more than 
$25,000 per year--way more strict than our amendment in that way--``to 
divest himself [or herself] of any substantial holdings which may be 
directly affected by the actions of the committee for which he works.''
  The Armed Services Committee requires staff and spouses and 
dependents to divest themselves of stock in companies doing business 
with the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. The 
committee does permit the use of blind trusts.
  When asked about a requirement to divest, former Defense Secretary 
William Perry said:

       That was very painful, but I do not disagree with the 
     importance of doing this. The potential of corruption is very 
     high. It keeps our government clean.

  In the executive branch, Federal rules and Federal criminal law 
generally prohibit employees, their spouses, and their children from 
owning stock in companies they regulate. All Senator Merkley and I are 
saying is that Members of the Senate should hold themselves to the same 
standard we already require of much of our committee staff and 
executive branch employees. Our staff's requirements are more severe 
than ours, and we are the ones whose names are on the ballot, we are 
the ones who are sworn in to do the bidding of the American people. We 
are the 100 people in this so-called exclusive club and yet we are 
going to have different rules for us than we do for a $30,000-a-year 
staff person? That hardly seems right.
  Some argue that selling all of our stock will make us lose touch with 
the rest of society. That kind of thinking falls on deaf ears for most 
Americans. The ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee 
doesn't invest in stocks. Instead he invests in State and local bonds 
with a small amount directed into mutual funds. When asked, Congressman 
Frank of Massachusetts said: ``I get a steady 4.5 percent, and I help 
my state in the process. I'm a patriot, and I'm making money too.''
  Why should Members of the Senate who own stock in oil companies vote 
on issues that affect the oil industry? Why should Members of the 
Senate who might own stock in a pharmaceutical company vote on issues 
that affect health care, on a generic drug bill or on a biologics bill 
or on Medicare or Medicaid? Appearances matter. Right now the American 
people don't trust that we are acting in the Nation's best interest far 
too many times. Investing in broadly held funds or a blind trust will 
keep us in touch with society. It is not a retreat from the U.S. 
economy. Instead it will keep us from picking winners and losers. It 
will show the public that our focus is on policies that will help grow 
the economy. Again, I am not accusing any of my colleagues, if they own 
an oil stock, of voting for more tax breaks for the oil industry. I am 
not saying they do that; I am saying there is the appearance that some 
of them might do it.

  We need to remember that public service is a privilege. Folks around 
Washington are already paid well in these jobs. There is no reason they 
need to be buying and selling stocks in small or multimillion-dollar 
portfolios.
  When asked about the fact that Senate Armed Services Committee 
conflict-of-interest rules apply only to staff and Department of 
Defense appointees--but not to Senators--again, when asked about the 
fact that the Senate Armed Services Committee conflict-of-interest 
rules apply to staff people--and, again, not necessarily highly paid 
staff--and Department of Defense appointees, President Bush's Deputy 
Secretary of Defense, Gordon England, said: ``I think Congress should 
abide by the same rules we impose on other people.''
  No kidding. Really.
  In a State of the Union Message, the President said: ``Let's limit 
any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact.''
  As we cast votes, we all--the 100 Members of the Senate--have an 
impact on all kinds of industries every day, on all our economies.
  I agree with Under Secretary England. I agree with President Obama. I 
agree with Senator Merkley as we offer this amendment. It is simple and 
direct. The public should expect nothing less from us.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                Amendment No. 1493 to Amendment No. 1470

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Before I speak on the amendment, I ask unanimous 
consent that the pending amendment be set aside to call up my amendment 
No. 1493 and make that the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1493.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

[[Page S296]]

 (Purpose: To require disclosure of political intelligence activities 
                 under Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995)

       At the end of the amendment, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DISCLOSURE OF POLITICAL INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES 
                   UNDER LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 3 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act 
     of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1602) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by inserting after ``lobbying activities'' each place 
     that term appears the following: ``or political intelligence 
     activities''; and
       (B) by inserting after ``lobbyists'' the following: ``or 
     political intelligence consultants''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(17) Political intelligence activities.--The term 
     `political intelligence activities' means political 
     intelligence contacts and efforts in support of such 
     contacts, including preparation and planning activities, 
     research, and other background work that is intended, at the 
     time it is performed, for use in contacts, and coordination 
     with such contacts and efforts of others.
       ``(18) Political intelligence contact.--
       ``(A) Definition.--The term `political intelligence 
     contact' means any oral or written communication (including 
     an electronic communication) to or from a covered executive 
     branch official or a covered legislative branch official, the 
     information derived from which is intended for use in 
     analyzing securities or commodities markets, or in informing 
     investment decisions, and which is made on behalf of a client 
     with regard to--
       ``(i) the formulation, modification, or adoption of Federal 
     legislation (including legislative proposals);
       ``(ii) the formulation, modification, or adoption of a 
     Federal rule, regulation, Executive order, or any other 
     program, policy, or position of the United States Government; 
     or
       ``(iii) the administration or execution of a Federal 
     program or policy (including the negotiation, award, or 
     administration of a Federal contract, grant, loan, permit, or 
     license).
       ``(B) Exception.--The term `political intelligence contact' 
     does not include a communication that is made by or to a 
     representative of the media if the purpose of the 
     communication is gathering and disseminating news and 
     information to the public.
       ``(19) Political intelligence firm.--The term `political 
     intelligence firm' means a person or entity that has 1 or 
     more employees who are political intelligence consultants to 
     a client other than that person or entity.
       ``(20) Political intelligence consultant.--The term 
     `political intelligence consultant' means any individual who 
     is employed or retained by a client for financial or other 
     compensation for services that include one or more political 
     intelligence contacts.''.
       (b) Registration Requirement.--Section 4 of the Lobbying 
     Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1603) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by inserting after ``whichever is earlier,'' the 
     following: ``or a political intelligence consultant first 
     makes a political intelligence contact,''; and
       (ii) by inserting after ``such lobbyist'' each place that 
     term appears the following: ``or consultant'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting after ``lobbyists'' each 
     place that term appears the following: ``or political 
     intelligence consultants''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3)(A)--
       (i) by inserting after ``lobbying activities'' each place 
     that term appears the following: ``and political intelligence 
     activities''; and
       (ii) in clause (i), by inserting after ``lobbying firm'' 
     the following: ``or political intelligence firm'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (3), by inserting after ``lobbying 
     activities'' each place that term appears the following: ``or 
     political intelligence activities'';
       (B) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     after ``lobbying activities'' the following: ``or political 
     intelligence activities''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (C), by inserting after ``lobbying 
     activity'' the following: ``or political intelligence 
     activity'';
       (C) in paragraph (5), by inserting after ``lobbying 
     activities'' each place that term appears the following: ``or 
     political intelligence activities'';
       (D) in paragraph (6), by inserting after ``lobbyist'' each 
     place that term appears the following: ``or political 
     intelligence consultant''; and
       (E) in the matter following paragraph (6), by inserting 
     ``or political intelligence activities'' after ``such 
     lobbying activities'';
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting after ``lobbying 
     contacts'' the following: ``or political intelligence 
     contacts''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by inserting after ``lobbying contact'' the following: 
     ``or political intelligence contact''; and
       (ii) by inserting after ``lobbying contacts'' the 
     following: ``and political intelligence contacts''; and
       (4) in subsection (d), by inserting after ``lobbying 
     activities'' each place that term appears the following: ``or 
     political intelligence activities''.
       (c) Reports by Registered Political Intelligence 
     Consultants.--Section 5 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 
     1995 (2 U.S.C. 1604) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting after ``lobbying 
     activities'' the following: ``and political intelligence 
     activities'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     after ``lobbying activities'' the following: ``or political 
     intelligence activities'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by inserting after ``lobbyist'' the following: ``or 
     political intelligence consultant''; and
       (II) by inserting after ``lobbying activities'' the 
     following: ``or political intelligence activities'';

       (iii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting after ``lobbyists'' 
     the following: ``and political intelligence consultants''; 
     and
       (iv) in subparagraph (C), by inserting after ``lobbyists'' 
     the following: ``or political intelligence consultants'';
       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by inserting after ``lobbying firm'' the following: 
     ``or political intelligence firm''; and
       (ii) by inserting after ``lobbying activities'' each place 
     that term appears the following: ``or political intelligence 
     activities''; and
       (C) in paragraph (4), by inserting after ``lobbying 
     activities'' each place that term appears the following: ``or 
     political intelligence activities''; and
       (3) in subsection (d)(1), in the matter preceding 
     subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or a political intelligence 
     consultant'' after ``a lobbyist''.
       (d) Disclosure and Enforcement.--Section 6(a) of the 
     Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1605) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)(A), by inserting after ``lobbying 
     firms'' the following: ``, political intelligence 
     consultants, political intelligence firms,'';
       (2) in paragraph (7), by striking ``or lobbying firm'' and 
     inserting ``lobbying firm, political intelligence consultant, 
     or political intelligence firm''; and
       (3) in paragraph (8), by striking ``or lobbying firm'' and 
     inserting ``lobbying firm, political intelligence consultant, 
     or political intelligence firm''.
       (e) Rules of Construction.--Section 8(b) of the Lobbying 
     Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1607(b)) is amended by 
     striking ``or lobbying contacts'' and inserting ``lobbying 
     contacts, political intelligence activities, or political 
     intelligence contacts''.
       (f) Identification of Clients and Covered Officials.--
     Section 14 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 
     1609) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the heading, by inserting ``or Political 
     Intelligence'' after ``Lobbying'';
       (B) by inserting ``or political intelligence contact'' 
     after ``lobbying contact'' each place that term appears; and
       (C) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or political 
     intelligence activity, as the case may be'' after ``lobbying 
     activity'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the heading, by inserting ``or Political 
     Intelligence'' after ``Lobbying'';
       (B) by inserting ``or political intelligence contact'' 
     after ``lobbying contact'' each place that term appears; and
       (C) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or political 
     intelligence activity, as the case may be'' after ``lobbying 
     activity''; and
       (3) in subsection (c), by inserting ``or political 
     intelligence contact'' after ``lobbying contact''.
       (g) Annual Audits and Reports by Comptroller General.--
     Section 26 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 
     1614) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting ``political intelligence firms, political 
     intelligence consultants,'' after ``lobbying firms''; and
       (B) by striking ``lobbying registrations'' and inserting 
     ``registrations'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1)(A), by inserting ``political 
     intelligence firms, political intelligence consultants,'' 
     after ``lobbying firms''; and
       (3) in subsection (c), by inserting ``or political 
     intelligence consultant'' after ``a lobbyist''.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the Wall Street Journal recently 
reported that political intelligence is an approximately $100 million 
industry. The article also says that expert networks employ over 2,000 
people to do political intelligence in Washington, DC.
  We have to say approximately because no one truly knows how many 
people work in this industry. We don't know from whom they seek 
information, what happens to that information, and how much they get 
paid. This is a problem if one believes in transparency in government 
and if one believes in the purposes behind this legislation, as I do--
the underlying legislation--that Members of the Senate and Congress 
should not benefit from insider trading information.

[[Page S297]]

  So we have people in this city or people who come into this city to 
get information on what Congress might do or what their regulators 
might do that might affect the stock in some company or something, and 
this political intelligence information is gathered and given to people 
who presumably profit from it or I guess these people wouldn't be 
employed in the first place. So there is a growing unregulated industry 
with no transparency. If a lobbyist has to register in order to 
advocate for a school or a church or a private corporation, shouldn't 
the same lobbyist have to register if he or she is seeking and getting 
inside information that ends up in making people a profit? This is 
especially true if that information would make millions for a hedge 
fund or a private equity firm.
  We have current law. Under current law, this is not the case. We have 
no registration of these people and we don't know who they are. So we 
go back to amendment No. 1493. My amendment merely brings sunlight to 
this unregulated area. It defines what a political intelligence 
lobbyist is and requires that person or firm to register. In other 
words, it requires them to do what, under the 1995 law, every lobbyist 
has to do.
  I understand some would say there have not been hearings on this 
subject and that it should be studied first. But there isn't much that 
is complicated about this amendment. It is pretty simple. If a person 
seeks information from Congress in order to make money, the American 
people have a right to know the name of that person and who that person 
is selling that information to. That is just pretty basic good 
government, isn't it? It is the same as if a person is a lobbyist for a 
piece of legislation under laws going back to 1946 and amended since 
then, they have to register. The public has a right to know who the 
lobbyist is, whom they are working for, and what they are lobbying for 
or against.
  This amendment isn't just helpful to the American people, though. It 
isn't just helpful to make people responsible, because the more 
transparency we have the more accountability there is and the more 
openness we have in government the better off we are. So I make a case 
to help the American people, yes. But it is also going to help Members 
of Congress and our staff who are trying to decipher their duties under 
this proposed legislation.
  Senators have raised the question: How will we know if the people we 
speak to trade on what we say? So to answer that question, we require 
the people doing it to be responsible. So we achieve more transparency 
in government, and we even help Members of Congress and our staff 
because these political intelligence people are pretty smart. They know 
where to get the information because they come to us and ask questions, 
but we might not know why they are asking the questions. So it is going 
to help Members of Congress and our staff as well. By requiring 
lobbyists who sell information to stock traders to register, Members 
and staff then have an easy way to track who these people are and to 
whom they would sell their information. This strengthens the bill, from 
my point of view, and helps Members and staff comply with its 
requirements.
  So I hope we can pass this amendment soon and bring light and 
transparency to this growing industry and, when we are talking to 
someone, know who they are, what they seek, whom they are working for, 
et cetera.
  With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1491

  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I rise again today to speak on behalf of 
fairness. We have heard quite a bit from the President on the campaign 
trail about fairness. But it appears there is no interest in fairness 
when it comes to transparency for the executive branch.
  The bill we are currently debating in the Senate will subject 
Congress to additional reporting requirements for certain financial 
transactions. The goal is to ensure that Members of Congress and 
congressional staff are not using their unique access to confidential 
information for personal gain. That goal is worthy.
  I believe this is an appropriate goal, and one I fully support. I do 
not understand, however, why the additional reporting requirements do 
not extend to members of the executive branch who arguably have even 
greater access to such confidential information than Members of 
Congress and their staffs do.
  It only seems fair that executive branch officials, who are already 
required to file annual financial reports, as we are, also be directed 
to meet the same additional reporting requirements being imposed on the 
legislative branch.
  I have yet to hear a compelling argument against equity between the 
branches. Some people have argued that the executive branch has other 
ways to deal with insider trading. Think about it. But none of those 
will subject executive branch employees to the same public scrutiny as 
this legislation would. I believe what is good for the goose, it seems 
to me, should be good for the gander. We have heard that all of our 
life.
  I understand there is a willingness on the other side to expand the 
reporting requirements, but it would fall far short of parity.
  Some have said here it would cost too much. But if we are willing to 
expand the population of executive branch officials required to report 
publicly, then any further expansion will only present marginal 
additional costs.
  Currently, less than 1 percent of the executive branch workforce is 
required to file financial disclosure statements. The other 99 percent 
are not. My parity amendment will not expand that universe. It will 
only require them to meet the same reporting standards that will apply 
to the Congress itself.
  As I understand it, the Democratic alternative to my amendment would 
produce some bizarre results. For example, a Senate office 
administrator who meets the reporting threshold would be required to 
report publicly as directed in this bill, but the head of enforcement 
at the Securities and Exchange Commission would not. That is bizarre. A 
Senate scheduler may have to make additional public disclosures, but 
the General Counsel of the Federal Reserve would not. This is not fair, 
and I believe it is unacceptable.
  My amendment simply says if you are an executive branch or 
independent agency official and you currently file financial disclosure 
reports, you will have to comply with the same public reporting 
requirements contained in this bill that we plan to impose on the 
Congress.
  My amendment also contains the same military personnel exemption that 
the Democratic alternative does, as well as the same 2-year 
implementation provision.
  My amendment is simple, fair, and deserves the support of every 
Member of this body. If my friends on the other side of the aisle 
believe in fairness, this would be a very good way to show it.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


        Amendments Nos. 1489, as Modified, and 1485, as Modified

  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Boxer, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Boxer-Isakson amendment No. 1489 be modified 
with the changes that are at the desk; that the order for a Collins 
side-by-side amendment be vitiated; that the Paul amendment No. 1485 be 
modified with the changes that are at the desk; further, that the order 
for the Lieberman side-by-side amendment to the Paul amendment be 
vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments, as modified, are as follows:

[[Page S298]]

                    Amendment No. 1489, as modified

 (Purpose: To require full and complete public disclosure of the terms 
of home mortgages held by Members of Congress, the President, the Vice 
 President, and executive branch officers nominated or appointed to a 
 position by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the 
                                Senate)

       At the end, add the following:

     SECTION 11. REQUIRING MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE.

       Section 102(a)(4)(A) of the Ethics in Government Act of 
     1978 (5 U.S.C. App) is amended by striking ``spouse; and'' 
     and inserting the following: ``spouse, except that this 
     exception shall not apply to a reporting individual--
       ``(i) described in paragraph (1), (2), or (9) of section 
     101(f);
       ``(ii) described in section 101(b) who has been nominated 
     for appointment as an officer or employee in the executive 
     branch described in subsection (f) of such section, other 
     than--

       ``(I) an individual appointed to a position--

       ``(aa) as a Foreign Service Officer below the rank of 
     ambassador; or
       ``(bb) in the uniformed services for which the pay grade 
     prescribed by section 201 of title 37, United States Code is 
     O-6 or below; or

       ``(II) a special government employee, as defined under 
     section 202 of title 18, United States Code; or

       ``(iii) described in section 101(f) who is in a position in 
     the executive branch the appointment to which is made by the 
     President and requires advice and consent of the Senate, 
     other than--

       ``(I) an individual appointed to a position--

       ``(aa) as a Foreign Service Officer below the rank of 
     ambassador; or
       ``(bb) in the uniformed services for which the pay grade 
     prescribed by section 201 of title 37, United States Code is 
     O-6 or below; or

       ``(II) a special government employee, as defined under 
     section 202 of title 18, United States Code; and''.


                    Amendment No. 1485, as modified

 (Purpose: To extend the transaction reporting requirement to judicial 
            officers and senior executive branch employees)

       On page 7, strike lines 6 through 9, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(j)(1) Not later than 30 days after any transaction 
     required to be reported under section 102(a)(5)(B), a Member 
     of Congress or officer or employee of Congress, a judicial 
     officer, or a senior executive branch official shall file a 
     report of the transaction.
       ``(2) In this subsection, the term `senior executive branch 
     official' means--
       ``(A) the President;
       ``(B) the Vice President; and
       ``(C) individuals serving in full-time, paid positions 
     required to be appointed by the President with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate but does not include members of the 
     armed services, foreign service, public health service, or 
     the officer corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration.''.


          Amendments Nos. 1511 and 1505 To Amendment No. 1470

  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set 
aside the pending amendment so that I may call up on behalf of Senator 
Lieberman the side-by-side amendment to the Shelby amendment No. 1491 
and on behalf of Senator Portman his amendment No. 1505.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mrs. Gillibrand], for Mr. 
     Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 1511 to amendment 
     No. 1470.
       The Senator from New York [Mrs. Gillibrand], for Mr. 
     Portman, proposes an amendment numbered 1505 to amendment No. 
     1470.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           Amendment No. 1511

    (Purpose: To extend the STOCK Act to ensure that the reporting 
 requirements set forth in the STOCK Act apply to the executive branch 
                       and independent agencies)

       On page 7, strike lines 6 through 9, insert the following:
       ``(j) Not later than 30 days after any transaction required 
     to be reported under section 102(a)(5)(B), the following 
     persons, if required to file a report under any other 
     subsection of this section subject to any waivers and 
     exclusions, shall file a report of the transaction:
       ``(1) A Member of Congress.
       ``(2) An officer or employee of Congress required to file a 
     report under this section.
       ``(3) The President.
       ``(4) The Vice President.
       ``(5) Each employee appointed to a position in the 
     executive branch, the appointment to which requires advice 
     and consent of the Senate, except for--
       ``(A) an individual appointed to a position--
       ``(i) as a Foreign Service Officer below the rank of 
     ambassador; or
       ``(ii) in the uniformed services for which the pay grade 
     prescribed by section 201 of title 37, United States Code is 
     O-6 or below; or
       ``(B) a special government employee, as defined under 
     section 202 of title 18, United States Code.
       ``(6) Any employee in a position in the executive branch 
     who is a noncareer appointee in the Senior Executive Service 
     (as defined under section 3132(a)(7) of title 5, United 
     States Code) or a similar personnel system for senior 
     employees in the executive branch, such as the Senior Foreign 
     Service, except that the Director of the Office of Government 
     Ethics may, by regulation, exclude from the application of 
     this paragraph any individual, or group of individuals, who 
     are in such positions, but only in cases in which the 
     Director determines such exclusion would not affect adversely 
     the integrity of the Government or the public's confidence in 
     the integrity of the Government.
       ``(7) The Director of the Office of Government Ethics.
       ``(8) Any civilian employee, not described in paragraph 
     (5), employed in the Executive Office of the President (other 
     than a special government employee) who holds a commission of 
     appointment from the President.''.
       At the end insert the following:

     SEC. __. EXECUTIVE BRANCH REPORTING.

       Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the President shall--
       (1) ensure that financial disclosure forms filed by 
     officers and employees referred to in section 101(j) of the 
     Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) are made 
     available to the public as required by section 8(a) on 
     appropriate official websites of agencies of the executive 
     branch; and
       (2) develop systems to enable electronic filing and public 
     access, as required by section 8(b), to the financial 
     disclosure forms of such individuals.


                           Amendment No. 1505

 (Purpose: To clarify that political intelligence includes information 
gathered from executive branch employees, Congressional employees, and 
                          Members of Congress)

       On page 8, lines 23 and 24, strike ``executive branch and 
     legislative branch officials'' and insert ``an executive 
     branch employee, a Member of Congress, or an employee of 
     Congress''.

  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, we here in the Senate are so close 
to doing something so basic, so common sense to begin restoring the 
faith and trust the American people have with this institution. I am 
encouraged that we have found more to agree on today than that which we 
disagree on, so we can bring this bill on the floor to a vote.
  I thank Leader Reid for his extraordinary perseverance and leadership 
on this issue. I also thank Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member 
Collins for their vision and their hard work in bringing this strong 
piece of legislation to the floor. I also thank Senator Scott Brown and 
our other cosponsors who have worked so hard to do what is right for 
the American people. And, of course, I thank my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle who have worked with us in good faith to bring this 
legislation to fruition.
  We have tried to focus on the specific task at hand, and that is 
closing loopholes to ensure that Members of Congress play by the exact 
same rules as every other American. While there are some amendments 
today that will not meet that test, there are others that will make 
this bill stronger, and I believe the final product will have teeth.
  This sorely needed bill would establish for the first time a clear 
fiduciary responsibility to the people we serve--removing any doubt 
that both the SEC and the CFTC are empowered to investigate and 
prosecute cases involving insider trading of securities from nonpublic 
information that we have access to when we do our jobs.
  We are entrusted with a profound responsibility to the American 
people: to look out for their best interests, not to do what is in our 
financial interest. Let's show the people who have sent us here that we 
as a body can come together and do the right thing.
  Today, we are taking a step forward to show them we are worthy of 
their trust. I encourage all of my colleagues to take this step with us 
today.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, in 6 or 7 minutes the Senate will 
begin a series of votes on the matter before us, the STOCK Act. I want 
to take a few moments to restate the underlying

[[Page S299]]

main purpose of the legislation, which is to respond to the public 
concern, informed by testimony before our committee from experts on 
securities law, that it is not totally clear that Members of Congress 
and our staffs are covered by anti-insider trading laws enforced by the 
SEC. The No. 1 accomplishment of this proposal will be to make that 
crystal clear.
  We are not exempt from that law; we should not be exempt. I presume 
most Members of Congress have assumed we have never been exempt. But 
this will make it clear if anybody crosses the line, they cannot defend 
themselves by saying that Members of Congress are not covered by the 
law.
  We have also added in committee a couple of provisions which embrace 
the old but still important notion that sunshine is the best 
disinfectant in government by requiring that the annual financial 
disclosure reports we file will now be filed electronically and will 
therefore be available on the Internet. Right now, these are public 
documents. When they are filed in the Office of the Secretary of the 
Senate, people have to go there and make copies of them to see them. As 
Senator Begich, our colleague from Alaska, said: That is not easy if 
you are an Alaskan. This will bring that system up to date.
  The third part--which I know is controversial for some, but I think 
it is sensible--is to require that within 30 days of any stock trades, 
disclosure forms must be filed with the Senate and also online. I can 
tell you that the Securities and Exchange Commission has made clear in 
testimony before the House committee and in discussions with our staff 
that that kind of periodic requirement for disclosure of trades in 
stock and securities will help them do the job we want them to do to 
make sure that insider trading laws are not being violated and, of 
course, will keep the public, our constituents, informed of what we are 
about.
  A number of amendments are up. As Senator Reid said, I hope we don't 
have rollcall votes on all of them. I think a number of them will 
receive unanimous support on both sides. I hope we can adopt them by 
voice.
  There is one amendment, Senator Shelby's amendment No. 1491, to 
which, as part of the agreement, I filed a side-by-side, as it were. I 
support the goal that Senator Shelby has of holding the executive 
branch accountable in ways similar to the way we are; that is, the 
amendment, generally speaking, would extend the 30-day reporting 
requirement, disclosure requirement, to a very large number of 
executive branch employees. That, to me, is the problem. It is too 
broad. It would create a cost and an unnecessary reporting system for 
many executive branch employees.
  I want to point out here that when it comes to avoiding and 
preventing conflicts of interest, the executive branch is probably well 
ahead of the legislative branch. The ethics rules requirement and 
guidance put forward over the years by the Office of Government Ethics 
at the agencies are extensive and address a wide range of potential 
conflicts of interest and/or improprieties. They have teeth, criminal 
sanctions.
  For instance, high-level executive branch employees already file 
financial disclosure forms that face a very extensive system of agency 
review. These agency officials and career civil servants are often 
forced to divest themselves of their stock holdings if they seem to be 
in conflict with their responsibilities or to recuse themselves, not to 
be involved in matters in order to minimize potential conflicts of 
interest. That is a much different standard than we impose on 
ourselves, which is the standard of disclosure.
  I have introduced a version of Senator Shelby's amendment, which I 
think achieves his goal in a significant way but not so broadly. Rather 
than the tens of thousands of people encompassed in the Shelby 
amendment, mine is targeted at policymakers most equivalent to those of 
us in Congress and those who work with us; that is, positions in our 
government that are Senate-confirmed and also certain high-level White 
House and agency staff who might not be Senate-confirmed but are 
policymakers. These individuals are public officials with visible high-
profile roles, and the extra scrutiny that comes with increased 
reporting requirements seems to be more appropriate for this group--
including the President, Vice President, appointees in the White House, 
the so-called policy czars, special assistants to the President, as 
well as members of the Federal Reserve Board.
  I hope we can take this significant step to achieve what Senator 
Shelby had in mind, but not, if I can put it this way, overdo it in a 
way that will actually, according to comments we have had from people 
in the executive branch, get in the way of the existing very tough 
ethics rules they live under now.
  I yield the floor at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, first, let me commend the chairman of 
our committee, Senator Lieberman. As always, it has been a great 
pleasure to work with him to produce this bill. I also wish to commend 
the author of the bill, Senator Scott Brown, who was the first to 
introduce this legislation in the Senate, and also praise the work of 
the Senator from New York, Mrs. Gillibrand, for her contributions.
  The STOCK Act is intended to affirm that Members of Congress are not 
exempt from our laws prohibiting insider trading. There are disputes 
among the experts about whether this legislation is necessary, but we 
feel we should send a very strong message to the American public that 
we understand Members of Congress are not exempt from insider trading 
laws, and that is exactly what this bill does.
  We need to reassure a skeptical public that we understand elective 
office is a place for public service, not for private gain. 
Underscoring that important message is clearly the purpose of this 
bill, and that is why I support it.
  I thank the Chair.


 Amendments Nos. 1478, 1477, 1474, 1476, 1490, 1492, and 1503 Withdrawn

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the following 
amendments are withdrawn:
  Amendment No. 1478, amendment No. 1477, amendment No. 1474, amendment 
No. 1476, amendment No. 1490, amendment No. 1492, and amendment No. 
1503.


                           Amendment No. 1482

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on amendment No. 1482, offered by the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. 
Lieberman.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, this is a highly technical amendment. 
It simply says the GAO report, required by the underlying bill on the 
question of political intelligence, be sent not only to the Committee 
on Government Oversight in the House but also to the Judiciary 
Committee.
  If there is no objection, I urge the adoption of the amendment. I 
don't believe there is any opposition and, therefore, no need for a 
rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1482.
  The amendment was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1484

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the Paul amendment, No. 
1484. There is 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, on this amendment.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment. This 
amendment would strike the underlying bill and would replace it with an 
affirmation that we are not exempt from insider trading and that each 
Senator would sign a statement each year affirming they did not 
participate in insider trading.
  I think this is the way to go. I think the American people want to be 
sure we are not exempt. I think this is a good way to do it without 
creating a bureaucracy and a nightmare that may well have many 
unintended consequences.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I respectfully oppose the amendment. It 
would, as the Senator from Kentucky, with his characteristic directness 
said, strike the entire bill. The affirmation by Members they have not 
violated insider trading laws is, in my opinion, not enough. In the 
opinion of the SEC, it is not enough because it doesn't establish the 
duty of trust this underlying bill does that is required to guarantee 
charges against a Member of Congress or staff on insider trading

[[Page S300]]

will not be successfully defended against on the argument that Members 
are not covered.
  I yield the rest of my time to my friend from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I too am opposed to the amendment offered 
by Senator Paul. I do think the idea of a certification is a good one, 
but, unfortunately, Senator Paul's amendment would strike the 
provisions of the bill that affirm the duty we have to the American 
people and that scholars who testified before the committee said was 
necessary.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing 
to the amendment. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 61, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 4 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Blunt
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lee
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Moran
     Nelson (NE)
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Warner
     Webb
     Wicker

                                NAYS--61

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heller
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kirk
     Sessions
       
  The amendment (No. 1484) was rejected.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1487

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 2 minutes 
of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 
1487, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Paul. This amendment is 
subject to a 60-vote threshold.
  The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, this amendment would say that those in the 
executive branch who decide loans and grants, if they have a self-
interest in the company or if their family has a self-interest in the 
company, they should not be making decisions awarding grants and 
awarding loans. I think the idea that you should not make money off of 
government is an important one, but it is not just Congress that this 
should apply to; this should apply to the executive branch. We should 
not have hundreds of millions of dollars in loans--even billions of 
dollars in loans--dispensed by people who used to work for that company 
or whose family still works for the company.
  I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. This is one of a series of amendments in which our 
colleagues are applying ethics rules to the executive branch although 
the bill, of course, is focused on Members of Congress. In this case, 
this applies probably the harshest penalty that has ever been applied 
to members of the executive branch. The fact is, executive branch 
employees are already subject to an effective, in some ways broader 
ethics regime than we face now. It is backed up by criminal sanctions. 
As an example, executive branch employees file financial disclosure 
forms. Agency ethics officials who examine them can compel divestiture 
of holdings. They can require the individual to recuse himself from 
certain matters and, if recusal is not sufficient, the agency can 
reassign the individual.
  In this case, Senator Paul would say that an executive branch 
employee is forbidden from holding a position in which they or their 
family have any financial interest of $5,000 or more, so I oppose the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 5 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson (WI)
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     Lee
     Levin
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Moran
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter

                                NAYS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hoeven
     Inouye
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. COLLINS. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1511

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 1511 offered by the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. 
Lieberman.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this is a side-by-side with an 
amendment offered by my friend from Alabama. The question is, How many 
employees of the executive branch of government should be required to 
electronically file their disclosure statements? I believe, 
respectfully, Senator Shelby's amendment requires maybe more than 
300,000 Federal employees, including many who filed confidential 
disclosure statements.
  This amendment would include people in the Federal executive branch 
who hold positions equivalent to those of us in Congress who are 
policymakers, and that includes the President, the Vice President, 
appointees in the White House, members of the Federal Reserve Board, 
and Senior Executive Service. It is the difference between applying 
this requirement to 2,000 executive employees or more than 300,000 
Federal employees.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). There is no time remaining.

[[Page S301]]

  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, the Lieberman amendment is a side-by-
side with the Shelby amendment. This Lieberman amendment would create 
loopholes, disparity, and it undermines the true transparency. I 
encourage my colleagues to oppose it.
  On the other hand, my amendment would be a side-by-side, and it 
creates parity, fairness, and true transparency. Without transparency 
the American people will be left in the dark. Also, the Senator from 
Connecticut is talking about who would have to file these. It will be 
the same people who have to file disclosures now. Why should they be 
exempt? My amendment would make it a level playing field. It makes a 
lot of sense. It is fair, it is honest, and the executive branch should 
not be excluded for any reason I can think of.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 18, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 6 Leg.]

                                YEAS--81

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--18

     Barrasso
     Bingaman
     Blunt
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Moran
     Portman
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. COLLINS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1491

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 1491, as modified, offered by the Senator from Alabama, 
Mr. Shelby.
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, first, I wish to commend Senator Paul 
and Senator Shelby for raising the issue of extending these 
requirements to the executive branch. I agree with them. I supported 
the amendment offered by Senator Lieberman, but I also encourage my 
colleagues to support the amendment offered by Senator Shelby. It would 
take in the independent regulatory agencies, and it goes a little bit 
deeper into the executive branch. So I think both principles are 
correct--that the kind of disclosures we are going to be required to 
make should also apply to high-level executive branch employees.
  I thank both the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Alabama 
for their leadership.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator 
from Maine. She is urging people to vote yea on the Shelby amendment. I 
appreciate that. It is a good amendment, and I will do the same thing: 
Vote yea.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I respectfully ask for a ``no'' vote.
  As I indicated in support of the side-by-side I offered, executive 
branch employees are now under very tough ethics regulations requiring, 
in many cases, divestiture or recusal, and this adds a good requirement 
which is for some of them to file electronically the disclosure 
statements they have to make. But the amendment we just passed--mine--
would add that requirement to 2,000 of the top-level policymakers in 
our Federal Government. Senator Shelby's amendment would extend that to 
more than 300,000 Federal employees, including some, by our count in 
the Office of Government Ethics, drivers and secretaries.
  In addition to the burden it would place on them unduly, we are 
asking agencies to stretch personnel and resources to fulfill a totally 
new requirement when, in fact, we want them to save money and not 
figure out ways to spend more money.
  I respectfully ask my colleagues to vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Shelby 
amendment No. 1491, as modified.
  Mr. SHELBY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 41, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 7 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--41

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The amendment (No. 1491), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. COLLINS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                      Amendment No. 1485 Withdrawn

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 1485, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Paul.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I think the issue has already been 
addressed by previous amendments. I thank the chairman and the minority 
ranking member for their addressing this problem.
  I ask unanimous consent that the amendment, as modified, be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky. I 
would urge others with amendments

[[Page S302]]

listed here to think of following that example. But certainly as I look 
at the next four amendments, I think they are all noncontroversial. I 
would urge their sponsors to have the 2 minutes of debate, and, 
hopefully, let's have a voice vote so we can proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.


                           Amendment No. 1489

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I believe my amendment is next.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided on the Boxer amendment No. 1489.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I would be delighted to take a voice 
vote on this amendment, which I am proud to say was written by myself 
and Senator Isakson. I am very pleased Senator Collins suggested the 
modification.
  All this amendment does is broaden the mortgage disclosure 
requirements on all of us--Members of Congress--and it does the same 
thing for the President, the Vice President, and the executive branch 
employees who are subject to the advice and consent of the Congress.
  I think it is fair, I think it is wise, and I think we have had 
issues that require this to be done.
  With that, I yield back my time to Senator Collins.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am very pleased the Senator from 
California has agreed to modify her amendment to apply it to the 
executive branch. I thank her very much for her cooperation, and I 
would suggest the amendment be adopted, as modified, by a voice vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate 
the 60-vote requirement on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1489), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. COLLINS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1505

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, the next amendment is one from Senator 
Portman. It is No. 1505. It is truly a technical amendment. I do not 
believe it needs a rollcall vote. I would suggest, with the concurrence 
of the chairman, that we vitiate the yeas and nays and adopt it by a 
voice vote.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1505) was agreed to.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. COLLINS. I move to lay that motion upon the table.
  The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1510 to Amendment No. 1470

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided on the Enzi amendment No. 1510.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, this is a very good amendment that 
Senator Enzi has offered. It recognizes the fact that we do not control 
trades that happen within mutual funds. Thus, there is not a need for 
reporting every 30 days; rather, we should keep the annual reporting 
requirement.
  It has been cleared by both sides. I do not believe it requires a 
rollcall vote. I would suggest that we vitiate any rollcall vote that 
was suggested and adopt it by a voice vote, with the concurrence of the 
chairman of the committee.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, this is a good amendment. I support 
it.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Enzi, I call up 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for Mr. Enzi, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1510 to amendment No. 1470.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To clarify that the transaction reporting requirement is not 
           intended to apply to widely held investment funds)

       At the end of the amendment, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. TRANSACTION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       The transaction reporting requirements established by 
     section 101(j) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as 
     added by section 6 of this Act, shall not be construed to 
     apply to a widely held investment fund (whether such fund is 
     a mutual fund, regulated investment company, pension or 
     deferred compensation plan, or other investment fund), if--
       (1)(A) the fund is publicly traded; or
       (B) the assets of the fund are widely diversified; and
       (2) the reporting individual neither exercises control over 
     nor has the ability to exercise control over the financial 
     interests held by the fund.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1510) was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. COLLINS. I move to lay that motion upon the table.
  The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1498

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided on the Blumenthal amendment No. 1498.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I would like to take a 
moment to commend Senator Blumenthal and Senator Kirk. As you all know, 
Senator Kirk is battling to come back with us. As a gesture and also 
because it is a good-government measure, this particular amendment, No. 
1498, extends the number and types of felonies for which Members of 
Congress and executive branch employees or an elected State or local 
government official can lose his or her pension. This is a good-
government amendment and an appropriate way to honor our colleague, 
Senator Kirk, whom we wish a speedy recovery.
  I ask to have the yeas and nays by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I wish to join in acknowledging 
Senator Kirk's contribution to this amendment. The reason I have 
offered it is very simply to send a message and have the effect that no 
corrupt elected official, no official convicted of a felony in 
connection with his official duties as a Member of Congress should 
receive one dime of taxpayer money. And that breach of law should have 
consequences.
  I join in asking for a voice vote.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent 
to vitiate the 60-vote threshold on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1498) was agreed to.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I move to reconsider the 
vote.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I move to lay that motion upon the 
table.
  The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1472

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided on the Toomey amendment No. 1472.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I rise in support of my amendment. I 
wish to thank Senator McCaskill for cosponsoring this amendment and for 
her support on this ban on earmarks.
  What this amendment does is it would codify the current moratorium 
that is in place. I commend the majority Senators for extending that 
moratorium, but let's just codify this now, put this in place, and end 
this process that lacks any transparency. This is a surgical point of 
order that would not be held against the entire bill but, rather, just 
the specific earmark.
  Unlike the next amendment, which would allow earmarks on 
authorization

[[Page S303]]

bills and would permit, for instance, earmarking of the ``bridge to 
nowhere'' and would only forbid earmarks on appropriations bills, this 
would be a ban on earmarks of all kinds.
  Some suggest that we would be ceding our constitutional control of 
the purse strings. This is clearly not true. Most of all government 
spending is not earmarked. Most discretionary spending is not 
earmarked. That doesn't mean we have ceded our authority to the 
executive branch. The fact is, we define the terms and the rules under 
which the spending can occur. That is appropriate, but it ought to 
happen under scrutiny and should be subject to full review.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, this amendment does not save any money. 
It does not reduce the deficit. It simply gives additional power to the 
President and thereby weakens the legislative branch.
  The reality is that without these earmarks, we find ourselves at the 
mercy of bureaucrats to ensure that our local needs are fulfilled. No 
one in this Chamber believes that a bureaucrat here in Washington knows 
better or understands the needs of their home State as well as they do.
  So I say again, Madam President, the voluntary moratorium is now 100 
percent successful. It will continue in fiscal year 2013.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Toomey amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in 
support of Senator Toomey's amendment to permanently ban the use of 
earmarks in Congress. The underlying bill, the STOCK Act, was designed 
to end a corrupt practice in Congress. I fully support that goal. But 
if we are serious about ending corruption in Congress, then we must 
begin by permanently banning earmarks. It is my belief that these two 
issues go hand and hand.
  One of the most blatant examples of the corruption that stems from 
earmarking is the case of former U.S. Representative Randy Cunningham 
who now sits in a Federal penitentiary today for selling earmarks. 
Among the $2.4 million in bribes Cunningham admitted receiving were the 
sale of his house at an inflated price, the free use of a yacht, a used 
Rolls-Royce, antique furniture, Persian rugs, jewelry, and a $2,000 
contribution for his daughter's college graduation party. In return, he 
earmarked untold millions of dollars and pressured the Department of 
Defense to award contracts to his co-conspirators.
  Year after year I have been coming to the Senate floor to speak out 
against the corrupt practice of Congressional earmarking and I have 
been joined by many of my colleagues such as Senators Coburn and 
McCaskill. Even President Obama called for a ban on earmarks in last 
year's State of the Union speech. The time has come to end this 
practice once and for all, permanently.
  Let me be clear, both Republicans and Democrats have been guilty of 
wasting valuable taxpayer dollars on these pet projects. And as the 
moratorium on earmarking expires at the end of this year, we must move 
forward with a permanent ban to protect the American taxpayer.
  Let me remind my colleagues about our current fiscal situation. Our 
National debt now stands at over $15 trillion and our deficit stands at 
$1.3 trillion. In fact, this is the fourth year in a row with deficits 
over a trillion dollars. Unemployment in our country stands at 8.5 
percent and according to CBO, unemployment is expected to remain above 
8 percent until 2015. Given these dismal economic numbers, are we 
prepared to tell the American people that we want to go back to the 
corrupt practice of earmarking and spend their hard-earned tax dollars 
on pork barrel projects that have little purpose other than to improve 
the re-election prospects of their authors?
  Some of my colleagues are ``happy'' with their earmarking pasts and 
have justified carrying on the practice by saying that they only 
account for a small percentage of our annual budget. That may be the 
case--but is that really reason enough to continue a practice that 
breeds corruption? I am very aware that earmarks consume a very small 
percentage of a budget measured in the trillions. But given the serious 
problems confronting American families, many of whom wake up every 
morning wondering if they will lose their job or their house, it is 
appalling that Congress will not stir itself to relinquish any of its 
self-serving prerogatives in solidarity with the people we serve, who 
have had to tighten their own budgets, change their spending habits and 
restrain their ambitions. It is all the more offensive given that we 
have had in recent times all the evidence we should require to 
understand that earmarks are so closely tied to acts of official 
corruption.
  In a report titled ``Why Earmarks Matter'' The Heritage Foundation 
wrote:

       They Invite Corruption: Congress does have a proper role in 
     determining the rules, eligibility and benefit criteria for 
     federal grant programs. However, allowing lawmakers to select 
     exactly who receives government grants invites corruption. 
     Instead of entering a competitive application process within 
     a federal agency, grant-seekers now often have to hire a 
     lobbyist to win the earmark auction. Encouraged by lobbyists 
     who saw a growth industry in the making, local governments 
     have become hooked on the earmark process for funding 
     improvement projects.
       They Encourage Spending: While there may not be a causal 
     relationship between the two, the number of earmarks approved 
     each year tracks closely with growth in Federal spending.
       They Distort Priorities: Many earmarks do not add new 
     spending by themselves, but instead redirect funds already 
     slated to be spent through competitive grant programs or by 
     states into specific projects favored by an individual 
     member. So, for example, if a member of the Nevada delegation 
     succeeded in getting a $2 million earmark to build a bicycle 
     trail in Elko in 2005, then that $2 million would be taken 
     out of the $254 million allocated to the Nevada Department of 
     Transportation (DOT) for that year. So if Nevada had wanted 
     to spend that money fixing a highway in rapidly expanding Las 
     Vegas, thanks to the earmark, they would now be out of luck.

  If we want to show the American public that we are really serious 
about preventing corruption in Congress than we owe it to the American 
people to completely ban all earmarks in Congress. Senator Toomey's 
amendment proposes to do just that and I encourage my colleagues to 
support his amendment.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I wanted to inquire, is there any time 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time remaining.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object. I withdraw that 
reservation.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, if the 
Senator will grant 1 minute on his amendment, then I will not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first of all, I appreciate the 
opportunity to be heard.
  I agree with what the author, Senator Toomey, is trying to do in 
terms of what most people think of as an earmark. The problem is this: 
You can vote for this if you are voting for and are against all 
earmarks as it is defined. It depends on how you do it. In the House, 
it is defined, under their rules, and it has been defined here as any 
type of appropriation or authorization. I would suggest to you, if you 
get the Constitution and look up article I, section 9, it says that is 
what we are supposed to be doing here.
  So if I knew that my next amendment would pass, which defines an 
earmark as an appropriation that has not been authorized, which I know 
Senator Toomey and several others agree would be a good idea, then I 
would be wholeheartedly in support of this. So obviously we should have 
had that vote first. So I would vote against this even though I agree 
with what they are trying to do. But my next amendment is going to be 
the one that is necessary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. This amendment has a 
60-vote threshold.

[[Page S304]]

  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 59, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 8 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heller
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Rubio
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Warner

                                NAYS--59

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Tester
     Udall (NM)
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1500

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided, with 1 minute controlled by the 
Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Toomey, on amendment No. 1500, offered 
by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe. This amendment is also 
subject to a 60-vote threshold.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I have the utmost respect for Senator 
Toomey and what he is trying to do. To me, this amendment is compatible 
with what he is trying to do. It merely defines an earmark as an 
appropriation that has not been authorized.
  My junior Senator said on the Senate floor a year ago that, in a way 
that is good, because if a bad earmark comes up, we have two shots at 
it--one on authorization and one on appropriation. Senator Toomey, 
Senator McCain, and others have been supportive of the idea that we 
should go back to authorizing.
  We have been fighting this battle since 1816, and it is time we end 
it. This is a way of doing it, merely defining it as an earmark that 
hasn't been authorized. I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I point out that the Constitution 
doesn't make a distinction between an authorizing committee and an 
appropriating committee. I don't think we ought to be having the 
discussion and argument over who gets the earmark and who doesn't. It 
is the process that is flawed. It is the process that doesn't have the 
kind of scrutiny and the transparency and is not subject to competition 
the way it ought to be before taxpayer dollars are spent. So my 
objection is to this process wherever this occurs in the Senate or the 
House.
  While I respect the intentions of my colleague from Oklahoma, I 
disagree with him. I suggest a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I further say that after the stimulus 
bill, all of the 102 most egregious votes last year--or earmarks, not 
one was a congressional earmark. They were all bureaucratic earmarks. 
If we don't do our constitutional job under article I, section 9 of the 
Constitution, the President will be doing our job.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 26, nays 73, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 9 Leg.]

                                YEAS--26

     Alexander
     Begich
     Blunt
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Graham
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Thune
     Wicker

                                NAYS--73

     Akaka
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boozman
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Coats
     Coburn
     Conrad
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inouye
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Paul
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Tester
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
vitiate the 60-vote requirement threshold on amendment No. 1471 and 
amendment No. 1483.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. I would also ask unanimous consent to 
have the yeas and nays by voice vote on amendment No. 1471 and 
amendment No. 1483 as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1471

  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, further, before I yield to 
Senator McCain, I would like to briefly set up amendment No. 1471.
  Fannie and Freddie have cost the American taxpayers billions of 
dollars. This year, they paid exorbitant bonuses to their executives.
  I wish to commend Senator McCain for his work on this very important 
issue and his leadership, and I encourage everybody to vote yes on it.
  I now yield to Senator McCain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I don't have anything more to say. On 
behalf of myself and Senator Rockefeller, I offer this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Through the Chair, I was going to ask my friend from 
Arizona if he is feeling all right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator looks just fine.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. He does.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1471) was agreed to.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the 
vote.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                           Amendment No. 1483

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, am I correct that amendment No. 1483, the 
Leahy-Cornyn amendment, is next?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.

[[Page S305]]

                          Sections 205 and 211

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Senator Leahy and Senator Cornyn have 
introduced a rather substantial amendment to the STOCK Act that would 
strengthen the tools that prosecutors and investigators use to detect 
and prosecute corruption by public officials. I would like to ask my 
colleagues a few clarifying questions about how their amendment 
achieves this laudable goal.
  Mr. LEAHY. We would be happy to answer the Senator's questions.
  Mr. LEVIN. My first question refers to section 205 of your amendment, 
covering bribery and graft. What is the purpose of including the phrase 
``former public official''? How is it possible to bribe a former public 
official?
  Mr. LEAHY. You cannot bribe a former public official, at least not 
under the terms of this amendment. Section 205 does ensure that when a 
public official accepts a bribe in return for taking an official act, 
the official cannot escape liability by leaving public service before 
the bribe is received or discovered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Under section 205, an ``official act'' can refer to any 
matter which may ``at any time be pending.'' What prevents this 
definition from being overbroad and covering matters that a former 
public official, for example, never anticipated would be pending?
  Mr. LEAHY. The former public official must accept the bribe or 
gratuity ``for or because of'' the official act. If the public official 
does not know that a matter is pending, the public official cannot 
accept a bribe ``for or because'' of it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Section 205 also refers to an official's ``place of trust 
and profit.'' What is a ``place of trust and profit''?
  Mr. LEAHY. This phrase is in the current bribery and gratuities 
statute and has been part of the law for decades. Our amendment does 
not change its definition or the scope of its use. It appears in 
section 205 because of the way that the amendment is drafted, and it is 
interpreted consistent with the extensive body of case law on 
corruption.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my colleague. Turning to section 211 of your 
amendment, the ``Prohibition on Undisclosed Self-Dealing By Public 
Officials,'' what is purpose of codifying this prohibition?
  Mr. LEAHY. Without this codification, there is no Federal law 
prohibiting certain public officials from acting in their own financial 
interest, at the expense of the public, and in violation of existing 
State and local law.
  Mr. LEVIN. Why is it necessary to make it a Federal crime for a local 
official to engage in undisclosed self-dealing?
  Mr. LEAHY. This is an area where there is a particular Federal 
interest because if the corrupt official is in State or local law 
enforcement, there may be no other way to ferret out the corruption. In 
fact, in Skilling v. United States, the Supreme Court invited Congress 
to criminalize undisclosed self-dealing in the specific and narrowly 
tailored way we do today.
  Mr. LEVIN. Does this amendment create the potential for arbitrary or 
politically motivated prosecutions of local officials?
  Mr. LEAHY. No, it does not. Criminal liability only attaches when the 
public official acts with fraudulent intent and does so in knowing 
violation of existing rules and regulations.
  Mr. LEVIN. Why isn't there a magnitude requirement for the financial 
interest underlying undisclosed self-dealing? If one just reads this 
section, it appears as though even a trivial, attenuated financial 
benefit could lead to a violation.
  Mr. LEAHY. A trivial, attenuated financial benefit could not lead to 
this violation because the public official must still act knowingly and 
with fraudulent intent to receive the benefit, and they must do so in 
violation of existing law. For example, if State ethics rules do not 
require disclosure of financial interests below a certain threshold, 
then undisclosed self-dealing--even with fraudulent intent--below that 
threshold could not be charged under this statute. Moreover, the 
amendment requires the public official to act for the purpose of 
benefiting a financial interest.
  Mr. LEVIN. Suppose a local official has not disclosed, as required by 
a local ordinance, that he owns a home in a targeted improvement 
district in his county. Then this official votes to install street 
lights in his town, which lowers crime, improves commerce, and 
consequently increases the value of his and other homes. Has he 
committed a Federal offense?
  Mr. LEAHY. No, the local official has not committed a Federal offense 
in the hypothetical you describe. Criminal liability under Federal law 
only exists if the official knowingly fails to disclose the interest 
and further intentionally acts to benefit that financial interest and 
does so with the fraudulent intent required of the mail and wire fraud 
statute. In the hypothetical you describe, there is no fraud and 
therefore no criminal activity.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my colleague for his helpful explanation. There is 
one more issue I would like to discuss. Section 211 of your amendment 
includes a definition of ``material information.'' I want to be 
absolutely clear that this definition is specific to section 211 and is 
in no way intended to provide any meaning to the phrase ``material 
information'' as used elsewhere in the STOCK Act or anywhere else in 
law.
  Mr. LEAHY. Senator Cornyn and I worked hard to ensure that our 
amendment addresses the issue of undisclosed self-dealing in a narrow 
and precise manner. To make sure there are no ambiguities in the 
updated honest services statute our amendment creates, we carefully 
defined the term ``material information'' and made sure we did so in 
such a way that our definition would apply only to the precise section 
of the Criminal Code where the new undisclosed self-dealing provision 
will appear.
  Mr. LEVIN. One question that has arisen is whether the definition of 
``material information'' in the new Criminal Code section your 
amendment creates is intended to or could affect other parts of the 
STOCK Act since the same term also appears in a very different context 
in other parts of the bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. Our definition will have no effect on the term ``material 
information'' as it appears in other parts of the STOCK Act because it 
is drafted to apply only to the new Criminal Code provision and not to 
other criminal laws or the Federal securities laws. On page 12, line 11 
of amendment 1483, it says ``definitions--as used in this section:'' 
and then provides a set of definitions which includes ``material 
information.'' That provision very clearly applies the definition only 
to that new Criminal Code section, not to the rest of title 18, to the 
remainder of the STOCK Act, or to Federal securities law. In fact, this 
language was drawn from S. 401, the Leahy-Cornyn Public Corruption 
Prosecutions Improvement Act, and it is the legislative history of that 
bill and not that of the STOCK Act, that will apply when our amendment 
is interpreted.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator for that clarification. In addition to 
the precise wording of amendment 1483 and clear congressional intent 
that the phrase used in the new Criminal Code section not be imported 
to Federal securities law, the definition actually used in your 
amendment has no applicability or relevance to the materiality 
considerations that arise in insider trading cases.
  I ask Senator Cornyn, does he agree with Senator Leahy regarding our 
discussion of the amendment?
  Mr. CORNYN. I agree.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank both of my colleagues for working with me to 
address my questions about the Leahy-Cornyn amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I rise to express my concerns about 
amendment No. 1483 to the STOCK Act. While we all oppose public 
corruption and recognize the need for tough laws in this area, I 
believe this amendment may blur the line between innocent behavior and 
criminal public corruption offenses. This amendment expands the Federal 
criminal gratuities statute to cover the gift of anything of value, 
over $1,000, that is given to a public official simply because of their 
status as a public official. A unanimous Supreme Court in United States 
v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California interpreted the honest services 
law to require the government to actually prove a link between the 
thing of value given and the specific act. The Court said the thing of 
value must be given ``for or because

[[Page S306]]

of'' an official act. I am concerned that expanding the crime to 
include items given merely on the basis of the public official's status 
goes too far and criminalizes some legitimate conduct.
  However, my primary concern with this amendment is the section that 
gives the Federal Government the authority to interpret, prosecute, and 
enforce State and local laws. I believe this provision violates the 
basic principles of federalism embodied in our Constitution. Amendment 
No. 1483 expands the definition of ``scheme or artifice to defraud'' in 
Federal criminal law to include the ``undisclosed self-dealing'' of an 
``officer, employee, or elected or appointed representative, or person 
acting for or on behalf of the United States, a State, or a subdivision 
of a State, or any department, agency or branch of government.'' The 
amendment defines ``undisclosed self-dealing'' as an official act that 
furthers or benefits a financial interest of the official or certain 
family members and associates of the official. Undisclosed self-dealing 
also occurs when the official knowingly falsifies, conceals, or covers 
up material information that is required to be disclosed by any 
Federal, State, or local statute, rule, regulation, or charter or the 
knowing failure to disclose material information in a manner that is 
required by a Federal, State, or local statute, rule, regulation, or 
charter. Thus, this provision makes it a Federal crime for a State or 
local official to fail to comply with a State or local law, including 
the mere filing requirements of State or locality. This provision gives 
the Federal Government the power to enforce State and local laws.
  I do not believe our Founders intended for Federal prosecutors to be 
able to bring Federal criminal cases against State or local officials 
based on that official allegedly breaking or failing to comply with a 
State or local law, and the Founders did not intend for Federal judges 
and Federal courts to be interpreting the State or local laws, expect 
in limited circumstances. Corruption of State and local officials is a 
serious problem, but it is not the Federal Government's problem to 
solve. For these other reasons, I oppose this amendment in its current 
form.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Leahy-Cornyn amendment is drawn from 
our Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act. Our bill has been 
supported by the United States Department of Justice in a March 2009 
letter, and this amendment is supported by the National Taxpayers 
Union, the FBI Agents Association, the National Association of 
Assistant United States Attorneys, the nonpartisan Campaign Legal 
Center, the League of Women Voters, Citizens for Responsibility and 
Ethics in Washington, Common Cause, and Democracy 21. I am working with 
Senator Cornyn, the lead Republican cosponsor of our bill and this 
amendment. We thank Senators Casey and Kirk for cosponsoring this 
amendment.
  This amendment will provide investigators and prosecutors with the 
tools they need to hold officials at all levels of government 
accountable when they act corruptly by closing legal loopholes. This 
amendment, which reflects a bipartisan, bicameral agreement, will 
strengthen and clarify key aspects of Federal criminal law and help 
investigators and prosecutors attack public corruption nationwide. The 
Senate Judiciary Committee has now reported this bill with bipartisan 
support in three successive Congresses. The House Judiciary Committee 
recently reported a companion bill unanimously. It is time for Congress 
to act to pass serious anti-corruption legislation.
  Importantly, the amendment includes a fix to reverse a major step 
backward in the fight against fraud and corruption. In Skilling v. 
United States, the Supreme Court sided with a former executive from 
Enron and greatly narrowed the honest services fraud statute, a law 
that has been used for decades as a crucial weapon to combat public 
corruption and self-dealing. The Court's decision leaves corrupt 
conduct unchecked. Most notably, the Court's decision would leave open 
the opportunity for state and Federal public officials to secretly act 
in their own financial self-interest, rather than in the interest of 
the public. This amendment closes this gaping hole in our anti-
corruption laws.
  The amendment includes several other provisions designed to tighten 
existing law. It fixes the gratuities statute to make clear that public 
officials must not be bought. It reaffirms that public officials may 
not accept anything worth more than $1,000, other than what is 
permitted by existing rules and regulations, given to them because of 
their official position. It strengthens key sentences and gives 
prosecutors and investigators time to make complex and difficult cases.
  As a former State prosecutor, I am sensitive to the dangers of 
creating too many Federal crimes. In the area of public corruption, 
however, sometimes it is only the Federal government that can 
effectively pursue complex corruption matters. Conflicts and 
relationships can make it difficult for State and local law 
enforcement, and these matters can require extensive resources that 
cannot be diverted from hard-pressed local budgets. This Federal law 
stands as a backstop to help ensure against public corruption.
  I also know how important it is that our criminal laws be fair and 
precise, giving sufficient notice to those who may break the law. It is 
in that spirit that Senator Cornyn and I, working with Congressmen 
Sensenbrenner and Quigley, have refined this legislation. We have made 
it careful and precise and built in important safeguards. This 
amendment will only target corrupt conduct.
  Right now, a mayor who takes a $1,000 payment to award a contract to 
a specific company can be prosecuted for corruption, but a mayor who 
conceals his interest in a company, awards a contract, and secretly 
makes $1 million out of the deal likely cannot be prosecuted. A 
contracting officer who accepts thousands of dollars in gifts from a 
frequent bidder hoping for favorable treatment on some unspecified 
future contract likely cannot be prosecuted. The Department of Justice 
has been dismissing counts and cases because of these gaps in the law. 
It is time to fix them.
  If we are serious about addressing the kinds of egregious misconduct 
that we have witnessed in recent years in high-profile public 
corruption cases, Congress should enact meaningful legislation to give 
investigators and prosecutors the tools they need to enforce our laws. 
Public corruption erodes the faith the American people have in those 
who are given the privilege of public service. This amendment will help 
us to take real steps to restore confidence in government by rooting 
out criminal corruption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I hope our colleagues will support this 
amendment that Senator Leahy and I have worked on. This is an expansion 
of our Public Corruption and Prosecution Improvements Act which passed 
the Judiciary Committee last year.
  Mr. President, I am proud to co-sponsor this important amendment with 
Senator Patrick Leahy, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Our amendment is drawn from bipartisan, bicameral legislation--
including our Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act, which 
passed the Judiciary Committee last year.
  Public corruption is not a Republican or Democratic problem. It is a 
Washington, DC, problem. And it is a problem in statehouses and city 
halls across this country. Our citizens deserve to be governed by the 
rule of law, not the rule of man. Unfortunately, human nature being 
what it is, a few rotten apples have a tendency to spoil the bunch.
  The amendment we will vote on today will strengthen the enforcement 
of U.S. Federal laws aimed at combating betrayals of public dollars and 
the public trust. Our amendment does this by making clarifications to 
public corruption laws and by giving prosecutors precise tools to use 
in their battle against corrupt officials.
  Our amendment increases the maximum punishments on several offenses, 
including theft and embezzlement of federal funds, bribery, and a 
number of corrupt campaign contribution practices. For example, it 
cracks down on theft or bribery related to entities that receive 
Federal funds, by increasing the maximum sentence for a conviction from 
10 to 15 years and lowering the threshold that prosecutors must prove, 
from $5,000 to $1,000.

[[Page S307]]

  It also clarifies the law in response to several court decisions 
narrowly interpreting the public corruption statutes. For example, the 
bill revises the definitions of ``illegal gratuities'' and ``official 
acts,'' clarifying that an entire ``course of conduct'' can be the 
result of bribery.
  Federal investigators who seek to root out corrupt officials will 
benefit from new tools provided in this legislation. The bill would 
extend the statute of limitations on certain serious public corruption 
offenses, giving prosecutors more time to investigate and build a case.
  And it expands the criminal venue provisions, allowing prosecutors to 
bring the case against corrupt officials in any district where some 
part of the corruption occurred. The bill similarly expands the venue 
for perjury and obstruction of justice.
  I would like to take a minute or two to address concerns that I have 
heard, including from some on my side of the aisle.
  One criticism I have heard is that this legislation ignores 
federalism principles.
  This concern is directed at a portion of the amendment clarifying 
that the mail and wire fraud statute applies to any public official who 
uses the interstate mails or wires to advance a fraudulent scheme 
involving illegally undisclosed self-dealing.
  The Supreme Court has interpreted the mail and wire fraud statutes 
more narrowly--asking that Congress clarify the definition of illegally 
undisclosed self-dealing.
  Under this amendment, the Federal government would only be able to 
prosecute State officials where they can show, beyond a reasonable 
doubt, that the State official in question had knowingly or 
intentionally violated relevant State laws concerning the disclosure of 
material financial interests.
  In other words, this legislation expressly defers to the States to 
determine what financial disclosures their public officials should be 
required to make.
  Additionally, this provision would require the Federal government to 
show that the State official in question had engaged in an official act 
for the material purpose of benefitting the illegally concealed 
financial interest that they knowingly or intentionally failed to 
disclose.
  Finally, the Federal government would have to show that the course of 
conduct included a constitutionally-sufficient federal nexus via use of 
the interstate mails or wires to perpetrate the fraud.
  As for federalism principles generally, it is important to note that, 
under current law, the Federal government still has the authority to 
prosecute corrupt State officials for bribery and kickback schemes 
under the mail and wire fraud statutes.
  This amendment simply updates and clarifies the honest services fraud 
statute to reach corrupt conduct--i.e., undisclosed self-dealing--that 
Congress intended to be part of the criminal law.
  Some opponents of this amendment believe that we should repeal 
portions of current law so that the Federal government has no role 
whatsoever in rooting out public corruption at the State and local 
level. I fundamentally disagree.
  Consider the all-too-common case of a corrupt State governor or State 
judge that local prosecutors are loathe to indict--or even 
investigate--for fear of reprisal.
  Finally, I have heard some ask: Would this legislation criminalize 
the giving of baseball caps, jerseys, or other ceremonial gifts to 
Members of Congress?
  The answer is very simple: No, it would not.
  First, the amendment would only apply to status gratuities worth more 
than $1,000. Second, the amendment would also require prosecutors to 
prove that the government official in question knowingly accepted the 
illegal gratuity in violation of the relevant ethics rules or 
regulations governing their conduct.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I look forward to 
engaging with any of my colleagues who have concerns or questions.
  I thank Chairman Leahy for his leadership on this and other 
legislation we have crafted together. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish to briefly thank the Senators 
from Vermont and Texas for this amendment. It strengthens the bill, as 
does the preceding amendment offered by Senator McCain, and I urge its 
adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1483) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1473

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided on the Coburn amendment.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. This is a simple, bipartisan amendment, and we have voted 
on an identical amendment before, 63 yeas, 33 nays. My colleague, the 
Senator from Colorado, has been gracious enough to support this 
amendment. This is straightforward. We just need to know what we are 
doing when we do it. It requires the CRS to show us if we have 
duplicated anything before a bill comes before the Senate.
  I yield to my colleague from Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment 
No. 1473. Senator Coburn and I have introduced this critical amendment 
to curb Congressional temptations to create more programs, laws and 
regulations, without first analyzing what already exists. Senator Hatch 
and I have also introduced legislation to create an official 
``Unauthorizing Committee'' that would reinstitute a committee in 
Congress to rid our government of outdated and ineffective laws.
  In the next few weeks, the GAO will release a report showing the 
extent of the wasteful and duplicative programs in the federal 
government. It shows that too often Congress focuses on creating new 
programs and regulations while neglecting our important role of 
overseeing and reforming existing laws. Our amendment would require 
that any new bill that is reported from committee contain an analysis 
from the Congressional Research Service determining if the bill creates 
any new federal program, office, or initiative that would overlap 
existing programs. Opponents worry that this amendment will slow the 
legislative process, but I believe that we must first pursue informed 
legislating and efficient government.
  Senator Coburn and I don't always agree on the reach of government 
and the investments we ought to make, but we agree that our government 
ought to be smart, it ought to be efficient, and we shouldn't have 
duplication. This amendment would see us to that goal. Sixty-three of 
us voted for this amendment last year. Let's get 63 votes and more.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I respectfully oppose the amendment put 
in by my two friends. This would amend the Senate rules to make it out 
of order for the Senate to proceed to any bill or joint resolution 
unless the committee of jurisdiction has posted on its Web site a CRS 
analysis of whether the bill would create a new program, office, or 
initiative that duplicates or overlaps an existing one. So it sounds 
pretty good on the surface, but there are two problems. One is that CRS 
tells us it would be hard-pressed to carry out this responsibility, 
certainly in a timely manner. The second results from the first, which 
is that this would be another way to slow legislation because it did 
not yet have the CRS analysis.
  A final point is this: The committees of jurisdiction ought to be 
making their own judgment and probably know better than CRS whether 
they are creating a new program that duplicates or overlaps an existing 
one.
  So, respectfully, I would urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 
30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. I have the greatest respect for my chairman on homeland 
security. I love him dearly.
  GAO has already told us we are not doing our job. The first study of 
the Federal Government showed $100 billion worth of duplication. The 
second

[[Page S308]]

study is coming. CRS will have this easy because GAO will have already 
shown them where all the duplication is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  This amendment does require a two-thirds threshold.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 60, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 10 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                                NAYS--39

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Udall (NM)
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 60, the nays are 39. 
Two thirds of the Senators voting not having voted in the affirmative, 
the amendment is rejected.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1488

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 1488, offered by the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. 
DeMint. This amendment is subject to a 60-vote threshold.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, it is unfortunate that the actions of a 
few make it necessary for us to create more rules for the many honest 
people who serve in Congress, but we must reassure Americans that we 
are here to serve them and not ourselves. Congressmen and Senators have 
lots of power and we know that power corrupts. The longer we stay in 
office the more power we have. Unfortunately, we have seen that power, 
over a period of time, creates more opportunity and temptation for us 
to benefit ourselves rather than our constituents.
  All of the cases of corruption and bribery I have seen unfortunately 
come from more senior Members. No offense to my senior Members, please. 
But this is one of many reasons why we should have term limits in 
Congress.
  My amendment is not a statute. It is a sense of the Senate that says 
we should have some form of constitutional limit on our terms in 
office. We are not specific in the number of years, the number of 
terms. It is a sense of the Senate that we should have some limit on 
the amount of time we serve. I encourage my colleagues to at least 
support this and get the debate started.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for some Members of Congress, 2 years in 
office is too long. For some Members of Congress, 20 years in office is 
not long enough. Who should make that decision? The Constitution in its 
wisdom says the voters of America make that decision. Let's stand by 
that Constitution and its language and defeat this sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 24, nays 75, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 11 Leg.]

                                YEAS--24

     Ayotte
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Coburn
     Corker
     DeMint
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hutchison
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     Manchin
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter

                                NAYS--75

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.


                           amendment no. 1493

  Under the previous order, there will be 2 minutes of debate, equally 
divided, prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 1493 offered by 
the Senator from Iowa. This amendment is subject to a 60-vote 
threshold.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. This is a good government amendment. Similar to the 
underlying piece of legislation, it is a good government amendment. The 
manager is going to tell you it ought to be studied a little bit 
longer. We have gone for far too long not having enough transparency in 
government. What my amendment does is it takes these people whom you 
call political intelligence professionals and has them register just 
like every lobbyist registers, so it is totally transparent when these 
people come around to get information from you that they sell to hedge 
funds. You will know who they are. You don't know that now, and 
transparency in government is very important if you want 
accountability.
  For the Senators and their staffs who have to abide by these laws, 
they want to make sure they are not doing anything unethical. They have 
to know who these people are. They can come around and ask us 
questions. I don't know how many times each of us has maybe been caught 
up in this. You give them information, and they have information that 
people don't have on Wall Street and they sell it. We ought to know 
what we are being used for, and this gives identity to these people. So 
I want these people registered like lobbyists.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, there may be a problem.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. There is a problem.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. But this amendment doesn't fix it. In the bill before 
the committee, there was a provision to bring so-called political 
intelligence under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. Political intelligence 
is defined as information which is intended for use in analyzing 
securities or commodity markets or information investment decisions, 
but what does that mean? Does it apply to a retailer who wants to open 
new stores and calls the Armed

[[Page S309]]

Services Committee to see whether there is a base that is going to be 
built in a particular neighborhood? Some would say yes; some would say 
no. Violation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act carries civil and criminal 
penalties. We just felt we wanted to get the anti-insider trading 
provision out quickly and study this more. The bill calls for a GAO 
study.
  Senator Collins and I announced we are going to hold a hearing on 
this question. We need a little more time to do it thoughtfully. We are 
ultimately dealing with first-amendment rights, and we ought not to 
legislate until we are prepared to do so in a reasonable way.
  I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Do I have time to tell the Senators not to vote for 
Wall Street, vote for my amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time. The question is on agreeing 
to the amendment.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 12 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Corker
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--39

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Durbin
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reid
     Risch
     Rockefeller
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Toomey
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1481

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 1481, as modified, offered by the Senator from Ohio, Mr. 
Brown. This amendment is subject to a 60-vote threshold.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, the amendment Senator Merkley and I 
have proposed would require all Senators and their senior staff to sell 
individual stocks that create conflicts or to place their investments 
in blind trusts. You can still invest in broad-based mutual funds. You 
can keep your ownership interest in your family farm or small business.
  If you are setting up a blind trust, you can instruct the trustee to 
hold on to your stock in your family company.
  Current Senate ethics rules require committee staff making more than 
$25,000 a year to ``divest [themselves] of any substantial holdings 
which may be directly affected by the actions of the committee for 
which [they work].''
  All Senator Merkley and I are saying is, Members of the Senate should 
hold ourselves to the same standard we already require of our committee 
staff and executive branch employees.
  As Senator Merkley said, baseball players cannot bet on their games. 
We should not be able to hold stock in individual companies and then 
vote on issues that affect our holdings.
  I ask for a ``yes'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield half of the time in opposition to 
Senator Toomey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine.
  I disagree with the fundamental premise of this amendment. I do not 
think we should all be forced to divest ourselves of all of our 
holdings. But I think it is worse than it was characterized by my 
friend from Ohio--worse in the sense that, as I read the definition of 
the securities that would be covered and as the securities attorneys 
have advised us on this--we would be required to divest ourselves even 
of our investment in a small family-owned business, a business that, 
perhaps, has absolutely no market whatsoever for the equity, and we 
would, nevertheless, be forced to sell that where there is no buyer.
  I think that is a very unreasonable standard, so I would urge a 
``no'' vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment. This 
amendment would take Congress from where we have always been and are 
going to be after this law passes. In pursuit of disclosure and 
transparency, sunshine is the best guarantee of integrity. This would 
be the first time I am aware of that in the legislative branch we would 
require divestment of personal holdings. For that reason, I oppose the 
amendment.
  Remember, in the underlying bill we have increased the public's 
access to information about our holdings and our transactions. 
Ultimately, that knowledge ought to be enough to guarantee the public 
or to energize the public to make sure we are following the highest 
ethical norms. Divestment, in my opinion, is a step too far.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 26, nays 73, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 13 Leg.]

                                YEAS--26

     Blumenthal
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Carper
     Casey
     Franken
     Heller
     Hutchison
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Pryor
     Reed
     Sanders
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--73

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lee
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment, as modified, is 
rejected.
  Under the previous order, the substitute amendment, as amended, is 
agreed to.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2

[[Page S310]]

minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on passage.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this has been a good, open process. We 
had a good bill that came in. We made it better. I yield back the 
remainder of my time.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to have joined Chairman 
Lieberman in helping bring this important bill to passage today.
  I would also like to single out Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, 
who was the first Member of this body to introduce legislation on this 
topic. His leadership in tirelessly moving this bill forward has been 
indispensable.
  Today, we confirm that Members of Congress are not exempt from the 
country's insider trading laws. We have sent a strong message to the 
American people that we affirm that we come to Washington for public 
service, and not for private gain.
  We have added several amendments today which I believe strengthened 
the bill's focus on transparency. We have also extended several of its 
provisions to encompass all branches of the Federal Government.
  Again, I thank my colleagues for their hard work on the bill. And my 
thanks to our hard-working staff.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on passage of the bill, as 
amended.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 14 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     Bingaman
     Burr
     Coburn

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The bill (S. 2038), as amended, was passed, as follows:

                                S. 2038

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Trading on 
     Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012'' or the ``STOCK Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Member of congress.--The term ``Member of Congress'' 
     means a member of the Senate or House of Representatives, a 
     Delegate to the House of Representatives, and the Resident 
     Commissioner from Puerto Rico.
       (2) Employee of congress.--The term ``employee of 
     Congress'' means--
       (A) an employee of the Senate; or
       (B) an employee of the House of Representatives.
       (3) Executive branch employee.--The term ``executive branch 
     employee''--
       (A) has the meaning given the term ``employee'' under 
     section 2105 of title 5, United States Code; and
       (B) includes--
       (i) the President;
       (ii) the Vice President; and
       (iii) an employee of the United States Postal Service or 
     the Postal Regulatory Commission.
       (4) Judicial officer.--The term ``judicial officer'' has 
     the meaning given that term under section 109(10) of the 
     Ethics in Government Act of 1978.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF NONPUBLIC INFORMATION FOR 
                   PRIVATE PROFIT.

       The Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the House of 
     Representatives shall issue interpretive guidance of the 
     relevant rules of each chamber, including rules on conflicts 
     of interest and gifts, clarifying that a Member of Congress 
     and an employee of Congress may not use nonpublic information 
     derived from such person's position as a Member of Congress 
     or employee of Congress or gained from the performance of 
     such person's official responsibilities as a means for making 
     a private profit.

     SEC. 4. PROHIBITION OF INSIDER TRADING.

       (a) Affirmation of Non-exemption.--Members of Congress and 
     employees of Congress are not exempt from the insider trading 
     prohibitions arising under the securities laws, including 
     section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 
     10b-5 thereunder.
       (b) Duty.--
       (1) Purpose.--The purpose of the amendment made by this 
     subsection is to affirm a duty arising from a relationship of 
     trust and confidence owed by each Member of Congress and each 
     employee of Congress.
       (2) Amendment.--Section 21A of the Securities Exchange Act 
     of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78u-1) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(g) Duty of Members and Employees of Congress.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of the insider trading 
     prohibitions arising under the securities laws, including 
     section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, each Member of 
     Congress or employee of Congress owes a duty arising from a 
     relationship of trust and confidence to the Congress, the 
     United States Government, and the citizens of the United 
     States with respect to material, nonpublic information 
     derived from such person's position as a Member of Congress 
     or employee of Congress or gained from the performance of 
     such person's official responsibilities.
       ``(2) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `Member of Congress' means a member of the 
     Senate or House of Representatives, a Delegate to the House 
     of Representatives, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto 
     Rico; and
       ``(B) the term `employee of Congress' means--
       ``(i) an employee of the Senate; or
       ``(ii) an employee of the House of Representatives.
       ``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be construed to impair or limit the construction of the 
     existing antifraud provisions of the securities laws or the 
     authority of the Commission under those provisions.''.

     SEC. 5. CONFORMING CHANGES TO THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT.

       Section 4c(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 
     6c(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), in the matter preceding subparagraph 
     (A)--
       (A) by inserting ``or any Member of Congress or employee of 
     Congress (defined in this subsection as those terms are 
     defined in section 2 of the Stop Trading on Congressional 
     Knowledge Act of 2012)'' after ``Federal Government,'' the 
     first place it appears;
       (B) by inserting ``Member,'' after ``position of the''; and
       (C) by inserting ``or by Congress'' before ``in a manner''; 
     and
       (2) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i)--
       (i) by inserting ``or any Member of Congress or employee of 
     Congress'' after ``Federal Government,'' the first place it 
     appears;
       (ii) by inserting ``Member,'' after ``position of the''; 
     and
       (iii) by inserting ``or by Congress'' before ``in a 
     manner'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by inserting ``or any Member of Congress or employee of 
     Congress'' after ``Federal Government,''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (C)--
       (i) in the matter preceding clause (i), by inserting ``or 
     by Congress''--

       (I) before ``that may affect''; and
       (II) before ``in a manner''; and

       (ii) in clause (iii), by inserting ``to Congress, or any 
     Member of Congress or employee of Congress'' after ``Federal 
     Government''.

     SEC. 6. PROMPT REPORTING OF FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS.

       (a) Reporting Requirement.--Section 101 of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following subsection:
       ``(j) Not later than 30 days after any transaction required 
     to be reported under section 102(a)(5)(B), the following 
     persons, if required to file a report under any other 
     subsection of this section subject to any waivers and 
     exclusions, shall file a report of the transaction:
       ``(1) A Member of Congress.
       ``(2) An officer or employee of Congress required to file a 
     report under this section.
       ``(3) The President.
       ``(4) The Vice President.
       ``(5) Each employee appointed to a position in the 
     executive branch, the appointment to which requires advice 
     and consent of the Senate, except for--
       ``(A) an individual appointed to a position--
       ``(i) as a Foreign Service Officer below the rank of 
     ambassador; or

[[Page S311]]

       ``(ii) in the uniformed services for which the pay grade 
     prescribed by section 201 of title 37, United States Code is 
     O-6 or below; or
       ``(B) a special government employee, as defined under 
     section 202 of title 18, United States Code.
       ``(6) Any employee in a position in the executive branch 
     who is a noncareer appointee in the Senior Executive Service 
     (as defined under section 3132(a)(7) of title 5, United 
     States Code) or a similar personnel system for senior 
     employees in the executive branch, such as the Senior Foreign 
     Service, except that the Director of the Office of Government 
     Ethics may, by regulation, exclude from the application of 
     this paragraph any individual, or group of individuals, who 
     are in such positions, but only in cases in which the 
     Director determines such exclusion would not affect adversely 
     the integrity of the Government or the public's confidence in 
     the integrity of the Government.
       ``(7) The Director of the Office of Government Ethics.
       ``(8) Any civilian employee, not described in paragraph 
     (5), employed in the Executive Office of the President (other 
     than a special government employee) who holds a commission of 
     appointment from the President.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to transactions occurring on or after the date 
     that is 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 7. REPORT ON POLITICAL INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 12 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States, in consultation with the Congressional Research 
     Service, shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security 
     and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the 
     role of political intelligence in the financial markets.
       (2) Contents.--The report required by this section shall 
     include a discussion of--
       (A) what is known about the prevalence of the sale of 
     political intelligence and the extent to which investors rely 
     on such information;
       (B) what is known about the effect that the sale of 
     political intelligence may have on the financial markets;
       (C) the extent to which information which is being sold 
     would be considered non-public information;
       (D) the legal and ethical issues that may be raised by the 
     sale of political intelligence;
       (E) any benefits from imposing disclosure requirements on 
     those who engage in political intelligence activities; and
       (F) any legal and practical issues that may be raised by 
     the imposition of disclosure requirements on those who engage 
     in political intelligence activities.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``political intelligence'' shall mean information that is--
       (1) derived by a person from direct communications with an 
     executive branch employee, a Member of Congress, or an 
     employee of Congress; and
       (2) provided in exchange for financial compensation to a 
     client who intends, and who is known to intend, to use the 
     information to inform investment decisions.

     SEC. 8. PUBLIC FILING AND DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE 
                   FORMS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND CONGRESSIONAL 
                   STAFF.

       (a) Public, On-line Disclosure of Financial Disclosure 
     Forms of Members of Congress and Congressional Staff.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than August 31, 2012, or 90 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, whichever is later, 
     the Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms of the 
     Senate, and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, shall 
     ensure that financial disclosure forms filed by Members of 
     Congress, officers of the House and Senate, candidates for 
     Congress, and employees of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives in calendar year 2012 and in subsequent years 
     pursuant to title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 
     are made available to the public on the respective official 
     websites of the Senate and the House of Representatives not 
     later than 30 days after such forms are filed.
       (2) Extensions.--The existing protocol allowing for 
     extension requests for financial disclosures shall be 
     retained. Notices of extension for financial disclosure shall 
     be made available electronically under this subsection along 
     with its related disclosure.
       (3) Reporting transactions.--In the case of a transaction 
     disclosure required by section 101(j) of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978, as added by this Act, such 
     disclosures shall be filed not later than 30 days after the 
     transaction. Notices of extension for transaction disclosure 
     shall be made available electronically under this subsection 
     along with its related disclosure.
       (4) Expiration.--The requirements of this subsection shall 
     expire upon implementation of the public disclosure system 
     established under subsection (b).
       (b) Electronic Filing and On-line Public Availability of 
     Financial Disclosure Forms of Members of Congress, Officers 
     of the House and Senate, and Congressional Staff.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (6) and not later 
     than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms of the 
     Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall 
     develop systems to enable--
       (A) electronic filing of reports received by them pursuant 
     to section 103(h)(1)(A) of title I of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978; and
       (B) public access to financial disclosure reports filed by 
     Members of Congress, Officers of the House and Senate, 
     candidates for Congress, and employees of the Senate and 
     House of Representatives, as well as reports of a transaction 
     disclosure required by section 101(j) of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978, as added by this Act, notices of 
     extensions, amendments and blind trusts, pursuant to title I 
     of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 through databases 
     that--
       (i) are maintained on the official websites of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate; and
       (ii) allow the public to search, sort and download data 
     contained in the reports.
       (2) Login.--No login shall be required to search or sort 
     the data contained in the reports made available by this 
     subsection. A login protocol with the name of the user shall 
     be utilized by a person downloading data contained in the 
     reports. For purposes of filings under this section, section 
     105(b)(2) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 does not 
     apply.
       (3) Public availability.--Pursuant to section 105(b)(1) of 
     title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, electronic 
     availability on the official websites of the Senate and the 
     House of Representatives under this subsection shall be 
     deemed to have met the public availability requirement.
       (4) Filers covered.--Individuals required under the Ethics 
     in Government Act of 1978 or the Senate Rules to file 
     financial disclosure reports with the Secretary of the Senate 
     or the Clerk of the House shall file reports electronically 
     using the systems developed by the Secretary of the Senate, 
     the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, and the Clerk of the 
     House.
       (5) Extensions.--The existing protocol allowing for 
     extension requests for financial disclosures shall be 
     retained for purposes of this subsection. Notices of 
     extension for financial disclosure shall be made available 
     electronically under this subsection along with its related 
     disclosure.
       (6) Additional time.--The requirements of this subsection 
     may be implemented after the date provided in paragraph (1) 
     if the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House 
     identify in writing to relevant congressional committees an 
     additional amount of time needed.
       (c) Recordkeeping.--Section 105(d) of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d)(1) Any report filed with or transmitted to an agency 
     or supervising ethics office or to the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives or the Secretary of the Senate pursuant to 
     this title shall be retained by such agency or office or by 
     the Clerk or the Secretary of the Senate, as the case may be.
       ``(2) Such report shall be made available to the public--
       ``(A) in the case of a Member of Congress until a date that 
     is 6 years from the date the individual ceases to be a Member 
     of Congress; and
       ``(B) in the case of all other reports filed pursuant to 
     this title, for a period of six years after receipt of the 
     report.
       ``(3) After the relevant time period identified under 
     paragraph (2), the report shall be destroyed unless needed in 
     an ongoing investigation, except that in the case of an 
     individual who filed the report pursuant to section 101(b) 
     and was not subsequently confirmed by the Senate, or who 
     filed the report pursuant to section 101(c) and was not 
     subsequently elected, such reports shall be destroyed 1 year 
     after the individual either is no longer under consideration 
     by the Senate or is no longer a candidate for nomination or 
     election to the Office of President, Vice President, or as a 
     Member of Congress, unless needed in an ongoing investigation 
     or inquiry.''.

     SEC. 9. OTHER FEDERAL OFFICIALS.

       (a) Prohibition of the Use of Nonpublic Information for 
     Private Profit.--
       (1) Executive branch employees.--The Office of Government 
     Ethics shall issue such interpretive guidance of the relevant 
     Federal ethics statutes and regulations, including the 
     Standards of Ethical Conduct for executive branch employees, 
     related to use of nonpublic information, as necessary to 
     clarify that no executive branch employee may use non-public 
     information derived from such person's position as an 
     executive branch employee or gained from the performance of 
     such person's official responsibilities as a means for making 
     a private profit.
       (2) Judicial officers.--The Judicial Conference of the 
     United States shall issue such interpretive guidance of the 
     relevant ethics rules applicable to Federal judges, including 
     the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, as necessary to 
     clarify that no judicial officer may use non-public 
     information derived from such person's position as a judicial 
     officer or gained from the performance of such person's 
     official responsibilities as a means for making a private 
     profit.

[[Page S312]]

       (b) Application of Insider Trading Laws.--
       (1) Affirmation of non-exemption.--Executive branch 
     employees and judicial officers are not exempt from the 
     insider trading prohibitions arising under the securities 
     laws, including section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act 
     of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
       (2) Duty.--
       (A) Purpose.--The purpose of the amendment made by this 
     paragraph is to affirm a duty arising from a relationship of 
     trust and confidence owed by each executive branch employee 
     and judicial officer.
       (B) Amendment.--Section 21A of the Securities Exchange Act 
     of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78u-1), as amended by this Act, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Duty of Other Federal Officials.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of the insider trading 
     prohibitions arising under the securities laws, including 
     section 10(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, each executive 
     branch employee and each judicial officer owes a duty arising 
     from a relationship of trust and confidence to the United 
     States Government and the citizens of the United States with 
     respect to material, nonpublic information derived from such 
     person's position as an executive branch employee or judicial 
     officer or gained from the performance of such person's 
     official responsibilities.
       ``(2) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `executive branch employee'--
       ``(i) has the meaning given the term `employee' under 
     section 2105 of title 5, United States Code;
       ``(ii) includes--

       ``(I) the President;
       ``(II) the Vice President; and
       ``(III) an employee of the United States Postal Service or 
     the Postal Regulatory Commission; and

       ``(B) the term `judicial officer' has the meaning given 
     that term under section 109(10) of the Ethics in Government 
     Act of 1978.
       ``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be construed to impair or limit the construction of the 
     existing antifraud provisions of the securities laws or the 
     authority of the Commission under those provisions.''.

     SEC. 10. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act, the amendments made by this Act, or 
     the interpretive guidance to be issued pursuant to sections 3 
     and 9 of this Act, shall be construed to--
       (1) impair or limit the construction of the antifraud 
     provisions of the securities laws or the Commodities Exchange 
     Act or the authority of the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under 
     those provisions;
       (2) be in derogation of the obligations, duties and 
     functions of a Member of Congress, an employee of Congress, 
     an executive branch employee or a judicial officer, arising 
     from such person's official position; or
       (3) be in derogation of existing laws, regulations or 
     ethical obligations governing Members of Congress, employees 
     of Congress, executive branch employees or judicial officers.

     SEC. 11. EXECUTIVE BRANCH REPORTING.

       Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the President shall--
       (1) ensure that financial disclosure forms filed by 
     officers and employees referred to in section 101(j) of the 
     Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) are made 
     available to the public as required by section 8(a) on 
     appropriate official websites of agencies of the executive 
     branch; and
       (2) develop systems to enable electronic filing and public 
     access, as required by section 8(b), to the financial 
     disclosure forms of such individuals.

     SEC. 12. PROMPT REPORTING AND PUBLIC FILING OF FINANCIAL 
                   TRANSACTIONS FOR EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

       (a) Transaction Reporting.--Each agency or department of 
     the Executive branch and each independent agency shall comply 
     with the provisions of sections 6 with respect to any of such 
     agency, department or independent agency's officers and 
     employees that are subject to the disclosure provisions under 
     the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.
       (b) Public Availability.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, each agency or department of 
     the Executive branch and each independent agency shall comply 
     with the provisions of section 8, except that the provisions 
     of section 8 shall not apply to a member of a uniformed 
     service for which the pay grade prescribed by section 201 of 
     title 37, United States Code is O-6 or below.

     SEC. 13. REQUIRING MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE.

       Section 102(a)(4)(A) of the Ethics in Government Act of 
     1978 (5 U.S.C. App) is amended by striking ``spouse; and'' 
     and inserting the following: ``spouse, except that this 
     exception shall not apply to a reporting individual--
       ``(i) described in paragraph (1), (2), or (9) of section 
     101(f);
       ``(ii) described in section 101(b) who has been nominated 
     for appointment as an officer or employee in the executive 
     branch described in subsection (f) of such section, other 
     than--

       ``(I) an individual appointed to a position--

       ``(aa) as a Foreign Service Officer below the rank of 
     ambassador; or
       ``(bb) in the uniformed services for which the pay grade 
     prescribed by section 201 of title 37, United States Code is 
     O-6 or below; or

       ``(II) a special government employee, as defined under 
     section 202 of title 18, United States Code; or

       ``(iii) described in section 101(f) who is in a position in 
     the executive branch the appointment to which is made by the 
     President and requires advice and consent of the Senate, 
     other than--

       ``(I) an individual appointed to a position--

       ``(aa) as a Foreign Service Officer below the rank of 
     ambassador; or
       ``(bb) in the uniformed services for which the pay grade 
     prescribed by section 201 of title 37, United States Code is 
     O-6 or below; or

       ``(II) a special government employee, as defined under 
     section 202 of title 18, United States Code; and''.

     SEC. 14. TRANSACTION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       The transaction reporting requirements established by 
     section 101(j) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as 
     added by section 6 of this Act, shall not be construed to 
     apply to a widely held investment fund (whether such fund is 
     a mutual fund, regulated investment company, pension or 
     deferred compensation plan, or other investment fund), if--
       (1)(A) the fund is publicly traded; or
       (B) the assets of the fund are widely diversified; and
       (2) the reporting individual neither exercises control over 
     nor has the ability to exercise control over the financial 
     interests held by the fund.

     SEC. 15. APPLICATION TO OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS AND CRIMINAL 
                   OFFENSES.

       (a) Application to Other Elected Officials.--
       (1) Civil service retirement system.--Section 8332(o)(2)(A) 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in clause (i), by inserting ``, the President, the Vice 
     President, or an elected official of a State or local 
     government'' after ``Member''; and
       (B) in clause (ii), by inserting ``, the President, the 
     Vice President, or an elected official of a State or local 
     government'' after ``Member''.
       (2) Federal employees retirement system.--Section 
     8411(l)(2) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, the President, 
     the Vice President, or an elected official of a State or 
     local government'' after ``Member''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``, the President, 
     the Vice President, or an elected official of a State or 
     local government'' after ``Member''.
       (b) Criminal Offenses.--Section 8332(o)(2) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking clause (iii) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(iii) The offense--

       ``(I) is committed after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection and--

       ``(aa) is described under subparagraph (B)(i), (iv), (xvi), 
     (xix), (xxiii), (xxiv), or (xxvi); or
       ``(bb) is described under subparagraph (B)(xxix), (xxx), or 
     (xxxi), but only with respect to an offense described under 
     subparagraph (B)(i), (iv), (xvi), (xix), (xxiii), (xxiv), or 
     (xxvi); or

       ``(II) is committed after the date of enactment of the 
     STOCK Act and--

       ``(aa) is described under subparagraph (B)(ii), (iii), (v), 
     (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii), (xiii), (xiv), 
     (xv), (xvii), (xviii), (xx), (xxi), (xxii), (xxv), (xxvii), 
     or (xxviii); or
       ``(bb) is described under subparagraph (B)(xxix), (xxx), or 
     (xxxi), but only with respect to an offense described under 
     subparagraph (B)(ii), (iii), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), 
     (x), (xi), (xii), (xiii), (xiv), (xv), (xvii), (xviii), (xx), 
     (xxi), (xxii), (xxv), (xxvii), or (xxviii).''; and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) An offense described in this subparagraph is only the 
     following, and only to the extent that the offense is a 
     felony:
       ``(i) An offense under section 201 of title 18 (relating to 
     bribery of public officials and witnesses).
       ``(ii) An offense under section 203 of title 18 (relating 
     to compensation to Member of Congress, officers, and others 
     in matters affecting the Government).
       ``(iii) An offense under section 204 of title 18 (relating 
     to practice in the United States Court of Federal Claims or 
     the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by 
     Member of Congress).
       ``(iv) An offense under section 219 of title 18 (relating 
     to officers and employees acting as agents of foreign 
     principals).
       ``(v) An offense under section 286 of title 18 (relating to 
     conspiracy to defraud the Government with respect to claims).
       ``(vi) An offense under section 287 of title 18 (relating 
     to false, fictitious or fraudulent claims).
       ``(vii) An offense under section 597 of title 18 (relating 
     to expenditures to influence voting).
       ``(viii) An offense under section 599 of title 18 (relating 
     to promise of appointment by candidate).
       ``(ix) An offense under section 602 of title 18 (relating 
     to solicitation of political contributions).
       ``(x) An offense under section 606 of title 18 (relating to 
     intimidation to secure political contributions).
       ``(xi) An offense under section 607 of title 18 (relating 
     to place of solicitation).

[[Page S313]]

       ``(xii) An offense under section 641 of title 18 (relating 
     to public money, property or records).
       ``(xiii) An offense under section 666 of title 18 (relating 
     to theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal 
     funds).
       ``(xiv) An offense under section 1001 of title 18 (relating 
     to statements or entries generally).
       ``(xv) An offense under section 1341 of title 18 (relating 
     to frauds and swindles, including as part of a scheme to 
     deprive citizens of honest services thereby).
       ``(xvi) An offense under section 1343 of title 18 (relating 
     to fraud by wire, radio, or television, including as part of 
     a scheme to deprive citizens of honest services thereby).
       ``(xvii) An offense under section 1503 of title 18 
     (relating to influencing or injuring officer or juror).
       ``(xviii) An offense under section 1505 of title 18 
     (relating to obstruction of proceedings before departments, 
     agencies, and committees).
       ``(xix) An offense under section 1512 of title 18 (relating 
     to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant).
       ``(xx) An offense under section 1951 of title 18 (relating 
     to interference with commerce by threats of violence).
       ``(xxi) An offense under section 1952 of title 18 (relating 
     to interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of 
     racketeering enterprises).
       ``(xxii) An offense under section 1956 of title 18 
     (relating to laundering of monetary instruments).
       ``(xxiii) An offense under section 1957 of title 18 
     (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property 
     derived from specified unlawful activity).
       ``(xxiv) An offense under chapter 96 of title 18 (relating 
     to racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations).
       ``(xxv) An offense under section 7201 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to attempt to evade or defeat 
     tax).
       ``(xxvi) An offense under section 104(a) of the Foreign 
     Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (relating to prohibited foreign 
     trade practices by domestic concerns).
       ``(xxvii) An offense under section 10(b) of the Securities 
     Exchange Act of 1934 (relating to fraud, manipulation, or 
     insider trading of securities).
       ``(xxviii) An offense under section 4c(a) of the Commodity 
     Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6c(a)) (relating to fraud, 
     manipulation, or insider trading of commodities).
       ``(xxix) An offense under section 371 of title 18 (relating 
     to conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States), 
     to the extent of any conspiracy to commit an act which 
     constitutes--

       ``(I) an offense under clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), 
     (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii), (xiii), (xiv), 
     (xv), (xvi), (xvii), (xviii), (xix), (xx), (xxi), (xxii), 
     (xxiii), (xxiv), (xxv), (xxvi), (xxvii), or (xxviii); or
       ``(II) an offense under section 207 of title 18 (relating 
     to restrictions on former officers, employees, and elected 
     officials of the executive and legislative branches).

       ``(xxx) Perjury committed under section 1621 of title 18 in 
     falsely denying the commission of an act which constitutes--

       ``(I) an offense under clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), 
     (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii), (xiii), (xiv), 
     (xv), (xvi), (xvii), (xviii), (xix), (xx), (xxi), (xxii), 
     (xxiii), (xxiv), (xxv), (xxvi), (xxvii), or (xxviii); or
       ``(II) an offense under clause (xxix), to the extent 
     provided in such clause.

       ``(xxxi) Subornation of perjury committed under section 
     1622 of title 18 in connection with the false denial or false 
     testimony of another individual as specified in clause 
     (xxx).''.

     SEC. 16. LIMITATION ON BONUSES TO EXECUTIVES OF FANNIE MAE 
                   AND FREDDIE MAC.

       Notwithstanding any other provision in law, senior 
     executives at the Federal National Mortgage Association and 
     the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation are prohibited 
     from receiving bonuses during any period of conservatorship 
     for those entities on or after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 17. DISCLOSURE OF POLITICAL INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES 
                   UNDER LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 3 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act 
     of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1602) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by inserting after ``lobbying activities'' each place 
     that term appears the following: ``or political intelligence 
     activities''; and
       (B) by inserting after ``lobbyists'' the following: ``or 
     political intelligence consultants''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(17) Political intelligence activities.--The term 
     `political intelligence activities' means political 
     intelligence contacts and efforts in support of such 
     contacts, including preparation and planning activities, 
     research, and other background work that is intended, at the 
     time it is performed, for use in contacts, and coordination 
     with such contacts and efforts of others.
       ``(18) Political intelligence contact.--
       ``(A) Definition.--The term `political intelligence 
     contact' means any oral or written communication (including 
     an electronic communication) to or from a covered executive 
     branch official or a covered legislative branch official, the 
     information derived from which is intended for use in 
     analyzing securities or commodities markets, or in informing 
     investment decisions, and which is made on behalf of a client 
     with regard to--
       ``(i) the formulation, modification, or adoption of Federal 
     legislation (including legislative proposals);
       ``(ii) the formulation, modification, or adoption of a 
     Federal rule, regulation, Executive order, or any other 
     program, policy, or position of the United States Government; 
     or
       ``(iii) the administration or execution of a Federal 
     program or policy (including the negotiation, award, or 
     administration of a Federal contract, grant, loan, permit, or 
     license).
       ``(B) Exception.--The term `political intelligence contact' 
     does not include a communication that is made by or to a 
     representative of the media if the purpose of the 
     communication is gathering and disseminating news and 
     information to the public.
       ``(19) Political intelligence firm.--The term `political 
     intelligence firm' means a person or entity that has 1 or 
     more employees who are political intelligence consultants to 
     a client other than that person or entity.
       ``(20) Political intelligence consultant.--The term 
     `political intelligence consultant' means any individual who 
     is employed or retained by a client for financial or other 
     compensation for services that include one or more political 
     intelligence contacts.''.
       (b) Registration Requirement.--Section 4 of the Lobbying 
     Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1603) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by inserting after ``whichever is earlier,'' the 
     following: ``or a political intelligence consultant first 
     makes a political intelligence contact,''; and
       (ii) by inserting after ``such lobbyist'' each place that 
     term appears the following: ``or consultant'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting after ``lobbyists'' each 
     place that term appears the following: ``or political 
     intelligence consultants''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3)(A)--
       (i) by inserting after ``lobbying activities'' each place 
     that term appears the following: ``and political intelligence 
     activities''; and
       (ii) in clause (i), by inserting after ``lobbying firm'' 
     the following: ``or political intelligence firm'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (3), by inserting after ``lobbying 
     activities'' each place that term appears the following: ``or 
     political intelligence activities'';
       (B) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     after ``lobbying activities'' the following: ``or political 
     intelligence activities''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (C), by inserting after ``lobbying 
     activity'' the following: ``or political intelligence 
     activity'';
       (C) in paragraph (5), by inserting after ``lobbying 
     activities'' each place that term appears the following: ``or 
     political intelligence activities'';
       (D) in paragraph (6), by inserting after ``lobbyist'' each 
     place that term appears the following: ``or political 
     intelligence consultant''; and
       (E) in the matter following paragraph (6), by inserting 
     ``or political intelligence activities'' after ``such 
     lobbying activities'';
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting after ``lobbying 
     contacts'' the following: ``or political intelligence 
     contacts''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by inserting after ``lobbying contact'' the following: 
     ``or political intelligence contact''; and
       (ii) by inserting after ``lobbying contacts'' the 
     following: ``and political intelligence contacts''; and
       (4) in subsection (d), by inserting after ``lobbying 
     activities'' each place that term appears the following: ``or 
     political intelligence activities''.
       (c) Reports by Registered Political Intelligence 
     Consultants.--Section 5 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 
     1995 (2 U.S.C. 1604) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting after ``lobbying 
     activities'' the following: ``and political intelligence 
     activities'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     after ``lobbying activities'' the following: ``or political 
     intelligence activities'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by inserting after ``lobbyist'' the following: ``or 
     political intelligence consultant''; and
       (II) by inserting after ``lobbying activities'' the 
     following: ``or political intelligence activities'';

       (iii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting after ``lobbyists'' 
     the following: ``and political intelligence consultants''; 
     and
       (iv) in subparagraph (C), by inserting after ``lobbyists'' 
     the following: ``or political intelligence consultants'';
       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by inserting after ``lobbying firm'' the following: 
     ``or political intelligence firm''; and
       (ii) by inserting after ``lobbying activities'' each place 
     that term appears the following: ``or political intelligence 
     activities''; and
       (C) in paragraph (4), by inserting after ``lobbying 
     activities'' each place that term appears the following: ``or 
     political intelligence activities''; and
       (3) in subsection (d)(1), in the matter preceding 
     subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or a

[[Page S314]]

     political intelligence consultant'' after ``a lobbyist''.
       (d) Disclosure and Enforcement.--Section 6(a) of the 
     Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1605) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)(A), by inserting after ``lobbying 
     firms'' the following: ``, political intelligence 
     consultants, political intelligence firms,'';
       (2) in paragraph (7), by striking ``or lobbying firm'' and 
     inserting ``lobbying firm, political intelligence consultant, 
     or political intelligence firm''; and
       (3) in paragraph (8), by striking ``or lobbying firm'' and 
     inserting ``lobbying firm, political intelligence consultant, 
     or political intelligence firm''.
       (e) Rules of Construction.--Section 8(b) of the Lobbying 
     Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1607(b)) is amended by 
     striking ``or lobbying contacts'' and inserting ``lobbying 
     contacts, political intelligence activities, or political 
     intelligence contacts''.
       (f) Identification of Clients and Covered Officials.--
     Section 14 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 
     1609) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the heading, by inserting ``or Political 
     Intelligence'' after ``Lobbying'';
       (B) by inserting ``or political intelligence contact'' 
     after ``lobbying contact'' each place that term appears; and
       (C) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or political 
     intelligence activity, as the case may be'' after ``lobbying 
     activity'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the heading, by inserting ``or Political 
     Intelligence'' after ``Lobbying'';
       (B) by inserting ``or political intelligence contact'' 
     after ``lobbying contact'' each place that term appears; and
       (C) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or political 
     intelligence activity, as the case may be'' after ``lobbying 
     activity''; and
       (3) in subsection (c), by inserting ``or political 
     intelligence contact'' after ``lobbying contact''.
       (g) Annual Audits and Reports by Comptroller General.--
     Section 26 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 
     1614) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting ``political intelligence firms, political 
     intelligence consultants,'' after ``lobbying firms''; and
       (B) by striking ``lobbying registrations'' and inserting 
     ``registrations'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1)(A), by inserting ``political 
     intelligence firms, political intelligence consultants,'' 
     after ``lobbying firms''; and
       (3) in subsection (c), by inserting ``or political 
     intelligence consultant'' after ``a lobbyist''.

          TITLE II--PUBLIC CORRUPTION PROSECUTION IMPROVEMENTS

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Public Corruption 
     Prosecution Improvements Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 202. VENUE FOR FEDERAL OFFENSES.

       (a) In General.--The second undesignated paragraph of 
     section 3237(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding before the period at the end the following: ``or in 
     any district in which an act in furtherance of the offense is 
     committed''.
       (b) Section Heading.--The heading for section 3237 of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 3237. OFFENSE TAKING PLACE IN MORE THAN ONE 
                   DISTRICT.''.

       (c) Table of Sections.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 211 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended so that the item relating to section 3237 reads as 
     follows:

``Sec. 3237. Offense taking place in more than one district.''.

     SEC. 203. THEFT OR BRIBERY CONCERNING PROGRAMS RECEIVING 
                   FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

       Section 666(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``10 years'' and inserting ``20 years'';
       (2) by striking ``$5,000'' the second place and the third 
     place it appears and inserting ``$1,000'';
       (3) by striking ``anything of value'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``any thing or things of value''; and
       (4) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting after ``anything'' 
     the following: ``or things''.

     SEC. 204. PENALTY FOR SECTION 641 VIOLATIONS.

       Section 641 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``ten years'' and inserting ``15 years''.

     SEC. 205. BRIBERY AND GRAFT; CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF 
                   ``OFFICIAL ACT''; CLARIFICATION OF THE CRIME OF 
                   ILLEGAL GRATUITIES.

       (a) Definition.--Section 201(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
       ``(3) the term `official act'--
       ``(A) means any act within the range of official duty, and 
     any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, 
     proceeding, or controversy, which may at any time be pending, 
     or which may by law be brought before any public official, in 
     such public official's official capacity or in such 
     official's place of trust or profit; and
       ``(B) may be a single act, more than 1 act, or a course of 
     conduct; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) the term `rule or regulation' means a Federal 
     regulation or a rule of the House of Representatives or the 
     Senate, including those rules and regulations governing the 
     acceptance of gifts and campaign contributions.''.
       (b) Clarification.--Section 201(c)(1) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper 
     discharge of official duty, or by rule or regulation--
       ``(A) directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises any 
     thing or things of value to any public official, former 
     public official, or person selected to be a public official 
     for or because of any official act performed or to be 
     performed by such public official, former public official, or 
     person selected to be a public official;
       ``(B) directly or indirectly, knowingly gives, offers, or 
     promises any thing or things of value with an aggregate value 
     of not less than $1000 to any public official, former public 
     official, or person selected to be a public official for or 
     because of the official's or person's official position;
       ``(C) being a public official, former public official, or 
     person selected to be a public official, directly or 
     indirectly, knowingly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or 
     agrees to receive or accept any thing or things of value with 
     an aggregate value of not less than $1000 for or because of 
     the official's or person's official position; or
       ``(D) being a public official, former public official, or 
     person selected to be a public official, directly or 
     indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to 
     receive or accept any thing or things of value for or because 
     of any official act performed or to be performed by such 
     official or person;''.

     SEC. 206. AMENDMENT OF THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES RELATING TO 
                   CERTAIN CRIMES.

       (a) Directive to Sentencing Commission.--Pursuant to its 
     authority under section 994(p) of title 28, United States 
     Code, and in accordance with this section, the United States 
     Sentencing Commission forthwith shall review and, if 
     appropriate, amend its guidelines and its policy statements 
     applicable to persons convicted of an offense under section 
     201, 641, 1346A, or 666 of title 18, United States Code, in 
     order to reflect the intent of Congress that such penalties 
     meet the requirements in subsection (b) of this section.
       (b) Requirements.--In carrying out this subsection, the 
     Commission shall--
       (1) ensure that the sentencing guidelines and policy 
     statements reflect Congress's intent that the guidelines and 
     policy statements reflect the serious nature of the offenses 
     described in paragraph (1), the incidence of such offenses, 
     and the need for an effective deterrent and appropriate 
     punishment to prevent such offenses;
       (2) consider the extent to which the guidelines may or may 
     not appropriately account for--
       (A) the potential and actual harm to the public and the 
     amount of any loss resulting from the offense;
       (B) the level of sophistication and planning involved in 
     the offense;
       (C) whether the offense was committed for purposes of 
     commercial advantage or private financial benefit;
       (D) whether the defendant acted with intent to cause either 
     physical or property harm in committing the offense;
       (E) the extent to which the offense represented an abuse of 
     trust by the offender and was committed in a manner that 
     undermined public confidence in the Federal, State, or local 
     government; and
       (F) whether the violation was intended to or had the effect 
     of creating a threat to public health or safety, injury to 
     any person or even death;
       (3) assure reasonable consistency with other relevant 
     directives and with other sentencing guidelines;
       (4) account for any additional aggravating or mitigating 
     circumstances that might justify exceptions to the generally 
     applicable sentencing ranges;
       (5) make any necessary conforming changes to the sentencing 
     guidelines; and
       (6) assure that the guidelines adequately meet the purposes 
     of sentencing as set forth in section 3553(a)(2) of title 18, 
     United States Code.

     SEC. 207. EXTENSION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR SERIOUS 
                   PUBLIC CORRUPTION OFFENSES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 213 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 3302. Corruption offenses

       ``Unless an indictment is returned or the information is 
     filed against a person within 6 years after the commission of 
     the offense, a person may not be prosecuted, tried, or 
     punished for a violation of, or a conspiracy or an attempt to 
     violate the offense in--
       ``(1) section 201 or 666;
       ``(2) section 1341 or 1343, when charged in conjunction 
     with section 1346 and where the offense involves a scheme or 
     artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest 
     services of a public official;
       ``(3) section 1951, if the offense involves extortion under 
     color of official right;
       ``(4) section 1952, to the extent that the unlawful 
     activity involves bribery; or
       ``(5) section 1962, to the extent that the racketeering 
     activity involves bribery

[[Page S315]]

     chargeable under State law, involves a violation of section 
     201 or 666, section 1341 or 1343, when charged in conjunction 
     with section 1346 and where the offense involves a scheme or 
     artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest 
     services of a public official, or section 1951, if the 
     offense involves extortion under color of official right.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 213 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``3302. Corruption offenses.''.

       (c) Application of Amendment.--The amendments made by this 
     section shall not apply to any offense committed before the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 208. INCREASE OF MAXIMUM PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC 
                   CORRUPTION RELATED OFFENSES.

       (a) Solicitation of Political Contributions.--Section 
     602(a)(4) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``3 years'' and inserting ``5 years''.
       (b) Promise of Employment for Political Activity.--Section 
     600 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``one year'' and inserting ``3 years''.
       (c) Deprivation of Employment for Political Activity.--
     Section 601(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``one year'' and inserting ``3 years''.
       (d) Intimidation To Secure Political Contributions.--
     Section 606 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``three years'' and inserting ``5 years''.
       (e) Solicitation and Acceptance of Contributions in Federal 
     Offices.--Section 607(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``3 years'' and inserting ``5 years''.
       (f) Coercion of Political Activity by Federal Employees.--
     Section 610 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``three years'' and inserting ``5 years''.

     SEC. 209. ADDITIONAL WIRETAP PREDICATES.

       Section 2516(1)(c) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``section 641 (relating to embezzlement or 
     theft of public money, property, or records), section 666 
     (relating to theft or bribery concerning programs receiving 
     Federal funds),'' after ``section 224 (bribery in sporting 
     contests),''; and
       (2) by inserting ``section 1031 (relating to major fraud 
     against the United States)'' after ``section 1014 (relating 
     to loans and credit applications generally; renewals and 
     discounts),''.

     SEC. 210. EXPANDING VENUE FOR PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF 
                   JUSTICE PROCEEDINGS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1512(i) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(i) A prosecution under section 1503, 1504, 1505, 1508, 
     1509, 1510, or this section may be brought in the district in 
     which the conduct constituting the alleged offense occurred 
     or in which the official proceeding (whether or not pending 
     or about to be instituted) was intended to be affected.''.
       (b) Perjury.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 79 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1624. Venue

       ``A prosecution under section 1621(1), 1622 (in regard to 
     subornation of perjury under 1621(1)), or 1623 of this title 
     may be brought in the district in which the oath, 
     declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under 
     penalty of perjury is made or in which a proceeding takes 
     place in connection with the oath, declaration, certificate, 
     verification, or statement.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 79 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``1624. Venue.''.

     SEC. 211. PROHIBITION ON UNDISCLOSED SELF-DEALING BY PUBLIC 
                   OFFICIALS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 63 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 1346 the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 1346A. Undisclosed self-dealing by public officials

       ``(a) Undisclosed Self-dealing by Public Officials.--For 
     purposes of this chapter, the term `scheme or artifice to 
     defraud' also includes a scheme or artifice by a public 
     official to engage in undisclosed self-dealing.
       ``(b) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       ``(1) Official act.--The term official act--
       ``(A) means any act within the range of official duty, and 
     any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, 
     proceeding, or controversy, which may at any time be pending, 
     or which may by law be brought before any public official, in 
     such public official's official capacity or in such 
     official's place of trust or profit; and
       ``(B) may be a single act, more than one act, or a course 
     of conduct.
       ``(2) Public official.--The term `public official' means an 
     officer, employee, or elected or appointed representative, or 
     person acting for or on be half of the United States, a 
     State, or a subdivision of a State, or any department, agency 
     or branch of government thereof, in any official function, 
     under or by authority of any such department, agency, or 
     branch of government.
       ``(3) State.--The term `State' includes a State of the 
     United States, the District of Columbia, and any 
     commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
       ``(4) Undisclosed self-dealing.--The term `undisclosed 
     self-dealing' means that--
       ``(A) a public official performs an official act for the 
     purpose, in whole or in material part, of furthering or 
     benefitting a financial interest, of which the public 
     official has knowledge, of--
       ``(i) the public official;
       ``(ii) the spouse or minor child of a public official;
       ``(iii) a general business partner of the public official;
       ``(iv) a business or organization in which the public 
     official is serving as an employee, officer, director, 
     trustee, or general partner;
       ``(v) an individual, business, or organization with whom 
     the public official is negotiating for, or has any 
     arrangement concerning, prospective employment or financial 
     compensation; or
       ``(vi) an individual, business, or organization from whom 
     the public official has received any thing or things of 
     value, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper 
     discharge of official duty, or by rule or regulation; and
       ``(B) the public official knowingly falsifies, conceals, or 
     covers up material information that is required to be 
     disclosed by any Federal, State, or local statute, rule, 
     regulation, or charter applicable to the public official, or 
     the knowing failure of the public official to disclose 
     material information in a manner that is required by any 
     Federal, State, or local statute, rule, regulation, or 
     charter applicable to the public official.
       ``(5) Material information.--The term `material 
     information' means information--
       ``(A) regarding a financial interest of a person described 
     in clauses (i) through (iv) paragraph (4)(A); and
       ``(B) regarding the association, connection, or dealings by 
     a public official with an individual, business, or 
     organization as described in clauses (iii) through (vi) of 
     paragraph (4)(A).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 1346 the 
     following new item:

``1346A. Undisclosed self-dealing by public officials.''.

       (c) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section 
     apply to acts engaged in on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 212. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION IN COMPLAINTS AGAINST 
                   JUDGES.

       Section 360(a) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``or'';
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end, 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) such disclosure of information regarding a potential 
     criminal offense is made to the Attorney General, a Federal, 
     State, or local grand jury, or a Federal, State, or local law 
     enforcement agency.''.

     SEC. 213. CLARIFICATION OF EXEMPTION IN CERTAIN BRIBERY 
                   OFFENSES.

       Section 666(c) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``This section does not apply to''; and
       (2) by inserting ``The term `anything of value' that is 
     corruptly solicited, demanded, accepted or agreed to be 
     accepted in subsection (a)(1)(B) or corruptly given, offered, 
     or agreed to be given in subsection (a)(2) shall not 
     include,'' before ``bona fide salary''.

     SEC. 214. CERTIFICATIONS REGARDING APPEALS BY UNITED STATES.

       Section 3731 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after ``United States attorney'' the following: ``, 
     Deputy Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General, or the 
     Attorney General''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

                          ____________________