Congressional Record, Volume 158 Issue 17 (Thursday, February 2, 2012)

[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--

``(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.

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.

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

``(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--

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

SEC. 14. TRANSACTION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

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.

[[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.

____________________