[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1038-1054]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2007

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

       A bill (S. 1) to provide greater transparency in the 
     legislative process.

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 3, in the nature of a substitute.
       Reid amendment No. 4 (to amendment No. 3), to strengthen 
     the gift and travel bans.
       DeMint amendment No. 11 (to amendment No. 3), to strengthen 
     the earmark reform. (By 46 yeas to 51 nays (Vote No. 5), 
     Senate earlier failed to table the amendment.)
       DeMint amendment No. 12 (to amendment No. 3), to clarify 
     that earmarks added to a conference report that are not 
     considered by the Senate or the House of Representatives are 
     out of scope.
       DeMint amendment No. 14 (to amendment No. 3), to protect 
     individuals from having their money involuntarily collected 
     and used for lobbying by a labor organization.
       Vitter/Inhofe modified amendment No. 9 (to amendment No. 
     3), to place certain restrictions on the ability of the 
     spouses of Members of Congress to lobby Congress.
       Vitter amendment No. 10 (to amendment No. 3), to increase 
     the penalty for failure to comply with lobbying disclosure 
     requirements.
       Leahy/Pryor amendment No. 2 (to amendment No. 3), to give 
     investigators and prosecutors the tools they need to combat 
     public corruption.
       Gregg amendment No. 17 (to amendment No. 3), to establish a 
     legislative line item veto.
       Ensign amendment No. 24 (to amendment No. 3), to provide 
     for better transparency and enhanced Congressional oversight 
     of spending by clarifying the treatment of matter not 
     committed to the conferees by either House.
       Ensign modified amendment No. 25 (to amendment No. 3), to 
     ensure full funding for the Department of Defense within the 
     regular appropriations process, to limit the reliance of the 
     Department of Defense on supplemental appropriations bills, 
     and to improve the integrity of the Congressional budget 
     process.
       Cornyn amendment No. 26 (to amendment No. 3), to require 
     full separate disclosure of any earmarks in any bill, joint 
     resolution, report, conference report or statement of 
     managers.
       Cornyn amendment No. 27 (to amendment No. 3), to require 3 
     calendar days' notice in the Senate before proceeding to any 
     matter.
       Bennett (for McCain) amendment No. 19 (to amendment No. 4), 
     to include a reporting requirement.
       Bennett (for McCain) amendment No. 28 (to amendment No. 3), 
     to provide congressional transparency.
       Bennett (for McCain) amendment No. 29, to provide 
     congressional transparency.
       Lieberman amendment No. 30 (to amendment No. 3), to 
     establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity.
       Bennett/McConnell amendment No. 20 (to amendment No. 3), to 
     strike a provision relating to paid efforts to stimulate 
     grassroots lobbying.
       Thune amendment No. 37 (to amendment No. 3), to require any 
     recipient of a Federal award to disclose all lobbying and 
     political advocacy.
       Stevens amendment No. 40 (to amendment No. 4), to permit a 
     limited flight exception for necessary State travel.
       Feinstein/Rockefeller amendment No. 42 (to amendment No. 
     3), to prohibit an earmark from being included in the 
     classified portion of a report accompanying a measure unless 
     the measure includes a general program description, funding 
     level, and the name of the sponsor of that earmark.

[[Page 1039]]




                        Amendments Nos. 1 and 10

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration en bloc of amendment No. 1 and amendment 
No. 10, and the time until 9:50 a.m. shall run concurrently on both 
amendments, with the time equally divided between the two leaders or 
their designees.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum 
call be put in place with the time charged equally against each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Amendment No. 1, as Modified, to Amendment No. 3

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself, 
     Mr. Salazar, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Pryor, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 1, as modified, to amendment No. 3.

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

    (Purpose: To amend title 5, United States Code, to deny Federal 
 retirement benefits to individuals convicted of certain offenses, and 
                          for other purposes)

       At the end, add the following:

              TITLE--CONGRESSIONAL PENSION ACCOUNTABILITY

     SEC. __1. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Congressional Pension 
     Accountability Act''.

     SEC. __2. DENIAL OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--Section 8312(a) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1), by 
     striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting 
     ``; or'', and by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) was convicted of an offense described in subsection 
     (d), to the extent provided by that subsection.''; and
       (2) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A), by 
     striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting ``; and'', and by inserting after subparagraph (B) 
     the following:
       ``(C) with respect to the offenses described in subsection 
     (d), to the period after the date of conviction.''.
       (b) Offenses Described.--Section 8312 of such title 5 is 
     amended by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e), 
     and by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) The offenses to which subsection (a)(3) applies are 
     the following:
       ``(1) An offense within the purview of--
       ``(A) section 201 of title 18 (bribery of public officials 
     and witnesses); or
       ``(B) section 371 of title 18 (conspiracy to commit offense 
     or to defraud United States), to the extent of any conspiracy 
     to commit an act which constitutes an offense within the 
     purview of such section 201.
       ``(2) Perjury committed under the statutes of the United 
     States or the District of Columbia in falsely denying the 
     commission of any act which constitutes an offense within the 
     purview of a statute named by paragraph (1), but only in the 
     case of the statute named by subparagraph (B) of paragraph 
     (1).
       ``(3) Subornation of perjury committed in connection with 
     the false denial or false testimony of another individual as 
     specified by paragraph (2).

     An offense shall not be considered to be an offense described 
     in this subsection except if or to the extent that it is 
     committed by a Member of Congress (as defined by section 
     2106, including a Delegate to Congress).''.
       (c) Absence From United States to Avoid Prosecution.--
     Section 8313(a)(1) of such title 5 is amended by striking 
     ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at 
     the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting ``or'', and by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) for an offense described under subsection (d) of 
     section 8312; and''.
       (d) Nonaccrual of Interest on Refunds.--Section 8316(b) of 
     such title 5 is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of 
     paragraph (1), by striking the period at the end of paragraph 
     (2) and inserting ``; or'', and by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3) if the individual was convicted of an offense 
     described in section 8312(d), for the period after the 
     conviction.''.

     SEC. __3. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.

       The Constitutional authority for this title is the power of 
     Congress to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper 
     as enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the United States 
     Constitution, and the power to ascertain compensation for 
     Congressional service under Article I, Section 6 of the 
     United States Constitution.

     SEC. __4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title, including the amendments made by this title, 
     shall take effect on January 1, 2009 and shall apply with 
     respect to convictions for offenses committed on or after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time is 
divided up now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 7 minutes on the Senator's side.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, my amendment is cosponsored by Senator Salazar, 
Senator Ben Nelson, and Senator Pryor, and it is based on a bill 
Senator Salazar and I introduced that we hope will go some further 
distance in this effort we are engaged in now with ethics reform to 
reestablish the trust of the American people in their Government in 
Washington.
  We do this by an effort to prevent Members of Congress who betray 
that trust from receiving their pensions. This is plain deterrence. It 
is an effort to try to make it clear there are serious consequences to 
betraying that trust.
  In a sense, the trust is larger than perhaps the day-to-day 
relationship of most citizens in this country to the law. We take a 
special oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. 
But, more importantly, when people elect you to high Federal office, or 
any office, they are putting a special kind of trust in you to 
represent their lives, their interests, their values--indeed, the 
highest level of aspiration of values that we all share in this 
country.
  So this is done because there is something that grates in the notion 
that you can put the public's trust and the public's business up for 
sale and then walk away and have the people whom you betrayed turn 
around and pay for you to be able to have for the rest of your life a 
fat pension because of the level of service you had reached at their 
trust.
  Let me be very specific about this. A few years ago, Congressmen 
Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham sat down at a cozy meeting with some 
lobbyists and he proceeded to betray the public trust. He used his 
official congressional stationary to draft a series of quid pro quo 
deals.
  Let me show you this blowup of the stationary itself: Here is the 
congressional seal. Here is Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham's name. Here is a 
list of the amounts of millions of dollars: $16 million; ``BT''--that 
is ``boat''--``140''--that was $140,000--$17 million; an additional 
$50,000; $18 million, $50,000. Once they paid about $340,000. The price 
of this service went down, and he charged only $25,000 for each million 
dollars of contract that he would award.
  He was convicted of collecting approximately $2.4 million in homes, 
yachts, antique furnishings, and other bribes--including a Rolls 
Royce--from defense contractors. This disgraceful conduct--which is 
beyond the comprehension of any Member of this institution--earned him 
8 years and 4 months in a Federal prison, and it has required him to 
also pay the Government $1.8 million in penalties but also some back 
taxes.
  But under today's rules, the American taxpayer is going to continue 
to pay a Federal pension that is out of the reach of any American 
taxpayer, and that is disgraceful. Right now, only a conviction for a 
crime against the United States, such as treason or espionage, would 
cost a Member of Congress their pension. So we set a standard for the 
pension being held accountable, but it is only for two things. Surely 
we

[[Page 1040]]

ought to put this moral bar higher than that.
  Most Americans do not get a $40,000 a year pension. Those who abuse 
the public trust should not be allowed to exploit the Federal system at 
taxpayers' expense. The American people cannot afford to spend millions 
on pensions for politicians who steal from them. More importantly, 
Congress cannot afford to have a standard where it is willing to 
forgive and forget and betray that trust.
  I have shown what the ``bribe menu'' was, which is a pretty 
extraordinary menu. Unfortunately, Congressman Cunningham was not 
alone. Last November, Representative Bob Ney resigned from the House of 
Representatives after pleading guilty to conspiracy and making false 
statements. In a plea agreement, former Representative Ney acknowledged 
taking trips, tickets, meals, and campaign donations from Mr. Abramoff 
in return for taking official actions on behalf of Abramoff clients.
  In March 2002, Representative Ney inserted an amendment in the Help 
America Vote Act to lift an existing Federal ban against commercial 
gaming by a Texas Native American tribal client of Abramoff. In return, 
Representative Ney received all-expenses-paid and reduced-price trips 
to Scotland to play golf, a trip to New Orleans to gamble, and a 
vacation in Lake George--all courtesy of Mr. Abramoff.
  Another former Congressman, Jim Traficant, currently enjoys a lavish 
taxpayer-funded lifetime pension worth an estimated $1.2 million, 
despite being thrown out of Congress and sent to jail.
  So these examples are just three of at least 20 former lawmakers who 
were convicted of serious crimes and are still receiving a taxpayer-
funded pension, some as high as $125,000 a year.
  As I said earlier, we should hold ourselves to the highest standards. 
The principle is a simple one: Public servants who abuse the public 
trust and are convicted of ethics crimes should not collect taxpayer-
financed pensions. This should serve, hopefully, as a bold deterrent 
that when any Member comes in here, they know they are putting their 
lives at greater risk than just the penalty they might pay on a short-
term basis for their particular transgression.
  This amendment denies Federal pensions--as soon as is legally 
possible--to Members of Congress who are convicted of white-collar 
crimes, such as bribery of public officials and witnesses, conspiracy 
to defraud the United States, perjury in falsely denying the commission 
of bribery or conspiracy, and subornation of perjury committed in 
connection with the false denial or false testimony of another 
individual.
  It is my understanding there is some concern among a couple of 
Members about how this legislation might affect innocent spouses and 
children of Members of Congress who lose their pensions as a result of 
this legislation. Obviously, we are trying to set up an adequate 
deterrent to prevent people from that in the first place.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. But after the legislation is enacted, the Member will 
still receive a refund of all of their personal contributions--those 
will not be taken away--into either the Federal Employees Retirement 
System or the Civil Service Retirement System, and they will retain all 
the benefits from the Thrift Savings Plan.
  Also, the payment of spousal benefits is permitted in forfeiture 
cases when the Attorney General determines that the spouse cooperated 
with Federal authorities in the conduct of a criminal investigation.
  This can significantly improve our Government by the way business is 
done. I hope my colleagues will join overwhelmingly in voting to 
prohibit sending pension checks to criminals. This amendment is a step 
in the right direction.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of 
the amendment introduced by Mr. Kerry and Mr. Salazar. I strongly 
encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  When the ethics reform process began last year, I was quick to point 
out that, for the most part, our laws had worked the way we intended. 
Today, Jack Abramoff, Bob Ney, and Duke Cunningham have all been found 
guilty of the crimes they committed and have been punished accordingly. 
Last year, when we held our hearing in the Rules Committee, I remarked 
that Capitol Hill must be the only place in the world where, if someone 
breaks the law, we rush to change the law.
  Well in this case, we have an opportunity to add to the law to 
correct a significant shortcoming. We take away the retirement benefits 
of those Members of Congress who violate the public trust by committing 
crimes while in office.
  It is often said, ``If you do the crime, you do the time.'' Well, it 
seems that if you are a former Congressman or Senator, you do the 
crime, do the time, and continue to collect Federal retirement benefits 
paid for by the American taxpayer. That just doesn't seem right to me.
  This amendment, the Congressional Pension Accountability Act, will 
bar Members of Congress from receiving taxpayer-funded retirement 
benefits after they have been convicted of bribery, conspiracy, 
perjury, or other serious ethics offenses. If we are serious about 
cleaning up Congress, we should approve this amendment and put our 
money where our mouth is--by saying that the public, who are the 
primary victims of crimes committed by elected officials, should not be 
required to pay benefits for those who are convicted of a breach of the 
public's trust.
  I strongly believe that all Members of Congress must be held to the 
highest ethical standards and those who violate the public trust must 
be held accountable for their actions. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from 
Massachusetts. I think this is an excellent amendment. I think it is 
long overdue. I am very hopeful it will pass the Senate this morning.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the majority has expired.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside so I can call up four amendments to the pending 
substitute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Amendments Nos. 31, 32, 33, and 34

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the four amendments--Nos. 31, 32, 33, 
and 34--are at the desk and I call them up at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments en bloc.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes 
     amendments, en bloc, numbered 31, 32, 33, and 34 to amendment 
     No. 3.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments, en bloc, are as follows:


                            amendment no. 31

   (Purpose: To prohibit former Members of Congress from engaging in 
   lobbying activities in addition to lobbying contacts during their 
                          cooling off period)

       On page 50, line 25, strike ``1995.'';'' and all that 
     follows through page 51, line 12, and insert the following: 
     ``1995.
       ``(3) Members of congress and elected officers.--Any person 
     who is a Member of Congress or an elected officer of either 
     House of Congress and who, within 2 years after that person 
     leaves office, knowingly engages in lobbying activities on 
     behalf of any other person (except the United States) in 
     connection with any matter on which such former Member of 
     Congress or elected officer seeks action by a Member, 
     officer, or employee of either House of Congress shall be 
     punished as provided in section 216 of this title.''.

[[Page 1041]]

       (3) in paragraph (6)--
       (A) by striking ``paragraphs (2), (3), and (4)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (2)'';
       (B) by striking ``(A)'';
       (C) by striking subparagraph (B); and
       (D) by redesignating the paragraph as paragraph (4); and
       (4) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (5).
       (c) Definition of Lobbying Activity.--Section 207(i) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) the term `lobbying activities' has the same meaning 
     given such term in section 3(7) of the Lobbying Disclosure 
     Act (2 U.S.C. 1602(7)).''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (b) 
     shall take effect 60 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.


                            amendment no. 32

  (Purpose: To increase the cooling off period for senior staff to 2 
   years and to prohibit former Members of Congress from engaging in 
   lobbying activities in addition to lobbying contacts during their 
                          cooling off period)

       On page 17, line 15, strike ``1 year'' and insert ``2 
     years''.
       On page 50, line 25, strike ``1995.'';'' and all that 
     follows through page 51, line 12, and insert the following: 
     ``1995.
       ``(3) Members of congress and elected officers.--Any person 
     who is a Member of Congress or an elected officer of either 
     House of Congress and who, within 2 years after that person 
     leaves office, knowingly engages in lobbying activities on 
     behalf of any other person (except the United States) in 
     connection with any matter on which such former Member of 
     Congress or elected officer seeks action by a Member, 
     officer, or employee of either House of Congress shall be 
     punished as provided in section 216 of this title.'';
       (3) in paragraph (6)--
       (A) by striking ``paragraphs (2), (3), and (4)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (2)'';
       (B) by striking ``(A)'';
       (C) by striking subparagraph (B); and
       (D) by redesignating the paragraph as paragraph (4); and
       (4) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (5).
       (c) Definition of Lobbying Activity.--Section 207(i) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) the term `lobbying activities' has the same meaning 
     given such term in section 3(7) of the Lobbying Disclosure 
     Act (2 U.S.C. 1602(7)).''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (b) 
     shall take effect 60 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.


                            AMENDMENT NO. 33

 (Purpose: To prohibit former members who are lobbyists from using gym 
  and parking privileges made available to Members and former Members)

       On page 10, line 9, strike ``Leader.''.'' and insert the 
     following: ``Leader.
       ``3. A former Member of the Senate may not exercise 
     privileges to use Senate or House gym or exercise facilities 
     or member-only parking spaces if such Member is--
       (1) a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal; 
     or
       (2) in the employ of or represents any party or 
     organization for the purpose of influencing, directly or 
     indirectly, the passage, defeat, or amendment of any 
     legislative proposal.''.


                            AMENDMENT NO. 34

    (Purpose: To require Senate campaigns to file their FEC reports 
                            electronically)

       At the end of subtitle A of title II insert the following:

     SEC. 225. ELECTRONIC FILING OF ELECTION REPORTS OF SENATE 
                   CANDIDATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 304(a)(11)(D) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(11)(D)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(D) As used in this paragraph, the terms `designation', 
     `statement', or `report' mean a designation, statement, or 
     report, respectively, which--
       ``(i) is required by this Act to be filed with the 
     Commission; or
       ``(ii) is required under section 302(g) to be filed with 
     the Secretary of the Senate and forwarded by the Secretary to 
     the Commission.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 302(g)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 432(g)(2)) is amended by inserting ``or 1 
     working day in the case of a designation, statement, or 
     report filed electronically'' after ``2 working days''.
       (2) Section 304(a)(11)(B) of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(11)(B)) is amended by inserting 
     ``or filed with the Secretary of the Senate under section 
     302(g)(1) and forwarded to the Commission'' after ``Act''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to any designation, statement, or report required 
     to be filed after the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to very briefly discuss the 
amendments I have offered. I will be happy to debate them more fully at 
the appropriate time if necessary. All of these amendments are drawn 
from the bill I introduced this week with Senators Obama, Lieberman, 
and Tester, S. 230. I believe that several of the amendments have the 
support of the majority leader, but for a variety of reasons, they were 
not included in the substitute that is now before the body. I again 
thank him for his support of strong lobbying and ethics reform, and I 
look forward to the Senate's consideration of these amendments.
  My first amendment, amendment 31, changes the universe of activities 
that former Members of Congress can engage in during their cooling off 
period after they serve in this body. Currently, they cannot personally 
lobby their former colleagues. This amendment states in addition they 
may not engage in lobbying activities, which is a defined term in the 
Lobbying Disclosure Act. They must refrain from running the show behind 
the scenes. They won't be able to strategize with and coordinate the 
lobbying activities of others who are trying to influence the Congress. 
Members who have just left Congress should not be capitalizing on the 
clout, access, and experience they gained here to lobby their 
colleagues, whether they are doing the lobbying themselves or 
instructing others.
  My next amendment, amendment 32, is the same as the revolving-door 
amendment that I just described but also extends the ``cooling-off 
period'' for senior staff from one to two years. Under the bill, the 
``cooling off period'' for Members of Congress is increased from 1 to 2 
years. I believe that just as one year is not an adequate ``cooling off 
period'' for Senators, and the bill reflects that, it is not adequate 
for senior staff. Staff, of course, can lobby the other body after they 
leave, and my amendment would not subject them to the same lobbying 
activities prohibition that it seeks to apply to former Members. It 
simply will make them wait 2 years to lobby this body after they leave 
the Senate.
  My next amendment, No. 33, ends Senate gym and parking privileges for 
former Members of Congress who are lobbyists. The underlying bill 
terminates floor privileges for Members turned lobbyists, and we should 
finish the job by making sure that other special privileges aren't 
available to these lobbyists just because they used to serve here.
  My next amendment, No. 34, will finally bring Senate campaigns into 
the 21st century by requiring Senate candidates to file their FEC 
disclosure reports electronically. This amendment mirrors a bill that 
I, along with Senators Cochran, McCain, and 20 of our colleagues from 
both sides of the aisle, introduced on Tuesday.
  These amendments, along with amendments that have been offered by my 
partners on S. 230, Senators Lieberman and Obama, and another to be 
offered by the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, will get us closer to 
completing the job of improving this bill and making it a product that 
we can be proud of. More importantly, we can make this a product that 
the American people will accept as real change. We are headed in the 
right direction on this bill, with the substitute and the Reid 
amendment on gifts, travel, and corporate jets. But we need to keep 
pressing for the best reform possible. These amendments are offered for 
that purpose, and I urge the Senate to adopt them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The majority leader.


                      Amendment No. 1, as Modified

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the hour of 9:50 having arrived, I ask 
unanimous consent that voting commence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to yielding back the time?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment

[[Page 1042]]

No. 1, as modified, offered by the Senator from Massachusetts.
  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. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Hawaii 
(Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh) and the 
Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton) are absent on official business.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator 
from New York (Mrs. Clinton), and the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) 
would each vote ``yea.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Colorado (Mr. Allard), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), 
the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman), the Senator from New Mexico 
(Mr. Domenici), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Colorado (Mr. 
Allard) and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman) would have voted 
``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 0, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 8 Leg.]

                                YEAS--87

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brown
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Allard
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
  The amendment (No. 1), as modified, was agreed to.


                            Amendment No. 10

  Mr. REID. Madam President, we yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has 1 minute.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, this amendment is very simple and 
straightforward. It simply raises penalties with regard to lobbyists 
not following the lobbyist disclosure law. The maximum penalty would be 
$200,000. No. 1, that is the maximum. No. 2, they have an opportunity 
to cure the problem, so that would only be achieved in very serious, 
very egregious cases. No. 3, we raise the penalties on public 
officials. I think it is very appropriate that we set these new 
penalties, particularly considering the money made in lobbying. I 
commend it to your attention. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an amendment 
by myself and the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Pryor, No. 
2, be called up and passed by voice vote at this time. There will be no 
speeches.
  I call up amendment No. 2.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BENNETT. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, 
but there is a Senator who wants to check in on this amendment, and so 
I am protecting his rights. I ask that we voice vote this amendment 
after the next vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, that is fine with the Senator from 
Vermont.
  Mr. BENNETT. I do not object, but there is a Senator who wants to 
take a look at this amendment and has asked that I preserve his rights.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask for the regular order.
  Mr. BENNETT. It is the pending amendment after this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Louisiana, amendment No. 10.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, 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 assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Hawaii 
(Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh) and the 
Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton) are absent on official business.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), and the 
Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) would each vote ``yea.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent. The Senator 
from Colorado (Mr. Allard), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), 
the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman), the Senator from New Mexico 
(Mr. Domenici), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 6, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 9 Leg.]

                                YEAS--81

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brown
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--6

     Coburn
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Lott
     Roberts

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Allard
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
  The amendment (No. 10) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. I call for the regular order with respect to amendment No. 
4.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.


                      Amendment No. 4, as Modified

  Mr. REID. I send the amendment to the desk for a modification, 
incorporating the language of the McCain amendment No. 19.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 4), as modified, is as follows:

       Strike sections 108 and 109 and insert the following:

[[Page 1043]]



     SEC. 108. BAN ON GIFTS FROM LOBBYISTS AND ENTITIES THAT HIRE 
                   LOBBYISTS.

       Paragraph 1(a)(2) of rule XXXV of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate is amended by--
       (1) inserting ``(A)'' after ``(2)''; and
       (2) adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) A Member, officer, or employee may not knowingly 
     accept a gift from a registered lobbyist, an agent of a 
     foreign principal, or a private entity that retains or 
     employs a registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign 
     principal, except as provided in subparagraph (c).''.

     SEC. 109. RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYIST PARTICIPATION IN TRAVEL 
                   AND DISCLOSURE.

       (a) Prohibition.--Paragraph 2 of rule XXXV is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (a)(1), by--
       (A) adding after ``foreign principal'' the following: ``or 
     a private entity that retains or employs 1 or more registered 
     lobbyists or agents of a foreign principal'';
       (B) striking the dash and inserting ``complies with the 
     requirements of this paragraph.''; and
       (C) striking clauses (A) and (B);
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (a)(2) as subparagraph 
     (a)(3) and adding after subparagraph (a)(1) the following:
       ``(2) Notwithstanding clause (1), a reimbursement 
     (including payment in kind) to a Member, officer, or employee 
     of the Senate from an individual other than a registered 
     lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal that is a private 
     entity that retains or employs one or more registered 
     lobbyists or agents of a foreign principal for necessary 
     transportation, lodging, and related expenses for travel to a 
     meeting, speaking engagement, factfinding trip or similar 
     event in connection with the duties of the Member, officer, 
     or employee shall be deemed to be a reimbursement to the 
     Senate under clause (1) if it is, under regulations 
     prescribed by the Select Committee on Ethics to implement 
     this clause, provided only for attendance at or participation 
     for 1-day at an event (exclusive of travel time and an 
     overnight stay) described in clause (1). Regulations to 
     implement this clause, and the committee on a case-by-case 
     basis, may permit a 2-night stay when determined by the 
     committee to be practically required to participate in the 
     event.'';
       (3) in subparagraph (a)(3), as redesignated, by striking 
     ``clause (1)'' and inserting ``clauses (1) and (2)'';
       (4) in subparagraph (b), by inserting before ``Each'' the 
     following: ``Before an employee may accept reimbursement 
     pursuant to subparagraph (a), the employee shall receive 
     advance authorization from the Member or officer under whose 
     direct supervision the employee works to accept 
     reimbursement.'';
       (5) in subparagraph (c)--
       (A) by inserting before ``Each'' the following: ``Each 
     Member, officer, or employee that receives reimbursement 
     under this paragraph shall disclose the expenses reimbursed 
     or to be reimbursed and authorization (for an employee) to 
     the Secretary of the Senate not later than 30 days after the 
     travel is completed.'';
       (B) by striking ``subparagraph (a)(1)'' and inserting 
     ``this subparagraph'';
       (C) in clause (5), by striking ``and'' after the semicolon;
       (D) by redesignating clause (6) as clause (7); and
       (E) by inserting after clause (5) the following:
       ``(6) a description of meetings and events attended; and'';
       (6) by redesignating subparagraphs (d) and (e) as 
     subparagraphs (f) and (g), respectively;
       (7) by adding after subparagraph (c) the following:
       ``(d) A Member, officer, or employee of the Senate may not 
     accept a reimbursement (including payment in kind) for 
     transportation, lodging, or related expenses under 
     subparagraph (a) for a trip that was planned, organized, or 
     arranged by or at the request of a registered lobbyist or 
     agent of a foreign principal, or on which a lobbyist 
     accompanies the Member, officer, or employee on any segment 
     of the trip. The Select Committee on Ethics shall issue 
     regulations identifying de minimis activities by lobbyists or 
     foreign agents that would not violate this subparagraph.
       ``(e) A Member, officer, or employee shall, before 
     accepting travel otherwise permissible under this paragraph 
     from any person--
       ``(1) provide to the Select Committee on Ethics a written 
     certification from such person that--
       ``(A) the trip will not be financed in any part by a 
     registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal;
       ``(B) the source either--
       ``(i) does not retain or employ registered lobbyists or 
     agents of a foreign principal and is not itself a registered 
     lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal; or
       ``(ii) certifies that the trip meets the requirements 
     specified in rules prescribed by the Select Committee on 
     Ethics to implement subparagraph (a)(2);
       ``(C) the source will not accept from any source funds 
     earmarked directly or indirectly for the purpose of financing 
     the specific trip; and
       ``(D) the trip will not in any part be planned, organized, 
     requested, or arranged by a registered lobbyist or agent of a 
     foreign principal and that the traveler will not be 
     accompanied on any segment of the trip by a registered 
     lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal, except as permitted 
     by regulations issued under subparagraph (d), and 
     specifically details the extent of any involvement of a 
     registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal; and
       ``(2) after the Select Committee on Ethics has promulgated 
     regulations mandated in subparagraph (h), obtain the prior 
     approval of the committee for such reimbursement.'';
       (8) by striking subparagraph (g), as redesignated, and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(g) The Secretary of the Senate shall make all advance 
     authorizations, certifications, and disclosures filed 
     pursuant to this paragraph available for public inspection as 
     soon as possible after they are received.''; and
       (9) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h)(1) Not later than 45 days after the date of adoption 
     of this subparagraph and at annual intervals thereafter, the 
     Select Committee on Ethics shall develop and revise, as 
     necessary--
       ``(A) guidelines on judging the reasonableness of an 
     expense or expenditure for purposes of this clause, including 
     the factors that tend to establish--
       ``(i) a connection between a trip and official duties;
       ``(ii) the reasonableness of an amount spent by a sponsor;
       ``(iii) a relationship between an event and an officially 
     connected purpose; and
       ``(iv) a direct and immediate relationship between a source 
     of funding and an event; and
       ``(B) regulations describing the information it will 
     require individuals subject to this clause to submit to the 
     committee in order to obtain the prior approval of the 
     committee for any travel covered by this clause, including 
     any required certifications.
       ``(2) In developing and revising guidelines under clause 
     (1)(A), the committee shall take into account the maximum per 
     diem rates for official Government travel published annually 
     by the General Services Administration, the Department of 
     State, and the Department of Defense.
       ``(3) For purposes of this subparagraph, travel on an 
     aircraft operated or paid for by a carrier not licenced by 
     the Federal Aviation Administration to operate for 
     compensation shall not be considered a reasonable expense.
       ``(i) A Member, officer, or employee who travels on an 
     aircraft operated or paid for by a carrier not licenced by 
     the Federal Aviation Administration shall file a report with 
     the Secretary of the Senate not later than 60 days after the 
     date on which such flight is taken. The report shall 
     include--
       ``(1) the date of such flight;
       ``(2) the destination of such flight;
       ``(3) the owner or lessee of the aircraft;
       ``(4) the purpose of such travel;
       ``(5) the persons on such flight (except for any person 
     flying the aircraft); and
       ``(6) the charter rate paid for such flight.''.
       (b) Reimbursement for Noncommercial Air Travel.--
       (1) Charter rates.--Paragraph 1(c)(1) of rule XXXV of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate is amended by adding at the end 
     the following: ``Fair market value for a flight on an 
     aircraft operated or paid for by a carrier not licensed by 
     the Federal Aviation Administration to operate for 
     compensation or hire, excluding an aircraft owned or leased 
     by a governmental entity or by a Member of Congress or a 
     Member's spouse (including an aircraft owned by an entity 
     that is not a public corporation in which the Member or 
     Member's spouse has an ownership interest, provided that the 
     Member does not use the aircraft anymore than the Member's or 
     spouse's proportionate share of ownership allows), shall be 
     the pro rata share of the fair market value of the normal and 
     usual charter fare or rental charge for a comparable plane of 
     comparable size (as determined by dividing such cost by the 
     number of members, officers, or employees of the Congress on 
     the flight).''.
       (2) Unofficial office accounts.--Paragraph 1 of rule 
     XXXVIII of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) For purposes of reimbursement under this rule, fair 
     market value of a flight on an aircraft operated or paid for 
     by a carrier not licensed by the Federal Aviation 
     Administration to operate for compensation or hire, shall be 
     the pro rata share of the fair market value of the normal and 
     usual charter fare or rental charge for a comparable plane of 
     comparable size (as determined by dividing such cost by the 
     number of members, officers, or employees of the Congress on 
     the flight).''.
       (3) Candidates.--Subparagraph (B) of section 301(8) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (42 U.S.C. 431(8)(B)) 
     is amended by--
       (A) in clause (xiii), striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in clause (xiv), striking the period and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(xv) any travel expense for a flight on an aircraft that 
     is operated or paid for by a carrier not licensed by the 
     Federal Aviation Administration to operate for compensation 
     or

[[Page 1044]]

      hire, but only if the candidate, the candidate's authorized 
     committee, or other political committee pays--
       ``(I) to the owner, lessee, or other person who provides 
     the airplane the pro rata share of the fair market value of 
     such flight (as determined by dividing the fair market value 
     of the normal and usual charter fare or rental charge for a 
     comparable plane of appropriate size by the number of 
     candidates on the flight) by not later than 7 days after the 
     date on which the flight is taken; and
       ``(II) files a report with the Secretary of the Senate not 
     later than 60 days after the date on which such flight is 
     taken, such report shall include--

       ``(aa) the date of such flight;
       ``(bb) the destination of such flight;
       ``(cc) the owner or lessee of the aircraft;
       ``(dd) the purpose of such travel;
       ``(ee) the persons on such flight (except for any person 
     flying the aircraft); and
       ``(ff) the charter rate paid for such flight.''.

       (4) Rules committee review of travel allowances.--Not later 
     than 90 days after the enactment of this Act, the Senate 
     Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Legislative 
     Branch, in consultation with the Committee on Rules and 
     Administration of the Senate, shall consider and propose, as 
     necessary in the discretion of the subcommittee, any 
     adjustment to the Senator's Official Personnel and Office 
     Expense Account needed in light of the revised standards for 
     reimbursement for private air travel required by this 
     subsection, and any modifications of Federal statutes or 
     appropriations measures needed to accomplish such 
     adjustments.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect 60 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I think I have just revised my amendment 
to the substitute in a number of significant ways. This bill started 
bipartisanly by introduction. The minority leader and I jointly offered 
a substitute amendment as well. I want to keep this process bipartisan, 
so I am adopting a number of changes that reflect input and ideas from 
the Republicans and Democrats, and that is what is in this 
modification.
  First, I have adopted an idea from the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. 
Inhofe, to make sure it is clear that the new rules on private jets do 
not apply to Members who fly their own planes. Senator Inhofe has flown 
a one-engine plane all around the world, literally, and he flies back 
and forth to Oklahoma on a frequent basis. I think this is an important 
amendment and a fair amendment.
  Second, I have adopted an idea from the Senator from Arizona, the 
senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, to add a reporting requirement 
when Senators fly on private jets. Now, when people pay the charter 
rate, they will have to file that. I think that was the law before, but 
it really doesn't matter. It is something that I think will make things 
more clear.
  Third, I have adopted an idea from a bipartisan amendment suggested 
by Senator Feingold that instructs the Legislative Branch 
Appropriations Subcommittee to review the impact on the new rule on 
private jets on Members' travel spending. I think that is extremely 
important because the subcommittee is going to have to take a look at 
how this impacts States differently. If you are from the State of Rhode 
Island or Delaware, you don't have much of a problem flying around 
because you can drive around. But if you are from the State of Alaska, 
the State of Montana, the State of Nevada, Colorado, some of these very 
large area Western States, it is a problem. So I commend Senator 
Feingold for being thoughtful in this regard.
  Madam President, on another issue, I also want to say that I have 
spoken to Senator DeMint on his earmarking proposal. We had a number of 
good conversations. I have spoken to the Republican leader. We 
prepared--and I have given a copy of the amendment to Senator DeMint--a 
second-degree amendment which would strengthen the DeMint amendment 
that we talked about on the Senate floor yesterday. What our second 
degree would do would strengthen the definition of targeted tax 
benefits. Certainly, we want to make it one that is understandable, not 
rigid and narrow, and I have talked to the Senator from South Carolina 
about this.
  Also, on the same piece of paper I gave the Senator from South 
Carolina, I have explained to my friend, Senator DeMint, that we want 
to make sure the Duke Cunningham exception is in place. What 
Congressman Cunningham did is, he had earmarks in that bill, but he 
never mentioned the entity that got the money. What we would do is, in 
this amendment, you can't write your way around it. We think our 
suggestion to Senator DeMint to strengthen his amendment is certainly 
something we need to do. You can't write your way around giving money 
to corporation X. If it limits that, it has to be listed.
  Also, importantly, we have added a strengthening provision in the 
proposed second-degree amendment to list earmarks on the Internet 48 
hours before. Now, I have told Senator DeMint if he wants to make this 
part of his amendment, fine. If he wants us to offer the second degree, 
we will do that. I told him if he has any suggestions that he feels 
would improve what we are trying to do, we are agreeable to take a look 
at that. He has suggested that he wants a vote on that. We also want a 
recorded vote. I think that is important. So I hope we can work 
something out.
  What I would like to do is have a number of votes set for Tuesday 
evening. After these agreed-upon votes on amendments, then we would 
move to invoke cloture on the airplane amendment and then, after that, 
on the substitute. I hope we can work on a bipartisan basis in the next 
hour or so to set up some votes that would occur before cloture on 
those matters about which I have spoken.
  Yesterday was a rather difficult day, as some days are. There was a 
lot of confusion as to what people were trying to accomplish. I think 
that perhaps we should have given a little more time for explanations. 
We tend to get in a hurry sometimes when we shouldn't be. We tend to 
spend a lot of time doing things that accomplish nothing, and a lot of 
times limit time on things that do matter. So, personally, for the 
majority, we probably could have done a little better job of giving 
opportunities for people to speak. No one came forward wanting to 
speak, so that is a pretty good sign that people are ready to vote. But 
I think realistically maybe they were not.
  But regardless of that, we are where we are, and we are going to try 
to move forward in a reasonable manner in the next 2 hours and complete 
this bill some time next week, we hope.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. McConnell are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VITTER. 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. VITTER. Madam President, I ask for the regular order with regard 
to a Vitter amendment, amendment No. 9. I send a modification to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not possible to call for the regular 
order for that amendment at this time because under the regular order 
the majority leader has called for the regular order for another 
amendment.
  Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent to go to regular order for 
amendment No. 9 for the exclusive purpose of sending a modification to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I will 
not object, but I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator finishes 
his amendment, I be given unanimous consent to return to amendment No. 
11.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. VITTER. Reserving the right to object, and I will not, I will 
simply slightly expand my unanimous consent request to ask for up to 5 
minutes to speak, and I offer that unanimous consent request. I 
certainly have no objection to the other business.

[[Page 1045]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


         Amendment No. 9 to Amendment No 3, as Further Modified

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I send the modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 9), as further modified, is as follows:

       On page 19, line 19, strike ``(b) In this'' and insert the 
     following:
       ``(b) Members and employees on the staff of a Member 
     (including staff in personal, committee, and leadership 
     offices) shall be prohibited from having any official contact 
     with any spouse of a Member who is a registered lobbyist 
     under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, or is employed or 
     retained by such a registered lobbyist.
       ``(c) The prohibition in subparagraph (a) shall not apply 
     to the spouse of a Member who was serving as a registered 
     lobbyist at least 1 year prior to the election of that Member 
     to office or at least 1 year prior to their marriage to that 
     member.
       ``(d) In this''.

  Mr. VITTER. I want to spend a few minutes regarding this general 
debate to say I hope that we have, in the rest of this debate, an 
adequate opportunity to debate and address and vote on some of the key 
issues that are and should be at the center of this discussion. I think 
there is now a rush to cloture, quite frankly--specifically to cut off 
the opportunity to vote on some amendments. I hope we do not do that.
  I commend the majority leader for the suggestion that we are going to 
have votes on many significant amendments on Tuesday. I ask him that 
that list be very inclusive, to include all significant amendments in 
which either side of the aisle is interested. I specifically highlight 
three.
  One is the DeMint amendment, and I appreciate the words of the 
majority leader regarding working with Senator DeMint on that 
amendment. I fully support that amendment. Much more importantly, that 
amendment has proved to have majority support on the floor of this 
body. There was a motion to table, and it lost. So that amendment has 
majority support, and clearly we need to vote and pass that amendment. 
It has already been proven that it has majority support.
  The second amendment I would highlight is a Judd Gregg amendment with 
regard to spending and earmarks and waste. Again, that is very much at 
the heart of this discussion. Earmarks--earmark abuse, what that does 
to spending, how it inflates it--have been part of the abuses, 
unfortunately, that have come to light in the last several years. So 
that is absolutely at the heart of this debate. A lot of Members of the 
Senate are interested in that amendment, so we need a debate and a vote 
on that amendment.
  Third, I would highlight my own amendment which I just modified, and 
that has to do with spouses of Members of the Senate lobbying. Again, 
this debate, this bill, is about two things: ethics and lobbying. I 
don't know how you come up with any argument that the issue of spouses 
lobbying, gaining unusual access, having the opportunity of being a 
conduit for large amounts of money to be deposited in the family bank 
account of Members from special interests, isn't at the heart of that 
debate. That is at the heart of the lobbying issue. That is at the 
heart of the ethics issue. It is foursquare in the center of this 
debate, and certainly we need an adequate debate and a vote on that 
idea.
  I urge all Senators to support a full and open debate and a full and 
open airing and voting on important amendments, including but not 
limited to those three. I very much look forward to that next week. I 
certainly hope cloture is not invoked in an attempt, as many of us 
fear, frankly, to cut off certain significant and relevant amendments.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. VITTER. Certainly.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am not finding fault with the Senator from Louisiana, 
but the fact is, we do not have a copy of the modification. The reason 
I raise that is later I am going to suggest a change in the Senate 
rules so that when you file an amendment or modification, copies will 
be given to both the ranking member and the Chair on the floor, as is 
the custom and rule of the House. That is a good way to make sure there 
is knowledge of what is being considered and debated as promptly as 
possible.
  Going to the substance of the matter, does the Senator's modification 
change the original language in his amendment which makes this 
provision on spousal lobbying retroactive, not prospective? In other 
words, if there is some Member on either side of the aisle today who 
has a spouse lobbying at the Federal level, it is my understanding that 
the Senator would prohibit that in his original amendment unless that 
spouse was lobbying a year before the marriage or a year before the 
first election of Congress. Does the modification change that in any 
respect?
  Mr. VITTER. No, it doesn't. I will tell you exactly what it does. 
First of all, I appreciate the question. Certainly I am eager to give 
the Senator and all Members a copy of it, which I will do immediately, 
and that will be well before any full debate and vote. But let me use 
the opportunity to explain what the modification does.
  The modification is very simple. It moves the provision to the Senate 
rules, and it makes it apply to lobbying Members of the Senate only. I 
did the modification for one reason and one reason only--not because I 
think that limitation excluding activity on the House side is better 
but because it makes it germane to the bill and therefore guarantees me 
a vote.
  So, to go to the question, the provision--it is only about lobbying 
the Senate. But in that context, there is an exclusion if the spouse 
lobbyist was an active lobbyist a year or more before the marriage or 
the first election. But there is no grandfathering clause other than 
that. I hope that answers the question of the Senator.
  Mr. DURBIN. It does. I would like to ask the Senator from Louisiana, 
in the spirit of your amendment, would you consider an amendment which 
would make the 2-year prohibition on lobbying also retroactive, so that 
Senators who have not lobbied previously would be prohibited from 
lobbying for 2 years and it would be retroactive as well?
  Mr. VITTER. I will be happy to consider that idea. I am not going to 
change my amendment to include that because I think it would lose votes 
from our amendment and I want first of all to pass my amendment, but I 
am completely open to that discussion and that idea. Without making a 
final decision, I am completely open to supporting that on the floor of 
the Senate if somebody were to bring it forward.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has been so modified.
  The Senator from Illinois.


                  Amendment No. 44 to Amendment No. 11

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, pursuant to the unanimous consent 
request, it is my understanding that we now return to the DeMint 
amendment No. 11.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise to offer a second-degree 
amendment to the DeMint amendment No. 11 which I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 44 to DeMint amendment No. 11.

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

                (Purpose: To strengthen earmark reform)

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 103. CONGRESSIONAL EARMARK REFORM.

       The Standing Rules of the Senate are amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

                               RULE XLIV

                                earmarks

       ``1. It shall not be in order to consider--

[[Page 1046]]

       ``(a) a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee 
     unless the report includes a list, which shall be made 
     available on the Internet to the general public for at least 
     48 hours before consideration of the bill or joint 
     resolution, of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, 
     and limited tariff benefits in the bill or in the report (and 
     the name of any Member who submitted a request to the 
     committee for each respective item included in such list) or 
     a statement that the proposition contains no congressional 
     earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits;
       ``(b) a bill or joint resolution not reported by a 
     committee unless the chairman of each committee of 
     jurisdiction has caused a list, which shall be made available 
     on the Internet to the general public for at least 48 hours 
     before consideration of the bill or joint resolution, of 
     congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and limited 
     tariff benefits in the bill (and the name of any Member who 
     submitted a request to the committee for each respective item 
     included in such list) or a statement that the proposition 
     contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or 
     limited tariff benefits to be printed in the Congressional 
     Record prior to its consideration; or
       ``(c) a conference report to accompany a bill or joint 
     resolution unless the joint explanatory statement prepared by 
     the managers on the part of the House and the managers on the 
     part of the Senate includes a list, which shall be made 
     available on the Internet to the general public for at least 
     48 hours before consideration of the conference report, of 
     congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and limited 
     tariff benefits in the conference report or joint statement 
     (and the name of any Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 
     or Senator who submitted a request to the House or Senate 
     committees of jurisdiction for each respective item included 
     in such list) or a statement that the proposition contains no 
     congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited 
     tariff benefits.
       ``2. For the purpose of this rule--
       ``(a) the term `congressional earmark' means a provision or 
     report language included primarily at the request of a 
     Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator 
     providing, authorizing or recommending a specific amount of 
     discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other 
     spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, 
     grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an 
     entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or 
     Congressional district, other than through a statutory or 
     administrative formula-driven or competitive award process;
       ``(b) the term `limited tax benefit' means--
       ``(1) any revenue provision that--
       ``(A) provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, 
     or preference to a particular beneficiary or limited group of 
     beneficiaries under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
       ``(B) contains eligibility criteria that are not uniform in 
     application with respect to potential beneficiaries of such 
     provision; or
       ``(2) any Federal tax provision which provides one 
     beneficiary temporary or permanent transition relief from a 
     change to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
       ``(c) the term `limited tariff benefit' means a provision 
     modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
     in a manner that benefits 10 or fewer entities.
       ``3. A Member may not condition the inclusion of language 
     to provide funding for a congressional earmark, a limited tax 
     benefit, or a limited tariff benefit in any bill or joint 
     resolution (or an accompanying report) or in any conference 
     report on a bill or joint resolution (including an 
     accompanying joint explanatory statement of managers) on any 
     vote cast by another Member, Delegate, or Resident 
     Commissioner.
       ``4. (a) A Member who requests a congressional earmark, a 
     limited tax benefit, or a limited tariff benefit in any bill 
     or joint resolution (or an accompanying report) or in any 
     conference report on a bill or joint resolution (or an 
     accompanying joint statement of managers) shall provide a 
     written statement to the chairman and ranking member of the 
     committee of jurisdiction, including--
       ``(1) the name of the Member;
       ``(2) in the case of a congressional earmark, the name and 
     address of the intended recipient or, if there is no 
     specifically intended recipient, the intended location of the 
     activity;
       ``(3) in the case of a limited tax or tariff benefit, 
     identification of the individual or entities reasonably 
     anticipated to benefit, to the extent known to the Member;
       ``(4) the purpose of such congressional earmark or limited 
     tax or tariff benefit; and
       ``(5) a certification that the Member or spouse has no 
     financial interest in such congressional earmark or limited 
     tax or tariff benefit.
       ``(b) Each committee shall maintain the written statements 
     transmitted under subparagraph (a). The written statements 
     transmitted under subparagraph (a) for any congressional 
     earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits 
     included in any measure reported by the committee or 
     conference report filed by the chairman of the committee or 
     any subcommittee thereof shall be published in a searchable 
     format on the committee's or subcommittee's website not later 
     than 48 hours after receipt on such information.''.

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, yesterday there was a debate about the 
disclosure of earmarks. It was an interesting debate, and Senator 
DeMint and Senator Coburn of Oklahoma offered an amendment.
  I felt that amendment had several flaws in it. The purpose of my 
second-degree amendment is to address those flaws. It does not go to 
the heart of their argument about expanding the number of earmarks that 
would be subject to disclosure. In fact, if anything, it expands the 
number of earmarks subject to disclosure.
  My amendment would strengthen the DeMint amendment in three ways: It 
retains the Reid-McConnell bipartisan language in the underlying bill. 
The DeMint amendment No. 11 now pending does not go far enough in terms 
of covering so-called targeted tax benefits. A lot of attention has 
been given to Duke Cunningham, the former Congressman from California, 
who was steering Department of Defense funds to certain contractors and 
benefiting from it personally. He paid dearly for this transgression 
and is currently in prison. That is an example of an egregious abuse of 
the appropriations process.
  We understand, as well, there are decisions made by Congress outside 
of the appropriations process which can be just as beneficial, if not 
more profitable, to individuals and businesses. One of the categories 
would be in the area of targeted tax credits. However, it could be 
others, as well.
  Even though my amendment does not go to this issue, consider the fact 
that the asbestos legislation pending before Congress 2 years ago would 
have benefited one of the corporations from Illinois to the tune of $1 
billion had it passed. That figure was arrived at not by myself or 
anyone in Congress but, rather, by those who filed the annual report 
for that corporation. So you can understand that decisions made in the 
Senate and the House of Representatives can have a direct positive 
financial impact on businesses and individuals.
  As we go after earmarks and try to change those because of the Duke 
Cunningham scandal and others, we should also be mindful of the fact 
that other decisions made by Congress can be just as beneficial, if not 
more so. They cry for transparency, too. Unfortunately, the underlying 
DeMint amendment has a restrictive view of targeted tax credits.
  The Senator from South Carolina has said he has agreed to language 
considered by the House. In all honesty, as good as they are in the 
House of Representatives, what I am offering may be an improvement. 
Senator DeMint's amendment covers revenue-losing provisions only that 
provide tax benefits to 10 or fewer beneficiaries or contain 
eligibility criteria that are not the same for other potential 
beneficiaries. This unnecessarily limits the definition of revenue-
losing provisions instead of all revenue provisions. My amendment 
corrects this.
  The DeMint amendment also allows for a loophole. Someone could easily 
write a provision that affects 11, 15, or 50 beneficiaries and be 
exempt from the disclosure requirements of the DeMint amendment. The 
Reid-McConnell definition, which I include in my second-degree 
amendment, says a tax earmark is anything which has the practical 
effect of providing more favorable tax treatment to a ``limited group'' 
of taxpayers when compared with similarly situated taxpayers. We do not 
come up with a number--10 beneficiaries, 20 beneficiaries--but, rather, 
keep it in the category of a tax benefit that is clearly designed to 
help a limited group of taxpayers of a certain number compared with 
others. This is a more flexible and more realistic standard to be 
applied than the language currently in the DeMint bill.
  Moreover, the Reid-McConnell language is for the language that they, 
in fact, created. It is language that Senator Judd Gregg, former 
chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget, included in his line-
item veto bill. Senator Gregg has found what I think is a sensible 
definition we ought to use and

[[Page 1047]]

adopt as part of our reform and ethics changes we are currently 
debating. My amendment retains the concept of Reid-McConnell language, 
amends the DeMint provision to remove the limitation of ``10 or fewer 
beneficiaries'' and would cover ``any revenue provision that provides a 
Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference, to a 
particular beneficiary or a limited group of beneficiaries.''
  Finally, under the DeMint amendment, information about earmarks must 
be posted 48 hours after it is received by the committee. In the case 
of a fast-moving bill, it is possible that the information would be 
made public only after a vote on the relevant bill containing the 
earmarks. So there is a weakness in the DeMint language when it comes 
to this public disclosure. On the other hand, in the interest of full 
disclosure, the Reid-McConnell language requires the earmark disclosure 
information be placed on the Internet, available to the public 48 hours 
before consideration of the bills or reports that contain the earmarks. 
Senator DeMint's amendment does not have a similar provision. My 
amendment retains the stronger Reid-McConnell earmark disclosure 
language.
  These are three important changes necessary to improve the DeMint 
amendment. As I noted yesterday, there are some positive elements of 
the DeMint amendment. In some instances it does not go far enough. I 
question the whole notion that committee report language should be 
treated the same as bill language. Those who have gone through the 
basics of legislation understand that bill language can be a law. 
Committee report language is never going to be a law. It is only a 
recommendation. Having said that, though, I don't address that issue in 
any way at all.
  I urge my colleagues to support my secondary amendment to the 
underlying DeMint amendment. I believe it strengthens the DeMint 
amendment. I urge the DeMint amendment, with these changes, be agreed 
to, as well.


                  Amendment No. 36 to amendment No. 3

  At this point I ask unanimous consent to set aside this pending 
amendment and call up amendment No. 36 which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 36.

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

   (Purpose: To require that amendments and motions to recommit with 
 instructions be copied and provided by the clerk to the desks of the 
     Majority Leader and the Minority Leader before being debated)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. AMENDMENTS AND MOTIONS TO RECOMMIT.

       Paragraph 1 of rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``1. (a) An amendment and any instruction accompanying a 
     motion to recommit shall be reduced to writing and copied and 
     provided by the clerk to the desks of the Majority Leader and 
     the Minority Leader and shall be read before being debated.
       ``(b) A motion shall be reduced to writing, if desired by 
     the Presiding Officer or by any Senator, and shall be read 
     before being debated.''.

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I welcome you to the Senate. I am glad 
you are presiding. I will describe one of the procedures in the Senate 
I discovered when I came over from the House that I did not understand. 
It is the fact that an amendment filed at the desk by a Member is then 
taken to the corridor, to a copy machine, copies are made and then 
brought back to the floor. Sometimes these amendments are large. 
Sometimes it takes a while to get copied. In the meantime, the debate 
is underway. So for those who want to engage in a real deliberation and 
debate, there is a mystery quality here for minutes, sometimes longer. 
You wait until you get a copy of the amendment.
  There has to be a better way. The better way is obvious. Members who 
bring modifications to the floor should bring three copies, at least--
one copy for the clerk, one copy for the Republican side, and one copy 
for the Democratic side--so that as they are filed, each side has the 
language in front of them. As the Senator who is moving the amendment 
is making the argument, those who want to follow the amendment have at 
least one copy on each side of the aisle to look at. That is the only 
way to have a meaningful debate.
  There is a way to change this which is clumsy and awkward. As you 
probably heard me suggest earlier, I asked unanimous consent to suspend 
the reading of the amendment. I could have allowed them to read the 
amendment and hear it firsthand. But I think it is more valuable to 
have it in writing and have it in front of you.
  I have suggested this change in the Senate rules since I arrived 10 
years ago. It turns out to be one of the biggest challenges I have 
faced in the Senate, to have two additional copies of the amendment 
come to the Senate floor. This is a venerable institution. It prides 
itself on deliberation, but we operate in Senate years, as opposed to 
real years, or dog years, and sometimes things take a lot longer than 
they should, so I am offering this amendment.
  I have already spoken to the ranking member, Senator Bennett, about 
it. I have not spoken to Senator Feinstein, the chairman of the Rules 
Committee. I hope it is the kind of noncontroversial amendment that 
makes life easier here, but, more importantly, will lead to a debate 
which, in fact, would be more meaningful.
  I am going to, at some point, ask this be agreed to. I hope my 
colleagues will consider supporting it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have been in the Senate a little bit 
longer than the Senator from Illinois but long enough to discover that 
the Senate and its rules are superbly constructed to deal with the 
problems of the 19th century. I think perhaps we should recognize that 
we have moved beyond the 19th century into the 21st.
  I cannot speak for any member of my caucus, but I will be happy to 
support this particular rule change. I think of all of the things that 
have been proposed, this is perhaps the most benign.
  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.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Mr. President.


                                  Iraq

  Mr. President, I want to briefly address the ethics bill before this 
Congress, but before I do that, I want to discuss an issue of paramount 
importance to my State, in light of the President's recent address, and 
that is the war in Iraq.
  Sending more American troops is not the change of course the people 
of Minnesota and the American people called for in this past election, 
and it is not the change of course our military forces deserve.
  We learned this week that 3,000 of the 22,000 troops added for the 
escalation are from Minnesota's National Guard. These Minnesota 
soldiers have already served honorably and well. They and their 
families were told they would be coming home in March. And I just 
talked to General Shellito, who heads up the National Guard in 
Minnesota. He said the hardest thing for them is they have been hanging 
on--in his words: ``hanging on''--through March. And now they are 
extended well into the summer.

[[Page 1048]]

  These brave soldiers will be thrust even more deeply into the midst 
of Iraq's civil war. Haven't we asked our soldiers and their families 
to sacrifice enough?
  The great burden on Minnesota and the rest of the country should 
remind us that what is needed is a surge in diplomacy and not a surge 
in troops.
  With that, Mr. President, I would like to turn to the issue of ethics 
reform. I thank Senator Reid and the other Senators for their 
leadership and for making ethics reform a real priority for this 
Congress.
  When I arrived in Washington last week, we pulled up in our family 
Saturn, loaded with my husband's college dishes and a shower curtain I 
found in the basement from 1980. But we brought a little more than 
dishes and a shower curtain. We, also, brought a commitment for change, 
something the people of our State--Democrats, Independents, and 
Republicans, from Worthington to Moorhead to Duluth to Rochester--
called for very clearly and loudly in November.
  We also brought a Minnesota moral compass, grounded in a simple 
notion of Minnesota fairness--a notion that all people should be on 
equal footing in the Halls of Congress. But they cannot be on equal 
footing when their elected representatives are selling their votes for 
trips to Scotland or stashing away cash in the freezer. They cannot be 
on equal footing unless this new Congress delivers real, meaningful 
ethics reform.
  Ethics reform is an issue of great importance to the people of my 
State. Wherever I went, Minnesotans told me this was the kind of change 
that they wanted to see in Washington.
  It is not an abstract political science issue. It affects real people 
in the real world. And today it comes out of the political science 
classrooms and into the Halls of Congress.
  Ethics is woven into the very fabric of how our Government does 
business. Ethics reform goes to the very heart of our democracy, to the 
public trust and respect that is essential to the health of our 
constitutional system.
  Recent scandals have cast a shadow over the legitimacy of the laws 
and policies that come out of Washington. The American public's 
receding faith in the integrity of our legislative process means that 
ethics reform is now central to every public issue that we will 
consider whether it is energy policy, health care reform, fiscal 
reform, or even homeland security.
  The ability of Congress to deal credibly and forthrightly with these 
other issues depends on reforming our own ethical rules.
  The long-term challenges that we face in this country are enormous. 
They include high energy prices and a growing dependency on foreign 
oil, health care costs that have spiraled out of control, global 
warming that threatens the future of our environment and our economy, a 
mounting national debt, and a growing middle-class squeeze.
  I believe that there are solutions to these challenges. While not 
always immediate, these solutions are within our grasp. We can achieve 
energy independence by investing smartly and having some guts to take 
on the oil companies. We can get this country back on the right fiscal 
track and move forward to more affordable health care. We can deliver 
much needed and long overdue relief to the middle class. These are the 
things the people of Minnesota sent me to Washington to fight for. They 
sent me here because they have not yet seen the bold change of 
direction that we need to make these solutions happen. Instead, they 
have seen a Washington that too often serves big special interests at 
the expense of the middle class.
  As a prosecutor, I learned firsthand how the well-connected and 
powerful do not face the same challenges as middle-class families. 
Every day, I would go into our courthouse in Minnesota with a mission 
to treat people the same no matter where they came from. When we 
prosecuted a wealthy, well-connected person for a white-collar crime, 
the courtroom was packed with his friends. I would get all kinds of 
calls. One of my favorites was, ``I know he stole $400,000 from a 
mentally disabled woman, but he is such a good guy; he shouldn't go to 
prison.''
  But when we prosecuted someone who was poor or middle class, they 
were lucky if their mom could take the day off from work to stand 
behind them in the courtroom. My job was to even the playing field and 
to treat people the same no matter where they came from and who they 
knew.
  That is still my job, and it is the job of this Congress. With that 
in mind, we need to change business as usual. Business as usual has 
created a playing field tilted toward special interests and against the 
middle class.
  When our energy policy is drafted in secret meetings with the oil 
companies, we all end up paying more at the pump because they have 
failed to invest in renewable energy. When our health care legislation 
is written by the drug companies, we pay more because they have banned 
negotiation on prices. The people of this country know corruption when 
they see it. They saw this last November who was benefiting and who was 
getting hurt.
  Business as usual doesn't only generate bad policy and wasteful 
spending, it also erodes public trust in the integrity of our 
Government institutions, our elected leaders, and the law-making 
process itself.
  We the American people know what we want from Washington. It is this: 
a Government that is focused on doing what is best for our Nation and 
on securing a better and more prosperous future for the people.
  There are so many people of good faith on both sides of the aisle who 
want to see this happen. Like me, they want to solve the great 
challenges of our day and to restore public faith in our Government. 
They know, as I do, that General Omar Bradley was right back in 1948 
when he said that ``we need to start steering our ships by the stars, 
instead of the lights of each passing ship.''
  The new leadership that took the helm last week has already begun 
that change in course. They have introduced the ethics reform package 
at issue today as the very first bill to be considered by the new 
Senate.
  It has been an honor to work with Senator Reid and with colleagues 
such as Senators Feingold and Obama, and with a great class of freshmen 
that includes the Presiding Officer, as well as Senator Tester who is 
here with me today, who share a passion for ethics reform. I am also 
pleased by the bipartisan support for this bill.
  The proposals being offered will strengthen the original S. 1 in a 
number of important areas, including stricter travel rules, enhanced 
lobbying disclosure requirements, tougher restrictions on the revolving 
door between Capitol Hill and lobbying firms, and additional earmarking 
reform.
  It is also my understanding that the Senate will thoughtfully address 
methods to improve ethics enforcement in debates and hearings over the 
next few months. Speaking as a former prosecutor, I have expressed to a 
number of Senators the great value of strong, sensible enforcement.
  I am particularly gratified to see Senator Reid's amendment No. 4 
contain improvements to the Senate gift and meal rules. Under current 
law, anyone, including a lobbyist, is permitted to buy a gift or a meal 
for a Senator or a staff member up to a certain dollar amount. We need 
to make sensible changes to current law.
  A decade ago, the Minnesota Legislature passed a strong, clear rule 
in this area. Lobbyists and those who employ them cannot give gifts or 
meals to State or local officials, subject to very limited exceptions 
that were meant to be just that--limited exceptions. For more than 10 
years, our State officials have abided by these rules, which are rooted 
in Minnesota values. I followed them as county prosecutor, and the 
results have been greater fairness in our democratic process and 
greater faith in our Government.
  A rule banning gifts and meals from both lobbyists and those who hire 
lobbyists worked in Minnesota, and it can work in Washington, DC.
  I want to make clear that my support for this rule is no reflection 
on my colleagues who have humbled me with their good faith, honor, and 
integrity since I arrived in Washington. Instead, I support it because 
the urgency of our

[[Page 1049]]

need to restore public faith in Government has convinced me that clear, 
bright line rules are best. Such rules don't impose unreasonable 
constraints and do not adversely affect citizens' rights to petition 
their Government. But it does send a strong, clear message and an 
important signal to the American people that we are focused solely on 
representing their interests.
  Last week at my swearing in a number of people and Senators from both 
sides of the aisle came up to me remembering the great Senators who 
have come to Washington from the State of Minnesota. It is humbling to 
follow in the footsteps of people such as Hubert Humphrey and Walter 
Mondale and Paul Wellstone. I was reminded many times this past week of 
the great things they did and said.
  On Humphrey's gravestone, there is an inscription, a quote from 
Humphrey himself. It says:

       I have enjoyed my life, its disappointments outweighed by 
     its pleasures. I have loved my country in a way that some 
     people consider sentimental and out of style. I still do. And 
     I remain an optimist with joy, without apology about this 
     country and about the American experiment in democracy.

  Like Humphrey, Mr. President, I, too, remain an optimist about this 
grand experiment in democracy. I remain an optimist because the people 
in my State and across the country have spoken up for change. I remain 
an optimist because the people in this Chamber are devoted to getting 
things done, and getting them done the right way. I remain an optimist 
because this American experiment in democracy has worked best when we, 
the American people, without apology, have demanded accountability.
  This past November was one of those times. The American people spoke 
out for change. We need to answer them.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.


              Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 to Amendment No. 2

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk and ask 
unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.
  Mr. President, if I may clarify this, one of the amendments is a 
second degree to the Leahy amendment currently pending. The other is a 
separate, freestanding first-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 45.
       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 46 to amendment No. 2.

  The amendments are as follows:


                            Amendment No. 45

(Purpose: To require 72 hour public availability of legislative matters 
                         before consideration)

       On page 7, line 13, strike ``conference report unless such 
     report'' and insert ``legislative matter unless such 
     matter''.
       On page 7, line 16, strike ``48'' and insert ``72.''


                            amendment no. 46

                 (Purpose: To deter public corruption)

       On page 4, after line 5, add the following:
       (e) Deterring Public Corruption.--
       (1) Application of mail and wire fraud statutes to licences 
     and other intangible rights.--Sections 1341 and 1343 of title 
     18, United States Code, are each amended by striking ``money 
     or property'' and inserting ``money, property, or any other 
     thing of value''.
       (2) Venue for federal offenses.--
       (A) Venue includes any district in which conduct in 
     furtherance of an offense takes place.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 3237 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, an offense 
     against the United States may be inquired of and prosecuted 
     in any district in which any conduct required for, or any 
     conduct in furtherance of, the offense took place, or in 
     which the offense was completed.''.
       (B) Conforming amendments.--
       (i) 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''.

       (ii) 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:

``3237. Offense taking place in more than one district.''.
       (3) Theft or bribery concerning programs receiving federal 
     financial assistance.--Section 666(a) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``of $5,000 or more'' 
     and inserting ``of $1,000 or more'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``of $5,000 or more'' and 
     inserting ``of $1,000 or more''; and
       (C) in the matter following paragraph (2), by striking 
     ``ten years'' and inserting ``20 years''.
       (4) Penalty for section 641 violations.--Section 641 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``ten 
     years'' and inserting ``20 years''.
       (5) Bribery and graft.--Section 201 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by striking ``fifteen years'' and inserting ``30 
     years''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following: ``If the official 
     act involved national security, the term of imprisonment 
     under this subsection shall be not less than 3 years.''; and
       (B) in subsection (c), by striking ``two years'' and 
     inserting ``10 years''.
       (6) Making rico maximum conform to bribery maximum.--
     Section 1963(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``20 years'' and inserting ``30 years''.
       (7) Increase of maximum penalties for certain public 
     corruption related offenses.--
       (A) Solicitation of political contributions.--Section 
     602(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``3 years'' and inserting ``10 years''.
       (B) Promise of employment for political activity.--Section 
     600 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``one year'' and inserting ``10 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 ``10 years''.
       (D) Intimidation to secure political contributions.--
     Section 606 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``three years'' and inserting ``10 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 ``10 
     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 ``10 years''.
       (8) Addition of district of columbia to theft of public 
     money offense.--Section 641 of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting ``the District of Columbia or'' 
     before ``the United States'' each place that term appears.
       (9) Additional rico predicates.--Section 1961(1) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``section 641 (relating to embezzlement or 
     theft of public money, property, or records,'' after ``473 
     (relating to counterfeiting),''; and
       (10) Additional wiretap predicates.--Section 2516(1) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (c), by inserting ``section 641 (relating 
     to embezzlement or theft of public money, property, or 
     records,'' after ``section 224 (relating to bribery in 
     sporting contests),'';
       (B) in paragraph (r), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (s) as paragraph (t); and
       (D) by inserting after paragraph (r) the following:
       ``(s) a violation of section 309(d)(1)(A)(i) or 319 of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971; or''.
       (11) Clarification of crime of illegal gratuities.--
     Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 201(c)(1) of title 18, 
     United States Code, are each amended by inserting ``the 
     official position of that official or person or'' before 
     ``any official act''.
       (12) 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 amend its 
     guidelines and its policy statements applicable to persons 
     convicted of an offense under sections 201, 641, 666, and 
     1962 of title 18, United States Code, in order to reflect the 
     intent of Congress that such penalties be increased in 
     comparison to those currently provided by guidelines and 
     policy statements.
       (B) Requirements.--In carrying out this subsection, the 
     Commission shall--
       (i) ensure that the sentencing guidelines and policy 
     statements reflect Congress' intent that the guidelines and 
     policy statements reflect the serious nature of the offenses 
     described in subparagraph (A), the growing incidence of such 
     offenses, and the need for an effective deterrent and 
     appropriate punishment to prevent such offenses;

[[Page 1050]]

       (ii) consider the extent to which the guidelines may or may 
     not appropriately account for--

       (I) the potential and actual harm to the public and the 
     amount of any loss resulting from the offense;
       (II) the level of sophistication and planning involved in 
     the offense;
       (III) whether the offense was committed for purposes of 
     commercial advantage or private financial benefit;
       (IV) whether the defendant acted with intent to cause 
     either physical or property harm in committing the offense;
       (V) 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
       (VI) 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;

       (iii) assure reasonable consistency with other relevant 
     directives and with other sentencing guidelines;
       (iv) account for any additional aggravating or mitigating 
     circumstances that might justify exceptions to the generally 
     applicable sentencing ranges;
       (v) make any necessary conforming changes to the sentencing 
     guidelines; and
       (vi) assure that the guidelines adequately meet the 
     purposes of sentencing as set forth in section 3553(a)(2) of 
     title 18, United States Code.
       (13) Clarification of definition of official act.--Section 
     201(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``any decision'' and all that follows through 
     ``profit'' and inserting ``any decision or action within the 
     range of official duty of a public official''.

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a moment 
before he speaks?
  Mr. ENSIGN. Yes.


                       Amendment No. 40 Withdrawn

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have tried to work out a problem 
dealing with our State regarding aircraft. It is my understanding that 
the agreed to amendment has been modified. Apparently, the decision of 
the majority is that we should use more taxpayer money to meet our 
needs. I am not going to persist in my attempt to work out our problems 
in this manner.
  It is my understanding that somebody talked about my jet amendment. 
It had nothing to do with jets until I modified it to accommodate some 
of the problems of majority members. I withdraw amendment No. 40.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.


                     Honoring Champions of Equality

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, on January 15 we honor the legacy of a man 
who gave his life in the struggle for equality. Dr. Martin Luther King 
read the words to our Nation's Declaration of Independence and worked 
to ensure that they were lived that way:

       All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their 
     Creator with certain unalienable rights . . .

  Throughout history we have been fortunate to have leaders of 
unbelievable character and vision, such as Dr. King, who rose in power 
and worked to change the course of history. Today I want to talk about 
the legacy of Dr. King and another champion of human rights, William 
Wilberforce.
  In 1790, the transatlantic slave trade was thriving. The economic 
development of Europe was fueled by the trading in enslaved Africans, 
an incredibly profitable business at that time. Conditions for slaves 
were horrific--from being kidnaped by foreigners speaking an unknown 
language, being chained up and forced into unfathomable conditions for 
the torturous trip from Africa, to finally being sold into a lifetime 
of slavery--if they survived--in a strange land.
  Witnesses to and survivors of these atrocities shared their stories 
with the small, but dedicated, bands of abolitionists who worked 
tirelessly to rid the world of this shameful slave trade.
  In the late 1700s, they found their voice in William Wilberforce, a 
member of the British Parliament. In 1789, Wilberforce laid out the 
case against slavery with eye witness and survivor accounts of the 
brutality inflicted on slaves. He told his fellow legislators:

       Having heard all of this, you may choose to look away, but 
     you can never say again that you did not know.

  For two decades, William Wilberforce fought with every fiber of his 
being to abolish the slave trade. It was not easy going up against 
those who made a fortune off of this trade. Many felt the economy and 
England would crumble without the slaves. Vilified and ridiculed, 
Wilberforce refused to give up the fight against the fierce proslavery 
forces. Wilberforce introduced motions to abolish slavery in every 
single session of Parliament. In 1807, his legislation to abolish the 
slave trade finally passed. Wilberforce continued his fight until his 
health could no longer take it. In 1833, a bill passed giving all 
slaves in the British Empire their freedom. William Wilberforce passed 
away 3 days later.
  More than a century later, across the Atlantic, a young Black pastor 
from Atlanta, Georgia, was sharing his dream for a united, multiracial 
America. It was Dr. King's eloquence, intense spirit, and vision that 
lifted him to lead our civil rights movement at a pivotal time. He said 
that ``Life's most persistent and nagging question is, what are you 
doing for others?'' and he challenged citizens to make the answer 
count.
  While his life was cut tragically short, Dr. King's work to bring 
equality for all has become part of the fabric of our maturing Nation.
  William Wilberforce and Dr. Martin Luther King are two men who rose 
to extraordinary levels of public service by embracing their faiths and 
working to correct a great abuse of human rights. They each served 
mankind in a way that very few others have. Yet, the lesson we learn 
from their life stories is that we all have that spark of greatness. It 
is our choice whether we stand on the sidelines while others light the 
way or step forward and ignite our own passion to make a difference in 
this world.
  The path to righting an injustice is full of obstacles and risks. Dr. 
King lost his life and left behind a widow and four young children on 
his mission to leave them a better world. William Wilberforce faced 
defeat after defeat with his unpopular legislation to abolish slavery. 
In fact, his abolition bill was defeated 30 times over the course of 20 
years, but he continued the fight, and his eventual victory has been 
called one of the turning events in world history.
  I chose to talk about Dr. King and William Wilberforce today because 
they are truly remarkable people whose stories I believe inspire others 
to action.
  Neither Dr. King nor William Wilberforce embarked on their careers 
knowing that they would become giants of history. They sought to make a 
difference in whatever capacity they could. It is a lesson from which 
we should all learn.
  After all, while Dr. King and William Wilberforce made tremendous 
progress in eliminating slavery and empowering equality, there is still 
much work to be done. Racial division and the violence that Dr. King 
preached against have not disappeared from our country, and slavery 
worldwide is a bigger problem today than it was in 1790. There are 
actually more slaves today than there were seized from Africa in four 
centuries of the transatlantic slave trade.
  It is appalling, but it gives us the opportunity to ask that question 
Dr. King and William Wilberforce would have easily been able to answer: 
What are you doing for others?
  I was able to recently watch the screening of a movie about William 
Wilberforce called ``Amazing Grace.'' I had actually started learning 
about and admiring William Wilberforce several years ago, so I was 
thrilled that his life and impact would be documented and shared this 
way. The movie shows that while William Wilberforce was the voice and 
face behind the effort to abolish the slave trade, there were many 
people who inspired him to take action in the first place.
  There was John Newton who was William Wilberforce's childhood pastor.

[[Page 1051]]

Newton was at one time a slave trader. It was from a sea voyage during 
which he nearly died that he went on to write the hymn ``Amazing 
Grace.'' Newton convinced William Wilberforce to stay in politics in 
order to make a difference, and he provided his confession as a slave 
trader for Wilberforce to use in his appeals for abolition.
  There was also his friend William Pitt who went on to become the 
youngest Prime Minister of England. Pitt pushed Wilberforce to continue 
as a public servant and encouraged him to lead the abolition movement.
  There were many other characters who played a role in William 
Wilberforce's involvement and eventual success in abolishing slavery. 
While they may not be the names we often read about in history books, 
their impact was tremendous.
  Former Chaplain of the Senate Lloyd John Ogilvie once said:

       You may only be able to make a small difference, but that 
     does not relieve you of the responsibility to make that 
     difference.

  When he says ``You may only make a small difference,'' I think he was 
encouraging people to try to make any difference, whatever difference 
they were called to make. They may think that it would only be a small 
difference, but in reality, it is history that will make that 
determination.
  I talked earlier about how shameful it is that there are more slaves 
around the world today in 2007 than there were during the 400-year 
period of the transatlantic slavery movement. I applaud a campaign 
called The Amazing Change. They highlight the work of groups continuing 
William Wilberforce's work to abolish slavery and make a better world.
  The campaign is motivating young people across the country to get 
involved and to make a difference, and there are many causes such as 
this that need advocates and supporters. Whether it is volunteering in 
your own community to help abused children or working to help cure 
cancer, spreading the word about the atrocities in Darfur, find your 
passion and use it to leave this world a better place.
  Ultimately, this is the message of Dr. King and William Wilberforce: 
Do something for others.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Tribute to Lamar Hunt

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, first, I rise today to pay tribute to a much 
loved sportsman, businessman, civic leader, and family man, Lamar Hunt, 
best known as founder and owner of the Kansas City Chiefs, who, 
regrettably, passed away on December 13 of complications related to 
prostate cancer. Some might be surprised to learn that Kansas City was 
Lamar Hunt's adopted town, not his hometown. Born in Arkansas and 
raised in Texas, Lamar began his journey to Kansas City in 1959, when 
the National Football League unwisely turned down his request for a new 
franchise in Dallas. If you can't join 'em, beat 'em, to turn a cliche 
on its head.
  Shut out of the NFL, Lamar Hunt decided to create another football 
league. He found seven other men as passionate about football as he 
was, and together they created the American Football League, the AFL. 
At the time, theirs was considered a risky venture. They called 
themselves ``the foolish club'' and located their teams in Midwestern 
and Southern cities, places without a history of professional football.
  It has been said that leaders are visionaries with a poorly developed 
sense of fear and no concept of the odds against them. Lamar was such a 
leader and he fit that description.
  He was certainly visionary. His leadership in creating and expanding 
the American Football League helped professional football gain a 
nationwide following before merging to become today's NFL.
  I think he did understand the odds against him. He did not let them 
get in the way. He stuck with his plan for a new football league and 
succeeded. He first located his franchise in Dallas. In 1963, he moved 
the Dallas Texans to Kansas City, where they became the Chiefs.
  Lamar Hunt coined the term ``Super Bowl'' and was on hand to see the 
Chiefs win Super Bowl IV. Unfortunately, our Chiefs have not won a 
Super Bowl since, but Lamar never gave up on his team and neither will 
we, the fans.
  Lamar Hunt was a true entrepreneur, willing to take calculated risk 
on investments that would benefit the larger community. Since the 
1960s, the Hunt family has been instrumental in the growth and 
development of Kansas City from a frontier town to a world-class city.
  The Hunts have contributed to the Kansas City economy through Hunt 
Midwest Enterprises, which, among other ventures, developed Worlds of 
Fun and Oceans of Fun, two recreational theme parks that draw hundreds 
of thousands of visitors each year.
  While he is best known for his love for professional football, Lamar 
Hunt was deeply involved in other sports. He was a part owner of the 
Chicago Bulls, he founded World Championship Tennis in 1969, and he 
spearheaded the development of soccer as a professional sport in the 
United States. He owned two Major League Soccer teams.
  While successful, Hunt remained modest. He never thought of himself 
as the Chief's owner. He preferred the term ``founder.''
  As he told Joe Posnanski of the Kansas City Star:

       To me, every Chief's fan has ownership in the team. They 
     are just as invested emotionally as I am. I was able to bring 
     the team to Kansas City, but it is Kansas City's team.

  In fact, since Mr. Hunt's death, the Star has run several stories, 
including examples of his love for players, coaches, and fans as 
individuals. Hall of Fame linebacker Bobby Bell remembered him, saying:

       He's a guy who never valet parked his car unless they 
     absolutely made him.

  Chief's tight end Fred Arbanas recalled that Hunt, himself, served 
the team food and drinks and picked up trash on the plane to road 
games. He is said to have given the widow of an employee killed in a 
construction accident a book of blank checks bearing his signature.
  Despite struggling with cancer for 8 years, Lamar kept a strenuous 
schedule right until the very end. The last time I saw him was in 
November, during the Governor's Cup game, where the Chiefs played 
against the St. Louis Rams in St. Louis. The Chief's pulled out a 31-
to-7 win. At that game, his illness had necessitated a car for 
transportation, but it had not affected his good nature, his 
friendliness or his optimism for his beloved Chiefs.
  In an era of rapid change and turnover in the sports world, Lamar 
Hunt stood apart. He remained owner of the Chiefs, or founder of the 
Chiefs, for more than 40 years, from 1963 until his death. He invested 
in the lives of people in his adopted town, and the benefits of those 
investments will be felt for generations to come.
  More than 1,000 fans have signed the Kansas City Star's online 
guestbook for Lamar Hunt, praising him for his honesty and sincerity, 
his class and his countless contributions to the Chiefs, to football, 
and to Kansas City.
  While his family and friends will miss Lamar very much, they can take 
heart in the tremendous legacy he left. I know his son Clark will 
continue to lead the Chiefs with the same love for the game and 
business sense his father had. We will always remember fondly Lamar 
Hunt.


                                  Iraq

  Mr. President, my colleagues and our staffs, people need to know 
about the worldwide threat hearing we had at an open session of the 
Intelligence Committee yesterday. In that hearing, we asked the 
Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the CIA, the general 
in charge of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Mr. Fort of the State 
Department's INR, and Director Bob

[[Page 1052]]

Mueller of the FBI what their assessment was of the situation in Iraq.
  Very simply, they said that, while it is not certain by any means, 
they believe the leadership of Iraq has bought into the concept 
announced by the President as a result of his telephone call from Prime 
Minister Malaki that Iraq is going to take over the responsibility for 
quelling the insurgency, the sectarian violence, and they will devote 
their own resources, heavily, into Baghdad, with district units headed 
by generals, brigades in each area supported by American troops on a 3-
to-1 ratio, Iraqi to American.
  While this by no means is sure to work, and recent actions do not 
suggest it is a very strong bet, they believe it has apparently the 
best chance to succeed.
  In addition, since there was another idea on the table, I asked what 
would happen if we withdrew immediately, or within a very short 
timetable of 2 to 3 months, and the Director of National Intelligence 
and the Director of the CIA, first, said a precipitous withdrawal would 
bring about a collapse of the Government; that al-Qaida would establish 
a beachhead and a sanctuary in Iraq for the purpose of promoting the 
worldwide caliphate that it supports. That was the Director of National 
Intelligence, who, also, was joined by the Director of the CIA, General 
Hayden, who said if we withdraw, it would empower the jihadists to gain 
a safe haven, which would have a tremendous impact on the region. There 
would be a tremendous impact because they could be in control of the 
oil-rich Iraqi resources, and it would further empower Iran.
  In summary, he said three things very unfortunate would be likely to 
occur.
  No. 1, more innocent Iraqi civilians would die in sectarian violence.
  No. 2, there would be a safe haven for al-Qaida and its cooperating 
entities--a goal that has been stated by the leader of al-Qaida, Osama 
bin Laden, and his second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
  And third, this would very likely bring about regionwide conflicts 
because with the Shia in control in Iraq in the current Government, 
with the numbers they have, Iran has shown a very great interest and 
has been too actively involved in Iraqi matters already. Iran and its 
Shias, if they came in and heaped great losses on the Sunnis, could 
expect that Sunni neighbors in the region would respond to the threats 
of the Iraqi Shia, as the Iranians, and the danger of a tremendous 
conflict throughout that region would occur.
  So I appreciate the opportunity to address the Senate on these 
matters. I think all Senators need to know the seriousness of this 
issue, the reasons why I believe the President's option that he 
announced the night before last is the best option.


    Amendments Nos. 48, 49, 50, and 51, En Bloc, to amendment No. 3

  Now, Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Coburn, I ask unanimous 
consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside in order to 
call up amendments Nos. 48 through 51 en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Mr. Coburn, 
     proposes amendments, en bloc, numbered 48, 49, 50, and 51 to 
     amendment No. 3.

  The amendments, en bloc, are as follows:


                            AMENDMENT NO. 48

   (Purpose: To require all recipients of Federal earmarks, grants, 
 subgrants, and contracts to disclose amounts spent on lobbying and a 
                description of all lobbying activities)

       On page 38, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:

     SEC. 223. LOBBYING DISCLOSURE AND PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF 
                   FORMS FILED BY RECIPIENTS OF FEDERAL FUNDS AND 
                   CONTRACTS.

       (a) Lobbying Disclosure.--Section 1352(b)(2) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) an itemization of any funds spent by the person for 
     lobbying on a calendar year basis.''.
       (b) Public Availability.--Section 1352(b) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(7) Declarations required to be filed by paragraph (1) 
     shall be made available by the Office of Management and 
     Budget on a public, fully searchable website that shall be 
     updated quarterly.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect 6 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.


                            AMENDMENT NO. 49

    (Purpose: To require all congressional earmarks requests to be 
 submitted to the appropriate Senate committee on a standardized form)

       At the end of subtitle A of title II, insert the following:

     SEC. 225. SUBMISSION OF EARMARKS ON A UNIFORM FORM.

       (a) In General.--Each Member of the Senate shall submit any 
     request for--
       (1) an appropriations earmark to the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate;
       (2) a tax benefit earmark to the Committee on Finance of 
     the Senate; and
       (3) any other earmark to the appropriate committee of 
     jurisdiction.
       (b) Uniform Form.--
       (1) In general.--Each request for an earmark under 
     subsection (a) shall be submitted on a standardized form.
       (2) Rules committee.--The form described in paragraph (1) 
     shall be developed by the Committee on Rules and 
     Administration of the Senate.
       (3) Required content.--The form described in paragraph (1), 
     shall at a minimum, include the following:
       (A) The name of the Member requesting the earmark.
       (B) The name of each entity that would be the recipient of 
     the earmark, including the name of the parent entity of such 
     recipient, if such recipient is owned by another entity. If 
     there is no specifically intended recipient, then the form 
     shall require the Member to identify the intended location or 
     activity that will benefit from the earmark. In the case of 
     an earmark that contains a limited tax or tariff benefit, the 
     Member shall identify the individual or entity reasonably 
     anticipated to benefit from the earmark (to the extent known 
     by the Member).
       (C) The amount requested in the earmark.
       (D) The Department or agency from which the amounts 
     requested in the earmark are expected to be provided (if 
     known by the Member).
       (E) The appropriations bill from which the amounts 
     requested in the earmark are expected to be provided (if 
     known by the Member).
       (F) A description of the earmark, including its purpose, 
     goals, and expected outcomes.
       (G) The location and address of each entity that would be 
     the recipient of the earmark and the primary location of the 
     activities funded by the earmark, including the State, city, 
     congressional district, and country of such activities.
       (H) Whether the earmark is funding an ongoing or a new 
     activity or initiative and the expected duration of such 
     activity or initiative.
       (I) The source and amount of any other funding for the 
     activity or initiative funded by the earmark, including any 
     other Federal, State, local, or private funding for such 
     activity or initiative.
       (J) Contact information for the entity that would be the 
     recipient of the earmark, including the name, phone number, 
     postal mailing address, and email for such entity.
       (K) If the activity or initiative funded by the earmark is 
     authorized by Federal law. If so, the Member shall provide 
     the public law number and United States Code citation for 
     such authorization.
       (L) The budget outline for such activity or initiative 
     funded by the earmark, including--
       (i) the amount needed to complete the activity or 
     initiative; and
       (ii) whether or not the Member, the spouse of the Member, 
     an immediate family member of the Member, a member of the 
     Member's staff, or an immediate family member of a member of 
     the Member's Senator's staff has a financial interest in the 
     earmark.
       (4) Public accountability.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 7 days after the date that 
     a request for an earmark is submitted under this section, the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate shall make the 
     request available to the public on the Internet website of 
     such committee, without fee or other access charge, in a 
     searchable, sortable, and downloadable manner.
       (B) Recordkeeping.--The Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate shall maintain records of all requests made available 
     under subparagraph (A) for a period of not less than 6 years.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Earmark.--The term ``earmark'' means--
       (A) a provision or report language included primarily at 
     the request of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or 
     Senator providing, authorizing or recommending a specific 
     amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, 
     or other spending

[[Page 1053]]

     authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan 
     authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or 
     targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional 
     district, other than through a statutory or administrative 
     formula-driven or competitive award process;
       (B) any revenue-losing provision that--
       (i) provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or 
     preference to 10 or fewer beneficiaries under the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986; and
       (ii) contains eligibility criteria that are not uniform in 
     application with respect to potential beneficiaries of such 
     provision;
       (C) any Federal tax provision which provides one 
     beneficiary temporary or permanent transition relief from a 
     change to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
       (D) any provision modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
     of the United States in a manner that benefits 10 or fewer 
     entities.
       (2) Immediate family member.--The term ``immediate family 
     member'' means the son, daughter, stepson, stepdaughter, son-
     in-law, daughter-in-law, mother, father, stepmother, 
     stepfather, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother, sister, 
     stepbrother, or stepsister of a person.

                            AMENDMENT NO. 50

(Purpose: To provide disclosure of lobbyist gifts and travel instead of 
        banning them as the Reid/McConnell substitute proposes)

       Strike section 108 and insert the following:

     SEC. 108. DISCLOSURE FOR GIFTS FROM LOBBYISTS.

       Paragraph 1(a) of rule XXXV of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate is amended--
       (1) in clause (2), by striking the last sentence and 
     inserting ``Formal record keeping is required by this 
     paragraph as set out in clause (3).''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3)(A) Not later than 48 hours after a gift has been 
     accepted, each Member, officer, or employee shall post on the 
     Member's Senate website, in a clear and noticeable manner, 
     the following:
       ``(i) The nature of the gift received.
       ``(ii) The value of the gift received.
       ``(iii) The name of the person or entity providing the 
     gift.
       ``(iv) The city and State where the person or entity 
     resides.
       ``(v) Whether that person is a registered lobbyist, and if 
     so, the name of the client for whom the lobbyist is providing 
     the gift and the city and State where the client resides.
       ``(B) Not later than 30 days after the adoption of this 
     clause, the Committee on Rules and Administration shall, in 
     consultation with the Select Committee on Ethics and the 
     Secretary of the Senate, proscribe the uniform format by 
     which the postings in subclause (A) shall be established.''.
       Strike section 109 and insert the following:

     SEC. 109. DISCLOSURE OF TRAVEL.

       Paragraph 2 of rule XXXV of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h)(1) Not later than 48 hours after a Member, officer, 
     or employee has accepted transportation or lodging otherwise 
     permissible by the rules from any other person, other than a 
     governmental entity, such Member, officer, or employee shall 
     post on the Member's Senate website, in a clear and 
     noticeable manner, the following:
       ``(A) The nature and purpose of the transportation or 
     lodging.
       ``(B) The fair market value of the transportation or 
     lodging.
       ``(C) The name of the person or entity sponsoring the 
     transportation or lodging.
       ``(D) The city and State where the person or entity 
     sponsoring the transportation or lodging resides.
       ``(E) Whether that sponsoring person is a registered 
     lobbyist, and if so, the name of the client for whom the 
     lobbyist is sponsoring the transportation or lodging and the 
     city and State where the client resides.
       ``(2) This subparagraph shall also apply to all 
     noncommercial air travel otherwise permissible by the rules.
       ``(3) Not later than 30 days after the adoption of this 
     subparagraph, the Committee on Rules and Administration 
     shall, in consultation with the Select Committee on Ethics 
     and the Secretary of the Senate, proscribe the uniform format 
     by which the postings in clauses (1) and (2) shall be 
     established.''.


                            AMENDMENT NO. 51

    (Purpose: To prohibit Members from requesting earmarks that may 
  financially benefit that Member or immediate family member of that 
                    Member, and for other purposes)

       On page 18, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 116. PROHIBITION ON FINANCIAL GAIN FROM EARMARKS BY 
                   MEMBERS, IMMEDIATE FAMILY OF MEMBERS, STAFF OF 
                   MEMBERS, OR IMMEDIATE FAMILY OF STAFF OF 
                   MEMBERS.

       Rule XXXVII of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``15. (a) No Member shall use his official position to 
     introduce, request, or otherwise aid the progress or passage 
     of a congressional earmark that will financially benefit or 
     otherwise further the pecuniary interest of such Member, the 
     spouse of such Member, the immediate family member of such 
     Member, any employee on the staff of such Member, the spouse 
     of an employee on the staff of such Member, or immediate 
     family member of an employee on the staff of such Member.
       ``(b) For purposes of this paragraph--
       ``(1) the term `immediate family member' means the son, 
     daughter, stepson, stepdaughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, 
     mother, father, stepmother, stepfather, mother-in-law, 
     father-in-law, brother, sister, stepbrother, or stepsister of 
     a Member or any employee on the staff (including staff in 
     personal, committee and leadership offices) of a Member; and
       ``(2) the term `congressional earmark' means--
       ``(A) a provision or report language included primarily at 
     the request of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or 
     Senator providing, authorizing or recommending a specific 
     amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, 
     or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan 
     guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with 
     or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or 
     Congressional district, other than through a statutory or 
     administrative formula-driven or competitive award process;
       ``(B) any revenue-losing provision that--
       ``(i) provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, 
     or preference to 10 or fewer beneficiaries under the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986; and
       ``(ii) contains eligibility criteria that are not uniform 
     in application with respect to potential beneficiaries of 
     such provision;
       ``(C) any Federal tax provision which provides one 
     beneficiary temporary or permanent transition relief from a 
     change to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
       ``(D) any provision modifying the Harmonized Tariff 
     Schedule of the United States in a manner that benefits 10 or 
     fewer entities.''.

  Mr. DORGAN. I voted to table the Vitter amendment, No. 6, to S. 1, 
the ethics bill, because it should properly be offered to the campaign 
finance bill when it comes to the floor of the Senate. The majority 
leader has said he will bring a campaign finance bill through the 
committee and to the floor later this year.
  Because there have been some abuses in this area, I support a change 
in the rules related to political committees employing family members, 
and I expect to be supportive of these types of reforms when campaign 
finance reform is voted on this year. At that time, the relevant 
committee on this matter will have had the opportunity to consider this 
issue and recommend the best way to correct these abuses.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Amendment No. 47 to Amendment No. 3

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an 
amendment to further increase transparency and ensure accountability 
with respect to earmarks. I call up amendment No. 47 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Nelson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 47 to amendment No. 3.

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, 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:

 (Purpose: To help encourage fiscal responsibility in the ear-marking 
                                process)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. ENCOURAGING FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY IN THE EARMARKING 
                   PROCESS.

       (a) In General.--If an entity is properly awarded an 
     earmark as defined in section 103, the entire amount of the 
     earmark shall be transferred to the entity to be expended for 
     the essential governmental purpose of the earmark.
       (b) Agency Prohibition.--Earmarked funds shall not be spent 
     by the authorizing department or agency (unless specifically 
     authorized in the section of the appropriations bill or 
     report containing the earmark) and shall instead be returned 
     to the Treasury for the purposes of deficit reduction.

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I am concerned about the abuse

[[Page 1054]]

of the earmark process, and I applaud the bipartisan efforts of the 
majority and minority leaders in crafting the earmark reforms in the 
underlying bill. I strongly support improving transparency and 
accountability in the appropriations process. I believe Members should 
certainly be required to disclose and justify their earmarks. My 
amendment takes this notion one step beyond by ensuring that earmarked 
funds are spent only for the stated purpose for which they are approved 
by the Senate.
  The amendment simply states:

       If an entity is properly awarded an earmark, the entire 
     amount of the earmark shall be transferred to the entity to 
     be expended for the essential government purpose of the 
     earmark.

  If the entity doesn't spend the entire amount of the earmark, my 
amendment requires the excess funds to be returned to the Treasury for 
the purposes of deficit reduction. That is all this does.
  Some Senators may ask, Why is such an amendment necessary? I think 
many of my colleagues in the Senate would be quite surprised to learn 
that all too often, after going through the process of earmarking funds 
for the benefit of their constituents, the earmarked funds are, on some 
occasions, spent by someone else once the bill leaves the Senate. The 
earmarked funds are going to be spent as the Senate intended. In 
reality, however, a portion of earmarked funds may sometimes be 
reallocated to other purposes by the agency tasked with delivering the 
funds to the intended recipient. Unfortunately, I have discovered this 
practice of ``skimming,'' as I call it, where the agency simply skims a 
portion off the top of the earmarks. It is fairly common, and in many 
cases it simply is not authorized by law.
  Last year, with the help of the Congressional Research Service, I 
asked the 15 Cabinet-level departments to help me understand how this 
process works, what happens with the funding once Congress approves an 
earmark. Only 12 departments responded, and the responses varied 
widely. Some said they do not skim from the earmarks at all; however, 
some said they skim 2 to 3 percent off the top of the earmark without 
authority by law. In some instances, the agencies did cite a statutory 
authority for the skimming, but in others it looks as if the skimming 
was done without express authority to do so. Alarmingly, one agency 
replied only with this statement:

       The magnitude of your request outstrips our ability to 
     provide you with the extensive amount of data that you 
     desire.

  I found not only skimming in some cases, but there was stiffing when 
you asked for information as well.
  The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse. Yet sometimes 
the executive branch sees fit to spend congressionally approved earmark 
funds for their own purposes. That is simply wrong under any set of 
circumstances. From a constitutional standpoint, from a fiscal 
responsibility standpoint, and from a practical standpoint, the 
executive branch should not be able to redirect earmarked funds unless 
specifically authorized to do so in that earmark. There shouldn't be an 
ongoing authority to do that with every earmark without the authority 
established by Congress. And if that authority has been established by 
law, I believe we ought to reconsider it because it should be on an 
earmark-by-earmark basis. If they want their budget to include a 
certain amount of money above where they are at the moment, let them 
come to the budgeting process and make their request just like everyone 
else has to for the budgeting process here in Congress.
  The earmark reforms in this bill are important, and we shouldn't 
allow the executive branch to undermine them. We owe it to our 
constituents to make sure earmarks are carried out as intended by this 
body in accordance with our earmarks disclosure rules.
  To conclude, this amendment simply reinforces the earmark reforms in 
a very straightforward way. It will ensure that earmarks are only spent 
for the stated purpose for which they were approved. It will put an end 
to unaccountable skimming of earmarks and require that any unspent 
earmarked funds will be used for deficit reduction.
  This amendment protects our constituents and the American taxpayer. 
It strengthens the underlying bill by providing a guarantee that 
earmarks will be spent only as the Senate intends, for the purpose for 
which they were approved, in accordance with the earmark reforms. I 
believe the underlying bill is incomplete without my amendment, and I 
urge my colleagues to adopt it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________