[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8929-8932]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--S. RES. 123

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, in January this body took a significant 
step toward reforming the way we spend American taxpayer dollars. While 
debating the ethics reform bill, Senators voted 98 to 0 in favor of my 
amendment requiring transparency for 100 percent of Member-requested 
earmarks. This was an early sign that Congress was going to change the 
way we do business here in Washington.
  But since then, I am afraid my optimism has been tempered by a 
healthy dose of political reality. The ethics bill containing new 
Senate rules has been stalled, and its future enactment is anything but 
certain. In the meantime, the Senate has continued business as usual, 
as earmarking continues unfettered from transparency rules. The 
appropriators are soliciting earmarks. The WRDA bill is full of 
undisclosed earmarks, and none of the committees are complying with the 
anticorruption transparency requirements.
  Upon notice that I was going to offer this bill again on the floor, 
the Democratic leadership of the Appropriations Committee just issued a 
press release saying they were going to comply with these rules. That 
is really good news. So if the appropriators want to comply, there is 
no reason at all that we shouldn't enact this rule as a Senate rule.
  Yesterday's Roll Call reported that the Senate Environment and Public

[[Page 8930]]

Works Committee is advancing two pieces of legislation packed with 
billions of dollars worth of earmarks, but the committee is not asking 
Senators to certify that they have no financial interests in the 
projects, at least for now. In other words, the Senate is continuing to 
conduct its business in the old way, which was rejected by the American 
voters.
  We cannot continue to wait. The Senate rules must be changed now if 
we are going to implement what the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, the distinguished chairman, called an accountable, 
aboveboard, transparent process for funding decisions, and put an end 
to the abuses that have harmed the credibility of Congress.
  I agree 100 percent. My proposal, S. Res. 123, creates a new Senate 
rule that requires public disclosure of the earmarks contained in bills 
passed by committee. This disclosure includes the name of the Member 
requesting the earmark, the name and address of the intended recipient 
of the earmark, the purpose of the earmark, and a certification that 
the requesting Member and his or her spouse have no financial interest 
in the requested earmark. These are simple transparency ideas that the 
American people need.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be 
added as cosponsors to S. Res. 123: Senator Ensign, Senator McCain, 
Senator Enzi, Senator Martinez, and Senator McCaskill.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, this resolution will immediately require 
all Members who request earmarks to certify in writing that they have 
no financial interests in the requested earmark.
  Following the imprisonment of Congressman Duke Cunningham for selling 
earmarks for bribes, Americans need to know their elected officials are 
not using public office for private gain. This is simply information 
every Senator should be willing to provide, and I believe most are.
  But it is beginning to look as if the new majority is not really 
interested in shining light on the earmarking process. Before we left 
for the Easter recess, I asked unanimous consent for the Senate to 
adopt S. Res. 123 so that we could enact this important rule 
immediately. The majority objected and said this proposal needed to go 
through the ``appropriate process.'' That is a sad excuse. This rule 
has already gone through the normal process. It was offered as an 
amendment on the floor, it was modified by the leadership of the 
Democratic Party, and it passed 98 to 0. This is a Senate rule, and the 
only thing left for us to do is actually enact it.
  Let me just read a few quotes from the Democratic leadership when we 
worked out the language on this bill before. This includes a lot of 
Democratic language.
  Majority leader Harry Reid said: In effect, we have combined the best 
ideas from both sides of the aisle, Democrat and Republican, to 
establish the strongest possible disclosure rules in this regard.
  Majority whip Dick Durbin said: I am pleased with this bipartisan 
solution. I believe it reflects the intent of all on both sides of the 
aisle to make sure there is more disclosure. We have full agreement. 
The language has been vetted.
  The bill I offer today as a Senate rule is exactly the language we 
passed 98 to 0.
  The majority leader offered up his own excuse when he said his office 
was not notified in advance. In order to make sure that excuse is not 
used again, I sent a letter last week to the Democratic and Republican 
leaders notifying them of my intent to seek unanimous consent today to 
enact a Senate earmark disclosure rule--again, the one we have already 
passed 98 to 0.
  But I understand the other side has come up with a third excuse. This 
time, they are going to say that enacting earmark disclosure 
requirements will dilute the effect of the lobbying and ethics reform 
bill. This is probably the weakest of all of their excuses. How does 
enacting an ethics reform provision dilute its effect? The only thing 
diluting ethics reform is our unwillingness to abide by this new rule. 
This excuse rings hollow because the majority did not bother to include 
this rule in their original bill. When we brought it to the floor, they 
tried to kill it.
  I have tried to work in a bipartisan manner on this issue. I have 
been patient. But it has been over 80 days. The earmark process is 
continuing as usual, and all the American people are getting is 
excuses. It is time to enact this rule.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be 
discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. 
Res. 123; further, that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois reserves the 
right to object.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in explaining my reservation, I first wish 
to commend the Senator from South Carolina on the courtesy he has 
extended to both sides of the aisle in notifying us of his intent to 
make this unanimous-consent request. I wish to make clear to him and to 
all Members that the Senate Democratic leadership remains fully 
committed to earmark disclosure, but we believe his suggestion, taking 
it piece by piece, is not the right way to accomplish our goal.
  Earlier this year, we considered comprehensive ethics reform. It is a 
product of the first 100 days of the new leadership of Congress that we 
are most proud of. Included in that reform was a provision related to 
transparency in earmarking. I supported this reform. In fact, I joined 
Senator DeMint in crafting a new definition of ``earmark'' and 
requiring that earmarks in legislation be posted on the Internet prior 
to their final consideration on the floor of the Senate. We both agreed 
on this language. It passed with an overwhelming majority of 98 to 0, 
and the underlying bill passed 96 to 2.
  No one is suggesting these earmark rules will not be implemented. In 
fact, today the Senate Appropriations Committee, chaired by the 
President pro tempore of the Senate, who is now presiding, Senator 
Byrd, has announced a new policy of transparency in accountability, 
totally consistent with the language which we agreed on and adopted 
overwhelmingly on the floor of the Senate.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee's 
announcement on these sweeping reforms be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 [U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations Press Release, Apr. 17, 2007]

   Senate Appropriations Committee Announces Earmark Reform Standards

       Washington, DC.--The U.S. Senate Committee on 
     Appropriations will adopt an unprecedented policy of 
     transparency and accountability beginning with the Fiscal 
     2008 appropriations cycle, Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd, 
     D-W.Va., announced Tuesday.
       ``The changes that we are making in the appropriations 
     process will help to restore confidence in the Congress,'' 
     Chairman Byrd explained. ``We are ending `business as usual' 
     in Washington, D.C. We will restore integrity to the process. 
     We will increase accountability and openness, while we also 
     will work to substantially reduce the number of earmarks in 
     legislation.''
       Until S. 1, the Ethics and Earmark Reform legislation, is 
     signed into law, the Senate Appropriations Committee will 
     follow these standards:
       All earmarks will be clearly identified in the committee 
     bill and report. The identification will include the 
     requesting Senator, the amount of the earmark, the recipient 
     of the earmark, and the purpose of the earmark. If there is 
     no specifically intended recipient for an earmark, the 
     intended location of the activity will be listed.
       An earmark shall be defined as it is in the Senate-passed 
     Ethics and Earmark Reform legislation. An earmark is a 
     legislative provision or report language included primarily 
     at the request of a Senator, Member of the House, Delegate, 
     or Resident Commissioner, that provides, authorizes, or 
     recommends a

[[Page 8931]]

     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.
       The committee bill and report will be published on the 
     Internet, both through the committee site (http://
appropriations.
senate.gov) as well as on the Library of Congress' website 
     (http://thomas.loc.gov).
       Senators will be required to certify that neither they nor 
     their spouses have a financial interest in any earmark. 
     Senators will need to submit a letter to the Appropriations 
     Committee certifying that they have no financial interest in 
     a project. Those letters will be available for public 
     inspection. What constitutes a Senator's ``financial 
     interest'' shall be determined by the guidelines of the 
     Senate Ethics Committee and Senate Rule XXXVII.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, under these new guidelines, all earmarks 
will be clearly identified in the committee bill and report, including 
the requesting Senator, the amount of the earmark, the recipient of the 
earmark, and the purpose of the earmark. An earmark shall be defined as 
in the Senate-passed ethics reform bill, which Mr. DeMint and I 
cosponsored. The committee bill and report will be published on the 
Internet--as my amendment required--so that the world can see these 
earmarks in advance of final passage. Senators will be required to 
certify that neither they nor their spouses have any financial 
interests in any earmark. These guidelines will be in place until the 
ethics reform bill is signed into law.
  I commend the Presiding Officer as chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee for reaching out to the other side of the aisle, to the 
ranking member, Senator Cochran from Mississippi, so that he has been 
informed of our intention to reform this earmark process.
  Earmark disclosure, though, is only one part of the much broader 
package. We need to strengthen gift and travel rules for Members of the 
Senate, close the revolving door, strengthen lobbying disclosure, 
outlaw the K Street Project, this notorious project in which Mr. 
Abramoff and others were involved, and take other steps to clean up the 
way business is done in Washington.
  Now, if the Senator from South Carolina has his way, we will take one 
piece today. Some will suggest taking another piece tomorrow. I think 
it will dilute our effort. We need, within the next few weeks, to work 
with the House to pass this measure. For those who ask: Well, why 
hasn't it taken place so far, the House ethics reform was done by House 
rule, did not involve a joint action by the House and the Senate.
  So we are going to find a vehicle that will accomplish our Senate 
ethics reform, statutory and rules reform, and do it in the appropriate 
manner and do it in a comprehensive way. We have been assured by House 
leaders that they will move on this bill in the next few weeks. As soon 
as the House acts, the Senate will move for conference as quickly as 
possible. We should not take up bits and pieces of the larger bill.
  The Senate has expressed a strong support for earmark disclosure, and 
the Senate Appropriations Committee, which I am proud to be a member 
of, has taken the lead on this side of the aisle in strong reforms. The 
goal of the Senator from South Carolina is already being implemented, 
and I hope he can take ``yes'' for an answer.
  I would like to correct one thing he said for the record. When he 
started his remarks about earmarks, he said at one point that when it 
comes to earmarks, this Senate is ``business as usual.'' As the 
Presiding Officer and those who follow the Senate know, that is hardly 
the case. When we considered the continuing resolution which had all of 
the pending appropriations bills from the previously Republican-
controlled Congress yet enacted, we took a bold move on our part--that 
is, the Democratic side--and eliminated 9,300 earmarks that were in 
bills authored when the Senator from South Carolina was in the 
majority. We eliminated every single one of them--all 9,300 earmarks. 
It contained no new earmarks. This continuing resolution eliminated 
funding for over $2.1 billion of earmarks for over 1,900 separate 
projects.
  This is hardly business as usual. Business as usual would have been 
to take the bills from a Republican Congress, with thousands of 
earmarks, and enact them into law. We did not do that. So to suggest we 
are continuing along the path that was the case when there were 
previous leaders in Congress is just not supported by the facts.
  Beyond that, I can give my assurance to the Senator from South 
Carolina, my colleague, that the earmark language which we adopted in 
the Senate is going to be the standard by which we live. The 
Appropriations Committee has made that very clear. I believe that is 
what we should do.
  So at this point, Mr. President, acknowledging the commitment of the 
Senator from South Carolina to this issue and acknowledging that he 
should be standing here and saying he has accomplished quite a bit to 
this point, I would have to say that his additional suggestion today of 
plucking out one piece of ethics reform and moving on it would be 
inconsistent with our ultimate goal of having comprehensive ethics 
reform. In the meantime, we have followed this measure through the 
Senate Appropriations Committee and, as a consequence, I must object.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on 
this issue. It is very interesting. The American people should hear 
what has just gone on here.
  What we have heard is rhetoric without responsibility. There is no 
question that by moving, as Senator DeMint has, we finally got the 
Appropriations Committee to endorse what was passed in the ethics 
legislation. However, after the ethics legislation was passed, I spoke 
on the floor. I was the last person to speak on the floor late that 
evening. I made the statement--and it is now proving to be true--that 
it was ethics reform in name only, no substance.
  We now hear an argument that says: We should not pass the most 
significant portion of the ethics bill in a stand-alone process so that 
we can, in fact, do what the American people want, which is 
transparency in this Government.
  It is interesting, if you know how this place operates, that if in 
fact you have an earmark reform on appropriations only, and no earmark 
reform on an authorization, you have no earmark reform because once 
something is authorized in an authorizing bill through an earmark, it 
no longer will apply to the appropriations bill. So we will have the 
same thing going on. The reason we are seeing an objection to earmark 
reform is because we truly, in the majority of cases, don't want 
earmark reform. What we are doing is, we are doing it--talk about 
piecemeal--only in one area. What we will do is, there won't be an 
earmark on an appropriations bill. What we will do is authorize them 
now. Since we won't apply the earmark rule to authorization bills, the 
American public will once again be hoodwinked. They won't know whose 
financial interest it is nor who it will benefit.
  The problem with ethics in Washington isn't the lobbyists, isn't the 
campaign contributions, it is the Members of Congress. Until that 
changes, until the American people demand accountability--what we just 
heard was a flimsy excuse for not accepting this into the rules of the 
Senate. We voted on it. The American people deserve it. It is a sham.
  I again ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged 
from further consideration, and the Senate now proceed to S. 123; 
further that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider 
be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the several 
requests?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois reserves the 
right to object.

[[Page 8932]]


  Mr. DURBIN. It strikes me as odd that the Senator from Oklahoma will 
not acknowledge the obvious. The earmark reform language which he 
supported, and the Senator from South Carolina supports, passed the 
Senate 98 to 0. It was part of the first comprehensive ethics reform 
package this Senate has seen in many years; many years of Republican 
rule, I might add. We are now saying that the Appropriations Committee 
has voluntarily said, even before the conference committee that we are 
going to live by these standards.
  I will not quibble with the Senator from Oklahoma because he and I 
see this quite differently. But authorizing a project does not mean it 
has money. That is why we have authorizing committees and appropriating 
committees. I can authorize the Sun, the Moon, the stars, and the Milky 
Way, but I will not deliver any of those to anybody until I get to an 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. When I am finished, I will. All of the authorization in 
the world notwithstanding, unless you appropriate the money from the 
Treasury for the project, it is just a good idea that might happen.
  Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I said I will. Allow me to finish my sentence. What I am 
suggesting is, other committees may take this up as well on an interim 
basis. But the bills that are going to move on the floor of the Senate 
are the appropriations bills. Now that the budget resolution is passed, 
our major obligation is to achieve something we haven't done for years. 
We want to try to pass the appropriations bills on time. That means 
that the time of the Senators from Oklahoma and South Carolina and all 
of us will be consumed with appropriations bills, and the rules we will 
play by on earmarks for those bills which will be front and center, our 
major business, will be the same rule that you voted for, the vote that 
the Senator from Oklahoma cast on this floor for earmark reform. So I 
say to the Senator from Oklahoma, he can be prepared as these bills 
come to the floor to see the very approach he has suggested be followed 
voluntarily. In the meantime we have the assurance of the House that 
this matter is going to conference committee.
  Suggesting that we have abandoned our commitment to reform or calling 
it a flimsy excuse overstates the Senator's position.
  I object.
  Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Senators will please address other 
Senators through the Chair and refer to other Senators in the third 
person, not in the first person.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I object to the unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois objects.

                          ____________________