To require that amendments and instructions accompanying a motion to recommit be copied and provided by the Senator offering them to the desks of the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader before being debated.

LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2007--Resumed

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
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.
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 further modified amendment No. 9 (to
amendment No. 3), to prohibit Members from having official
contact with any spouse of a Member who is a registered
lobbyist.
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. 28 (to amendment No. 3),
to provide congressional transparency.
Bennett (for McCain) amendment No. 29 (to amendment No. 3),
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.
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

[[Page S738]]

unless the measure includes a general program description,
funding level, and the name of the sponsor of that earmark.
Feingold amendment No. 31 (to amendment No. 3), to prohibit
former Members of Congress from engaging in lobbying
activities in addition to lobbying contacts during their
cooling off period.
Feingold amendment No. 33 (to amendment No. 3), to prohibit
former Members who are lobbyists from using gym and parking
privileges made available to Members and former Members.
Feingold amendment No. 34 (to amendment No. 3), to require
Senate campaigns to file their FEC reports electronically.
Durbin amendment No. 36 (to amendment No. 3), 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.
Cornyn amendment No. 45 (to amendment No. 3), to require 72
hour public availability of legislative matters before
consideration.
Cornyn amendment No. 46 (to amendment No. 2), to deter
public corruption.
Bond (for Coburn) amendment No. 48 (to amendment No. 3), to
require all recipients of Federal earmarks, grants,
subgrants, and contracts to disclose amounts spent on
lobbying and a description of all lobbying activities.
Bond (for Coburn) amendment No. 49 (to amendment No. 3), to
require all congressional earmark requests to be submitted to
the appropriate Senate committee on a standardized form.
Bond (for Coburn) amendment No. 50 (to amendment No. 3), to
provide disclosure of lobbyist gifts and travel instead of
banning them as proposed.
Bond (for Coburn) amendment No. 51 (to amendment No. 3), to
prohibit Members from requesting earmarks that may
financially benefit that Member or immediate family member of
that Member.
Nelson (NE) amendment No. 47 (to amendment No. 3), to help
encourage fiscal responsibility in the earmarking process.
Reid (for Lieberman) amendment No. 43 (to amendment No. 3),
to require disclosure of earmark lobbying by lobbyists.
Reid (for Casey) amendment No. 56 (to amendment No. 3), to
eliminate the K Street Project by prohibiting the wrongful
influencing of a private entity's employment decisions or
practices in exchange for political access or favors.
Sanders amendment No. 57 (to amendment No. 3), to require a
report by the Commission to Strengthen Confidence in Congress
regarding political contributions before and after the
enactment of certain laws.
Bennett (for Coburn) amendment No. 59 (to amendment No. 3),
to provide disclosure of lobbyist gifts and travel instead of
banning them as proposed.
Bennett (for Coleman) amendment No. 39 (to amendment No.
3), to require that a publicly available website be
established in Congress to allow the public access to records
of reported congressional official travel.
Feingold amendment No. 63 (to amendment No. 3), 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.
Feingold amendment No. 64 (to amendment No. 3), to prohibit
lobbyists and entities that retain or employ lobbyists from
throwing lavish parties honoring Members at party
conventions.
Feingold-Obama amendment No. 76 (to amendment No. 3), to
clarify certain aspects of the lobbyist contribution
reporting provision.
Obama-Feingold amendment No. 41 (to amendment No. 3), to
require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership
PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange
contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions
collected or arranged.
Nelson (NE)-Salazar amendment No. 71 (to amendment No. 3),
to extend the laws and rules passed in this bill to the
executive and judicial branches of government.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, first of all, I apologize to everybody for
having Senators wait around. I can remember when I was in the House,
and in the interest of coming to the Senate, I turned on the TV set.
Jim Exon from Nebraska kept suggesting the absence of a quorum. I was
so upset not knowing what the procedure was. But I came and served with
Jim Exon--first of all, he was as big as the Presiding Officer, and he
was a man who was very dedicated to the Senate. But after I got here, I
understood more what was happening. So I apologize for all the quorum
calls. A lot of people think nothing is going on, but Democrats and
Republicans and staff have been working so hard from last night to
today to get us to this point.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all amendments to the
amendment No. 3 be withdrawn and that the following be the only
amendments remaining in order to the bill or substitute amendment; that
the votes in relation to the amendments begin at 8:10 this evening,
with 2 minutes for debate equally divided between each vote; that upon
disposition of the above-listed amendments, the substitute amendment
No. 3 be agreed to as amended, the bill be read the third time, and the
Senate vote, without any intervening action or debate, on final passage
of the bill.
The amendments that I have referred to are as follows: Bennett
amendment No. 20 on grassroots lobbying; Lieberman-Collins amendment
No. 30; Vitter amendment No. 9 on spouses; Coburn amendment No. 51 on
gifts and travel disclosure; Ensign-DeMint amendment on scope of
conference; Feingold amendment No. 31 on former members lobbying;
Feingold amendment No. 33 on gym and parking; Durbin amendment No. 77
on providing managers copies of amendments; Obama amendment No. 41 on
bundling; Sanders amendment No. 57 on study; Coleman-Cardin amendment
No. 39, as modified, on travel Web site; managers' amendment to be
agreed to by both managers; further, that the Senate begin
consideration of H.R. 2, the minimum wage bill on Monday, January 22,
at 2 p.m. and that Senator Coburn be recognized to speak following
final passage following the remarks of the two leaders.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, would the leader add to
that, after the first vote that subsequent votes be 10-minute votes?
Mr. REID. Yes, I will.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, my
understanding is that when the Senate turns to minimum wage, the
majority leader, or his designee, will offer a substitute amendment
that will be fully amendable; is that correct?
Mr. REID. True.
Mr. GREGG. Further, I understand the majority leader is aware that I
have agreed to withdraw my amendment on this bill, the lobby reform
bill, and I will be here Monday to offer my language to the minimum
wage bill.
Mr. REID. That is my understanding. The Senator absolutely has that
right.
Mr. GREGG. Further reserving the right to object, I understand that
the majority leader will be unable to reach consent for a time
agreement to vote on my amendment; therefore, it is likely that a
cloture motion will be filed on my language on Monday. I expect my
language to be the first amendment to the bill.
Mr. REID. It may not be the first, but we have an agreement that it
would be following my recognition, the offering of the substitute, and
the minority leader, who would be recognized.
Mr. GREGG. I thank the two leaders for their assistance in this
process. I believe this is a reasonable way to bring up the amendment
that I have offered and to move this bill at the same time.
I understand that on Monday it would be the expectation that nobody
will be complaining that I have it on the wrong vehicle.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Republican leader says anything,
I will be brief. We have been able, if this agreement is reached, to
accomplish what the distinguished Republican leader and I intended to
do this week. As a result of that and an agreement to go forward on the
minimum wage, there will be no votes tomorrow or Monday.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, to reiterate what the majority leader
indicated, as a result of this agreement, which did take a while--and I
know some of our colleagues wondered if we were ever going to get
there--we will complete the bill tonight, and we will have no votes
tomorrow or Monday.
This was a successful example of good negotiation--although it took a
while--for a favorable result.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, has the agreement been accepted?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, in that we are not voting until 8:10, I will
say a few words. Let me say this. This legislation has been extremely
difficult to deal with. It is difficult because it directly affects our
lives, Members of the Senate. In the short term, this is going

[[Page S739]]

to be difficult because we are going to have to get used to the
provisions in this piece of legislation. But in the long term, we will
all be thankful these steps have been taken. This legislation will
remove even the appearance of impropriety from the work done in this
Chamber.
This is not a time for declaring victory. Legislation is the art of
compromise, the art of consensus building. There has been a victor in
all of this when this matter is completed and that is the American
people. I am not a victor, I am not a loser. Senator McConnell is not a
victor or a loser. We have worked through this in the way that
legislators should work through difficult pieces of legislation. I
believe last November Americans, through their votes, asked us to make
Government honest. We have done that. We are going to give them what I
believe is a Government they deserve.
I am satisfied that this debate has been good for this body. Now we
are going to move forward, recognizing the last 24 hours has not been
easy legislatively. As Senator Durbin said last night, it was a bump in
the road. It was a real bump and people should have had their seatbelts
on because it was a difficult bump. But I believe last night there were
people looking for an excuse to not move this bill forward. Let me say,
underlying and underscoring this, as I said last night--and I will say
it again--Senator Judd Gregg, the senior Senator from New Hampshire, is
a person who has tremendously strong principles. He believes in this
legislation. I believe just as strongly that it is wrong. But he
believes it is right. I admire and respect him for doing that, just as
his partner on the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, is a person of
principle. They have worked on this issue and other issues together, as
legislators should work together. I so much respect the way they work
together. They disagree on a number of different issues, but they do it
in a way that I think brings dignity to this body.

I, also, wish to say one thing about my friend, Senator Russ
Feingold. He has been a pioneer on a number of different legislative
issues. He fought tooth and nail with my friend, the Republican leader,
on campaign finance reform. It was a debate that went on for a number
of years in this body. Senator Feingold is a person who has talked
about ethics since he came to the Senate. There are a lot of people
responsible for this legislation, but there is no one more responsible
than the Senator from Wisconsin.
He has been a pioneer, and he has not let up from the time he came to
the Senate to today in moving forward on what he believes is good for
this body politic. With rare exception, I agree with him. He is my
friend. He is a person for whom I have great admiration based on his,
if nothing else--and there is plenty more--being a Rhodes Scholar, a
Harvard graduate with honors, a man who was a dignified and successful
lawyer before he came to the Senate. He has shown he is a good
legislator. So I have great respect for him.
In the past, I called this legislation the toughest reform since
Watergate. That is an understatement. This is the toughest reform bill
in the history of this body as it relates to ethics and lawmaking. So
everyone tonight, when they vote on this bill, should vote proudly.
What is going to happen soon is historic: requiring new lobbying
disclosure, banning all gifts, reforming earmarks, requiring Senators
to pay charter rates on corporate jets. We will restore the confidence
of our citizenry in the Government.
I so appreciate the work that has been done on this legislation. I
appreciate the work of my friend, the Republican leader. We have had
disagreements on this legislation, but we have an agreement in
principle as to what this body is all about. I look forward to working
together on more bipartisan legislation. This is bipartisan legislation
sponsored by the Democratic leader and the Republican leader of the
Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to my friend, the majority
leader, I couldn't agree more. This is a classic example of
bipartisanship in the Senate at its very best. We had good bipartisan
support last year when we passed a similar bill 90 to 8. This year, I
think we are going to finish the job.
I particularly wish to recognize, on this side of the aisle, the
extraordinary work of Senator Gregg in achieving his goal on the next
bill up to get an important vote that is important not only to him but
to many Members on our side of the aisle.
I extend my congratulations to my good friend, Bob Bennett, the
ranking member on our side, who has been involved on this from
beginning to end and has done an extraordinary job of managing a very
complex and difficult bill; to Senator Susan Collins, who has been a
leader on the Collins-Lieberman amendment on which we will be voting
shortly; to Senator Vitter, Senator Coburn, Senator DeMint, who have
been extremely active on this bill, and each of them has an imprint on
this final passage measure that we will be dealing with shortly.
Mr. President, I congratulate all Senators for an extraordinary
accomplishment, under very difficult circumstances on a broad,
bipartisan basis. The patience that was exhibited to allow us to get to
this point, I remind everyone, is what produced an opportunity to have
no votes tomorrow and no votes on Monday. I think this was worth the
wait.
I congratulate the majority leader.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I failed to acknowledge the managers of this
bill. I apologize to both of them. They have been masterful in working
this bill the last 2 weeks. The two managers are going to be involved
heavily in getting this through conference. I have so much respect for
both of them. They are outstanding Senators.
I repeat, I am so sorry I didn't acknowledge them. I should have done
that in the beginning because they have done more than anybody else in
moving this bill forward. They worked as partners moving this bill
forward. It has been a difficult partnership because of the different
thoughts on different sides of the aisle as to what is good and bad.
They have been able to be dignified in what they have done. I
appreciate it.

Amendment No. 20

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the Bennett amendment
No. 20.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
Mr. BENNETT. How is the time allocated between now and the scheduled
votes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No time is allocated. The Senator may speak.
Mr. BENNETT. Do I understand, Mr. President, that the votes are not
locked in for 8:10 p.m.?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the voting begins at
8:10 p.m.
Mr. BENNETT. So the time between now and 8:10 p.m. is not allocated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I wish to be fair to whoever opposes my
amendment to allow time for them to do that, but I would like to speak
briefly in favor of my amendment.
My amendment is called the grassroots lobbying amendment. I have
discussed it and its virtues at some length previously during the
period of debate, but I remind everyone what this is all about.
This has to do with the regulations and reporting requirements placed
on organizations that stimulate people to contact their Members of
Congress. These organizations can be, and many times are, outside of
Washington, DC. They can, and many times do, carry on their work
without ever contacting a Member of Congress directly or participating
in any of the activities we normally think of as lobbying. And yet, if
an organization or an individual were to stimulate neighbors, Members
of a fraternal organization, their bowling club--whatever it is--to try
to get them active in the process of petitioning the Government, they
run the risk of not registering properly because under the underlying
bill, they are defined as lobbyists, and if they fail to fill out their
forms properly, if they fail to register properly, they are subject to
a $200,000 fine.
The ACLU has said--in my opinion accurately--that this would have a

[[Page S740]]

chilling effect on all of these kinds of activities. People on the
right side, the National Right to Life, have said this would have a
chilling effect on everything we do.
I know there has been talk about astroturf lobbyists and astroturf
campaigns. I am certainly competent to know when an astroturf phony
campaign has been mounted. The letters and the postcards come into the
office, and it is very transparent they are not genuine and real. I do
not need to be protected from my constituents by the language in the
underlying bill.
My amendment is very simple. It simply strikes the grassroots
provision.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I intend to support amendment No. 20
offered by my colleague from Utah, Senator Bennett. This amendment
would strike section 220, the grassroots reporting provision, from the
bill.
Yesterday, during my statement on the need for comprehensive lobbying
and ethics reform, I discussed the importance of an informed citizenry
and how it is essential to a thriving democracy. A democratic
government operates best in the disinfecting light of the public eye.
With this bill, we have an opportunity to balance the right of the
public to know with its right to petition government; the ability of
lobbyists' to advocate their clients' causes with the need for truthful
public discourse; and the ability of Members to legislate with the
imperative that our government must be free from corrupting influences,
both real and perceived. We must act now to ensure that the erosion we
see today in the public's confidence in Congress does not become a
collapse of confidence.
We have an obligation to address this crisis of confidence, but we
also have an obligation to ensure that we do so in a thoughtful,
reasoned, and constitutional manner. It is imperative that we be
mindful of the rights of American citizens to freely contact their
public officials and take part in the political process. After careful
consideration, and much input from groups representing all parts of the
political spectrum, it has become evident to me that section 220 of the
underlying bill could seriously impact legitimate communications
between public interest organizations and their members. That is why I
will support the efforts of my colleague from Utah to strike section
220 from the bill.
It is my understanding that, under this provision, small
organizations--many with no representation in Washington--would have to
register as grassroots lobbying firms. These groups would then have to
comply with onerous quarterly reporting requirements or face fines and
criminal penalties. I do not think it was the intention of the
proponents of this provision to restrict the ability of groups to
communicate with their membership, but I have concluded that this could
very well be the outcome.
The approach taken in the underlying bill is one of greater
disclosure of and transparency into the interactions of lobbyists with
our public officials. More transparency and disclosure of professional
lobbyists' activities can only lead to better government.
Unfortunately, section 220 simply goes too far, and I fear that the
unintended consequences would negatively impact the legitimate,
constitutionally protected activities of small citizen groups and their
members.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered by Senator
Bennett which would strike the grassroots lobbying provision in S. 1.
Several years ago, I, along with several colleagues, undertook the
task of strengthening reporting requirements for lobbyists. This
culminated in the passage of the Lobbying Disclosure Act which broke
new ground by allowing sunlight into the activities of lobbyists in
Washington. It finally required meaningful disclosure of the billions
of dollars spent on lobbying Members of Congress.
While great progress was made, there was a major loophole left open
which needs to be closed. Under current law, lobbyists are permitted to
exclude the cost of their efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying when
they report under the LDA. We recognized this problem in 1996 but were
not successful in efforts to address it. However, I continue to believe
that lobbyists who engage in this so-called ``Astroturf'' lobbying
should also be required to disclose their spending.
The Wall Street Journal examined this issue when we last reviewed
this and reported that an estimated $790 million was spent on this type
of grassroots lobbying in a 2-year period alone. Accounting for the
growth in the lobbying industry that we have seen over the last decade,
this number is surely over a billion by now.
What sort of activities does money spent on ``Astroturf'' lobbying
efforts pay for? It is spent on phone banks, telephone patch-throughs
to Members, and even professional campaign organizers who are paid to
go to key congressional districts to organize letter-writing campaigns.
These are coordinated efforts costing tens of thousands of dollars
which on their face are part of professional lobbying efforts.
I was pleased to work with Senator Lieberman last year to craft a
provision during the Homeland Security and Government Affairs
Committee's consideration of the lobbying bill that would close this
loophole by requiring disclosure of ``paid efforts to stimulate
grassroots lobbying.'' It requires disclosure by paid lobbyists and
lobbying firms who stimulate the grassroots to take action. We even
went so far as to define pure grassroots lobbying and exclude it from
this provision.
The Lieberman-Levin provision that was included in S. 1 simply
requires disclosure. This provision does not in any way ``restrain'' or
``regulate'' paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying. All that it
does is require paid lobbyists to disclose how much they are spending
on their grassroots lobbying efforts. This disclosure would be no more
burdensome than the disclosure already required by the Lobbying
Disclosure Act for direct lobbying: Amounts spent for efforts to
stimulate grassroots lobbying, like amounts spent on direct lobbying,
would be disclosed only in the form of good-faith estimates, which
would be rounded to the nearest $20,000.
In addition, the provision, like the Lobbying Disclosure Act,
recognizes that certain organizations are already required to track
lobbying expenses, and grassroots lobbying expenses, for IRS purposes.
The provision allows these organizations to use their IRS numbers for
disclosure purposes, ensuring that they do not have to account twice by
different rules.
This section was carefully crafted to exclude certain activities that
are not part of this Astroturf lobbying industry. Efforts by an
organization to communicate with its own members, employees, officers,
or shareholders are expressly excluded. Organizations that exist solely
to lobby Congress but do not employ paid lobbyists do not have to
report. Finally, any grassroots lobbying efforts targeted at less than
500 people do not have to be reported.
I would also like to clarify just who is required to disclose as a
lobbyist under this provision, as there seems to be confusion over this
point. Paragraph (b) of section 220 clearly states that individuals who
are not registered lobbyists now would not have to register as a
lobbyist under this provision so long as their expenditures are only
directed at grassroots lobbying. This provision is intended to shed
light on the dollars being spent by lobbyists. It in no way affects
individuals who want to call or write their Member of Congress.
For the past decade, we have allowed lobbyists to exclude the cost of
their organized grassroots lobbying campaigns, even while they are
reporting their other lobbying expenses. It is time to put an end to
this arbitrary exclusion because the public has a right to know who is
paying how much to whom in an effort to influence our decisions.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Bennett amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 8:10 p.m. having arrived, the
question is on agreeing to the Bennett amendment No. 20.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, before I propound a unanimous consent
request, I would very much like to

[[Page S741]]

thank both leaders. I know this has been a difficult day. I think it
has worked out, and I think that is to the good. I hope everyone else
who has waited hour after hour understands that the leadership was in
negotiations and there is a product of those negotiations.
I, also, thank the ranking member with whom it has been a great
pleasure for me to work. Members should know that we are new. Members
should know that our staffs are new to the committee and that this is
their first bill on the floor. I believe they have done an excellent
job, both on the Democratic side and on the Republican side. It is a
kind of baptism of fire, if you will. I say thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee for
her kind words. I echo her laudatory comments about the staffs on both
sides. This is a baptism of fire for all of us, for my staff and her
staff as well, and they have had enough background that they know how
to swim.
We are very grateful for the cooperation we have received and the
support that has come from the staff. I look forward to a productive
Congress, working with Senator Feinstein on the Rules Committee on all
of the other matters that will come before us.

amendment no. 98

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, in a moment, the Senate will adopt the
Ensign-McCain-DeMint amendment related to scope of conference. I want
to thank Senator McCain and Senator DeMint for working with me on this
amendment.
I also want to explain why this amendment is such an important
improvement over the underlying bill. Under the Constitution, the
legislative branch controls the purse strings. That is a significant
authority given to Congress. Congress must use that authority wisely.
As I explained earlier today on the floor, too often conferees insert
earmarks in conference reports that were not funded in either bill
passed by the House or the Senate.
In a democracy such as ours, Congress should do its business in the
full light of day. The entire Senate should consider, debate, and amend
legislation in full view of the American public. We should scrutinize
how Federal dollars are spent. Each project Congress funds should be
debated and considered by Congress. We must do a better job of
oversight. We must ensure that the taxpayers' dollars are being spent
wisely. But when we insert projects in a conference report, without
debate and without oversight, we fail to live up to our
responsibilities as Senators.
What the Ensign-McCain-DeMint amendment would do is fix what has
become a broken process. My amendment makes clear that a point of order
can be raised against any funding, no matter how specific, for any
program, project, or account that was not originally funded in either
bill sent to conference. This is a simple but critical change. It will
improve how Congress operates, and it will make the Government more
accountable to the American people.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the underlying substitute does include two
provisions that are intended to address the out-of-control earmarking
and porkbarrel spending of the past years. And, the adoption of the
DeMint and Durbin amendments earlier this week have improved upon the
underlying bill to ensure that all earmarks are disclosed--including
those to Federal entities, as well as all that are included in
statements of managers and conference reports. A number of us supported
a similar proposal last year, and I am pleased that the effort was
finally successful.
I am now pleased that additional improvements will be adopted with
respect to section 1 of the underlying bill concerning out of scope
matters in conference reports. The amendment sponsored by Senators
Ensign, DeMint, and myself, which I understand is agreeable on both
sides, would ensure that points of order can be raised against specific
items in conference reports. It would add a definition of any matter so
that members are empowered to remove out of scope earmarks and policy
riders from conference reports without taking down the entire
conference report. And, importantly, it would ensure that funding
associated with any provision stricken from a conference report is
reduced from the total amount appropriated--a critical requirement
missing from the underlying measure.
For example, if a conference report provides $10 million for bridge
improvements, but then adds a directive that $5 million of that funding
should be directed to a specific bridge in a specific place--a
directive that was not included in either the House or Senate bill, our
amendment would ensure the $5 million that accompanies that out of
scope earmark is also removed from the total allocation of the bill. So
that the total appropriated would be $5 million, not $10 million. This
is about fiscal restraint, Mr. President. It makes little sense to
raise a point of order that is sustained against an out of scope
earmark, but to appropriate the funding regardless.
While I support the improvements proposed and accepted so far,
earmark reform still needs to go much further. We need to curtail
earmarks, not just disclose them. The process is clearly broken when
each year Congress continues to earmark billions and billions of
taxpayer dollars, sometimes with virtually no information about the
specifics of those earmarks. The scandal that came to light during the
last Congress that involved earmarking by a former House member--now in
prison--is a pox not just on him, but on each of us and the process
that we have allowed to occur on our watch. The American public, Mr.
President, deserves better. That is what this amendment is about.
The growth in earmarked funding in appropriations bills during the
past 12 years has been staggering. According to data gathered by CRS,
there were 4,126 earmarks in 1994. In 2005, there were 15,877--an
increase of nearly 400 percent. There was a little good news in 2006,
solely due to the fact that the Labor-HHS appropriations bill was
approved almost entirely free of earmarks--an amazing feat given that
there were over 3,000 earmarks the prior year for just that bill.
Despite this first reduction in 12 years, it doesn't change the fact
that the largest number of earmarks in history have still occurred in
the last three years--2004, 2005, and 2006.
Now, let's consider the level of funding associated with those
earmarks. The amount of earmarked funding increased from $23.2 billion
in 1994 to $64 billion in fiscal year 2006. Remarkably, it rose by 34
percent from 2005 to 2006, even though the number of earmarks
decreased. Earmarked dollars have doubled just since 2000, and more
than tripled in the last 10 years. This is wrong and disgraceful and we
urgently need to curtail this seemingly out of control pork barreling
practice that has become the norm around here.
I filed an amendment designed to curtail earmarking. I was pleased to
be joined by Senators Feingold and Graham in introducing amendment No.
29. Unfortunately, it is clear that we will not be given an opportunity
to vote on that amendment and I find myself in the same position as I
was in last March during debate on lobbying reform when I was not
allowed a vote on my amendment. But one day soon, I am confident we
will fundamentally change business as usual with respect to pork barrel
spending. The American public has a powerful voice, and I would have
thought more of us would have heard that voice last November. But I do
want to state my recognition that at least some improvements have been
made to require full disclosure of all earmarks and to prevent out of
scope matters in conference. And, I believe the Ensign, McCain, DeMint
amendment makes further improvements.

Amendment No. 41

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to discuss the
amendment I introduced with Senator Feingold to require that lobbyists
disclose the contributions that they bundle for campaigns. I am
grateful to the leadership for accepting the amendment and believe it
strengthens an already very strong bill.
Neither I nor any of my colleagues enjoy the amount of money that
running for office requires us to raise and spend. And I realize that
having influential people help a campaign by asking their friends for
contributions makes that task a little easier. And so I appreciate how
difficult it can be for us to legislate our own behavior in this area.

[[Page S742]]

But lobbyists who bundle contributions have a personal stake in the
outcome of specific legislation before Congress. And because of that
nexus, lobbyists should have to report who they are raising money for
and the amounts that they are raising--including the contributions that
they collect for campaigns from their networks of friends and
colleagues.
The legislation before us today is meant to shine a bright light on
how lobbyists influence the legislative process. Influence is not just
about free meals or gifts or travel but about the millions upon
millions of dollars raised to get us elected every few years. We should
not keep the biggest role lobbyists play in that process hidden.
We all know that with strict campaign contribution limits, an
important sign of a lobbyist's influence is not only how much money he
gives but also how much he raises from friends and associates. During
the last Presidential campaign, both candidates made great use of
bundling.
For instance, the Bush Rangers each raised over $200,000; the Bush
Pioneers each raised over $100,000. The Kerry campaign also relied on
``vice chairs'' who raised at least $100,000.
According to a USA Today story in 2003: ``Motives for becoming a
bundler include the possibility of increased influence on government
policy and consideration for appointment to ambassadorships and other
government posts.''
And so if we believe that lobbyists should have to disclose campaign
contributions, then they should certainly have to disclose the bundling
they engage in so that the public knows the relationship between
members, their views on policy, and the industries that support them.
Right now, this relationship is largely hidden from public view. So
to correct this gap in the underlying bill, my amendment would require
quarterly reporting of all contributions that a lobbyist collected or
arranged that total more than $200 in a calendar year. This includes
not only campaign contributions, but also contributions to Presidential
libraries, inaugural committees, and lawmakers' charities.
The amendment has the support of all the major reform advocacy
organizations, as well as congressional scholar Norm Ornstein and
Thomas Susman, the chair of the Ethics Committee for the American
League of Lobbyists.
According to Norm Ornstein: ``What is needed is disclosure here--who
is doing the bundling, for whom, and how much. These are simple but
critical steps for openness in the lobbying and money relationship. The
public deserves to know--and this amendment gives them that
opportunity.''
And in Professor Susman's words: ``Full disclosure of these
activities, including the `bundling' of campaign contributions for a
candidate, will not burden or inhibit lobbyists. Lobbyists are proud of
the role that we play in helping to finance federal campaigns, and we
will be just as effective if the public knows about that role as well.
Senator Obama's amendment is a reasonable way to keep these activities
out in the open.''
Under the amendment that Senator Feingold and I are offering,
contributions are considered to be collected by a lobbyist if they are
received by the lobbyist and forwarded to the campaign. Contributions
are considered to be arranged by a lobbyist if there is an arrangement
or understanding between the lobbyist and a campaign that the lobbyist
will receive some kind of credit or recognition for having raised the
money.
In discussing this proposal that I am offering, a Washington Post
editorial this week said: ``No single change would add more to public
understanding of how money really operates in Washington.''
This is an important addition to the bill we are considering, and I
thank my colleagues for accepting it.

Amendments Nos. 9, 98, 51, 31, 33, 77, 41, 57, and 39, as Modified, En
Bloc

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following amendments be considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc, with
the motions to reconsider laid on the table, and that the action
thereupon appear separately in the Record. The amendments are: Vitter
amendment No. 9; Ensign-Demint amendment No. 98; Coburn amendment No.
51; Feingold amendment No. 31; Feingold amendment No. 33; Durbin
amendment No. 77; Obama amendment No. 41; Sanders amendment No. 57; and
Coleman-Cardin amendment No. 39, as modified.
I believe this has been cleared on both sides of the aisle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 9, 51, 31, 33, 41, and 57) were agreed to.
The amendment (No. 39), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. CONGRESSIONAL TRAVEL PUBLIC WEBSITE.

(a) In General.--Not later than January 1, 2008, the
Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of
Representatives shall each establish a publicly available
website without fee or without access charge, that contains
information on all officially related congressional travel
that is subject to disclosure under the gift rules of the
Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, that
includes--
(1) a search engine;
(2) uniform categorization by Member, dates of travel, and
any other common categories associated with congressional
travel; and
(3) all forms filed in the Senate and the House of
Representatives relating to officially-related travel
referred to in paragraph (2), including the ``Disclosure of
Member or Officer's Reimbursed Travel Expenses'' form in the
Senate.
(b) Extension Authority.--If the Secretary of the Senate or
the Clerk of the House of Representatives is unable to meet
the deadline established under subsection (a), the Committee
on Rules and Administration of the Senate or the Committee on
Rules of the House of Representatives may grant an extension
of such date for the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of
the House of Representatives, respectively.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
this section.

Amendments Nos. 98 and 77 to Amendment No. 3, En Bloc

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report amendments Nos. 98 and
77.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], for himself, Mr.
McCain, and Mr. DeMint, proposes an amendment numbered 98 to
amendment No. 3.
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an
amendment numbered 77 to amendment No. 3.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed
to en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 98 and 77) were agreed to, as follows:

amendment no. 98

(Purpose: 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)

Strike page 3, line 9 through page 4, line 12 and insert
the following:
``(a) In General.--A point of order may be made by any
Senator against any item contained in a conference report
that includes or consists of any matter not committed to the
conferees by either House.
(1) For the purpose of this section ``matter not committed
to the conferees by either House'' shall include any item
which consists of a specific provision containing a specific
level of funding for any specific account, specific program,
specific project, or specific activity, when no such specific
funding was provided for such specific account, specific
program, specific project, or specific activity in the
measure originally committed to the conferees by either
House.
(2) For the purpose of Rule XXVIII of the Standing Rules of
the Senate ``matter not committed'' shall include any item
which consists of a specific provision containing a specific
level of funding for any specific account, specific program,
specific project, or specific activity, when no such specific
funding was provided for such specific account, specific
program, specific project, or specific activity in the
measure originally committed to the conferees by either
House.

The point of order may be made and disposed of separately for
each item in violation of this section.
(b) Disposition.--If the point of order raised against an
item in a conference report under subsection (a) is
sustained, then--
(1) the matter in such conference report shall be stricken;
(2) when all other points of order under this section have
been disposed of--
(A) the Senate shall proceed to consider the question of
whether the Senate should recede from its amendment to the
House bill, or its disagreement to the amendment of the
House, and concur with a further amendment, which further
amendment shall consist of only that portion of the
conference report that has not been stricken (any
modification of total amounts appropriated necessary to
reflect the deletion of the matter struck from the conference
report shall be made).

[[Page S743]]

amendment no. 77

(Purpose: To require that amendments and instructions accompanying a
motion to recommit be copied and provided by the Senator offering them
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 read and
identical copies shall be provided by the Senator offering
the amendment or instruction to the desks of the Majority
Leader and the Minority Leader 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.''.

Amendment No. 20

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, utilizing a moment in opposition to the
amendment of my friend from Utah, Mr. Bennett, if the section on
grassroots lobbying in the bill were as Senator Bennett described it
and as other groups on the outside have described it, I would oppose
it.
This provision was in the overall lobbying bill that passed the
Senate 90 to 8 last year. It is a natural extension of what the entire
bill is doing, which is asking for disclosure from professional
lobbying.
Billions of dollars are spent on so-called grassroots lobbying. It is
totally legal, but let's get it out into the sunshine. The individual
groups writing to Members to lobby us do not have to disclose anything.
This only requires disclosure if a group retains a professional
lobbyist and only if they pay that lobbyist more than $25,000 a
quarter.
This is not amateur citizen lobbying. This is to find out who is
getting how much money to influence us. It is not, in any sense, a
limitation on the revered first amendment right to petition Congress
for a redress of grievances. It is an attempt for disclosure consistent
with the entire bill. So I ask my colleagues respectfully to leave this
critical provision in this progressive reform bill.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the amendment
offered by Senator Bennett. This is a very rare instance where I
disagree with my colleague and good friend from Connecticut. I simply
don't want to discourage any effort to increase citizen participation
in Government. Too many citizens are convinced that their voices don't
count. They become apathetic about their Government. They become
convinced they cannot influence our positions. I think activity that
encourages citizens to contact us, to participate in the process,
should be encouraged, not discouraged, and I believe the language in
the bill could well discourage citizen contact with Members of
Congress. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by
the Senator from Utah.
Thank you, Mr. President.

Amendment No. 99

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send a manager's package to the
desk. It combines a number of technical corrections requested by the
Parliamentarian, the Secretary of the Senate, and the Indian Affairs
Committee. It is concurred in by both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for herself
and Mr. Bennett, proposes an amendment numbered 99.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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:

amendment no. 99

(Purpose: to make technical amendments)

On page 4, strike lines 16 through 19.
On page 13, lines 1 and 2, strike ``the Select Committee on
Ethics and''.
On page 15, strike beginning with line 22 through page 16,
line 21, and insert the following:
(a) In General.--Section 207(j)(1) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended, by--
(1) striking ``The restrictions'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) In general.--The restrictions''; and
(2) adding at the end the following:
``(B) Indian tribes.--The restrictions contained in this
section shall not apply to acts done pursuant to section 104
of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(25 U.S.C. 450i).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 104(j) of the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450i(j)) is amended by striking ``and former officers and
employees of the United States employed by Indian tribes may
act as agents or attorneys for or'' and inserting ``or former
officers and employees of the United States who are carrying
out official duties as employees or as elected or appointed
officials of an Indian tribe may communicate with and''.
On page 24, strike lines 11 through 20 and insert the
following:
(A) by striking the first sentence and inserting the
following: ``Not later than 20 days after the end of the
quarterly period beginning on the 1st day of January, April,
July, and October of each year, or on the first business day
after the 20th day if that day is not a business day, in
which a registrant is registered with the Secretary of the
Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, a
registrant shall file a report or reports, as applicable, on
its lobbying activities during such quarterly period.''; and
On page 27, strike line 12 through ``day,'' on line 15 and
insert ``Not later than 20 days after the end of the end of
the quarterly period beginning on the 1st day of January,
April, July, and October of each year, or on the first
business day after the 20th day if that day is not a business
day,''.
On page 46, lines 12 and 13, strike ``over sight and
enforcement'' and insert ``administration''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 99) was agreed to.

Vote on Amendment No. 20

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Bennett
amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 43, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 17 Leg.]

YEAS--55

Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Landrieu
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Salazar
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--43

Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Stabenow
Tester
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Brownback
Johnson

The amendment (No. 20) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Lieberman-Collins
amendment.
The Senator from California.

Amendment No. 30

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, there have been a variety of proposals
for what has been called an Office of Public Integrity. The Senate
voted 67 to 30 against one such proposal last year. Last time, Senators
Johnson and Voinovich, the chairs of the Ethics Committee, stood in
opposition. This time, the new chairs of the Ethics Committee, Senators
Boxer and Cornyn, stand in opposition.
I recognize the strong interest in
this issue, especially by Senators

[[Page S744]]

Lieberman, Collins, Obama, Feingold, McCain, and others. I have spoken
with Senator Obama about it. I have assured him that we would hold a
hearing in the Rules Committee and that we would take a look at this
proposal and what might or might not be done.
I will vote against this amendment, and I will see that the Rules
Committee and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
hold these hearings. They will focus on these proposals and ways of
strengthening ethics enforcement in the Senate.
Let me say this now. I do believe we need to take great care in how
we do this. Yes, we need to reassure the public that those who run
afoul of the Senate rules will be held accountable. But we must make
sure this does not simply become a new tool used by political opponents
who would seek to manipulate the political process by filing false
claims. You can be sure that the minute a claim becomes public, without
any verification as to its veracity, and is released to the public,
that claim will be a 30-second spot in someone's campaign. That is not
what we are about.
We have to also ensure that we do not create an office--with a
special prosecutor bound and determined to justify his or her existence
by creating an atmosphere of ongoing investigation--that will cost
taxpayers millions of dollars. The Constitution provides:

Each House of Congress may determine the Rules of its
Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and,
with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Our Founders knew the importance of this and placed it in article I.
The challenge we face right now is how to do it right and ensure that
the tough ethics rules we are putting in place will be vigorously
overseen and enforced.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to
create an Office of Public Integrity.
This underlying bill is a very good one. It will help to restore
public confidence in the integrity of our decisions. But we leave the
job undone if we do not create an Office of Public Integrity. I thank
the leaders on both sides of the aisle for allowing the Senate to have
a vote on this important issue.
The problem is that the current system is inherently conflicted. We
are our own advisers, we are our own investigators, we are our own
prosecutors, we are our own judges, and we are our own jurors. This
amendment would take only the investigative part of the process and
invest it in an independent, impartial Office of Public Integrity that
would help restore the public's confidence in the integrity of our
ethics system.
I yield the remainder of the time to the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, there is not much to add to my
colleague from Maine. I thank her for her statement.
Basically, we have a very strong reform of the rules by which we
govern our ethics and that of those who lobby before us. What is
missing is an equal reform of the process which would do that.
Nothing in this amendment alters the superior role of the Senate
Ethics Committee pursuant to the Constitution to make final decisions
on claims before it. This amendment simply sets up an independent
investigative office. Incidentally, it is merely responding to what my
friend from California, Senator Feinstein, said. There is actually more
protection against abuse of this process with frivolous complaints than
there is in the current system.
I have a feeling this will not pass tonight, but our committee is
going to take it up and hopefully report out a bill independently later
this session.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 27, nays 71, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 18 Leg.]

YEAS--27

Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Cantwell
Carper
Casey
Collins
Feingold
Graham
Grassley
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Reed
Snowe
Stabenow
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--71

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cardin
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Kennedy
Kyl
Leahy
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb

NOT VOTING--2

Brownback
Johnson

The amendment (No. 30) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The substitute amendment, as amended, is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3), as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I have been privileged to serve as a
legislator--first in the Maryland House of Delegates, then in the U.S.
House of Representatives, and now in the Senate. I appreciate the trust
that the people of Maryland placed in me. And I appreciate how
important it is that we adhere to the strictest ethical standards. The
American people need to believe their Government is on the up and up.
I served on the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct from
1991 to 1997. I served as the ranking member of the adjudicative
subcommittee that investigated and ultimately recommended sanctions
against former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. In 1997, the House
leadership appointed me to serve as the cochairman of the House Ethics
Reform Task Force, with my colleague Bob Livingston from Louisiana. Our
bipartisan task force came up with a comprehensive set of reforms to
overhaul the ethics process. We created a bipartisan package to change
House and committee rules. This was the last bipartisan effort in the
House to fix ethics procedures. Unfortunately, the ethics process in
the House broke down after that.
Here in the Senate, there has been more bipartisan cooperation when
it comes to ethics reform. Last year, the Senate voted 90 to 8 to
approve a reform bill. And we are getting off to a good start this
year, with both the Democratic leader and the Republican leader co-
sponsoring both S. 1 and the substitute amendment. Members on both
sides of the aisle have been given ample opportunity to offer
amendments and have them considered.
As amended, S. 1 represents a significant change in the way elected
officials, senior staff, and lobbyists would do business--change the
American people are demanding.
When it comes to how we treat ourselves, this legislation revokes the
pensions of Members convicted of bribing public officials and
witnesses, perjury, and other crimes. S. 1 bans gifts and meals from
lobbyists. It slows down the revolving door by extending lobbying bans
for former Members and staff. It eliminates floor privileges for former
Members who become lobbyists. And it stops partisan attempts, such as
the K Street Project to influence private-sector hiring. The bill makes
ethics training mandatory for Members and staff.
When it comes to making how Congress works more transparent, this
legislation shines a spotlight on earmarks, targeted tax breaks, and
tariff reduction bills, to make it clear who is

[[Page S745]]

offering them, and on whose behalf. S. 1 ensures that the minority will
get to participate in conference committees, and that conference
reports can't be changed after they're signed by a majority of the
conferees. The bill requires that conference reports have to be posted
on the Internet 48 hours prior to consideration so that Members of
Congress, staff, and the public can find out what's in them.
When it comes to how lobbyists are to act, this legislation puts an
end to the lavish parties they throw in our honor at the national
conventions. S. 1 quadruples the penalty for failure to comply with the
requirements of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. It requires
lobbyists to file quarterly reports instead of semi-annually. And it
directs the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of
Representatives to maintain on the Internet a publicly available
database of lobbying disclosure information.
I am pleased to report that the bill contains an amendment that
Senator Coleman from Minnesota and I offered to require the Secretary
of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives to
establish a website freely available to the public that will contain
easy-to-understand information on all officially related congressional
travel subject to disclosure under the gift rules.
During the debate on S. 1, we have heard over and over again former
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis' famous dictum, ``Sunlight is said
to be the best of disinfectants,'' because it is so true. That is the
direction we are moving in by passing this bill. That is what the
American people want us to do, and that is what we need to do to regain
their trust.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, as allegations of ethical abuses swirl
around their government, the American people have understandably lost
confidence in the ability of their elected representatives to lead with
integrity. Their confidence has dwindled as the undue influence of
lobbyists and special interests has permeated their government. They
have lost faith not only in their elected leaders, but also in the
institutions that stand as the very pillars of our representative
democracy. With their trust waning, Americans spoke at the ballot box
last November, admonishing their elected leaders and declaring that
they would no longer tolerate the exploitation of their government by
those who wield excessive influence.
For this reason, I was gratified to see the House of Representatives
move so quickly on ethics and lobby reform when the 110th Congress
convened, and I was pleased when Majority Leader Reid placed ethics and
lobby reform at the top of the Senate agenda. Both the Legislative
Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 and the Lobbying
Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 enact long overdue ethics
and lobbying reforms that will hold our elected officials to the
highest possible standards.
If we are going to restore the American public's trust in their
government, any reform we enact must squarely confront the undue
influence that special interests and lobbyists exert on the legislative
process. It must strengthen the rules that govern lobbying and close
the revolving door between the ``K Street'' lobby firms and the
Capitol. It must shine a light on what has until now been a legislative
process corrupted by backroom promises and deals struck in the dead of
night. It must promulgate new rules that curb wasteful spending by
creating greater transparency in the earmark process.
Earning back the confidence and trust of the American people will
require greater transparency and stronger laws. The American public
deserves to be certain that their elected officials are not being
swayed by lavish gifts offered as quid pro quo for promoting special
agendas. To that end, gifts from registered lobbyists have no place in
our legislative process. For that reason, I support the sweeping ban on
lobbyist-paid gifts in the Senate bill. This ban includes not just
meals but also gifts of travel and lodging, areas that have been the
subject of notorious abuse.
Our commitment to a new era of openness must go hand in hand with a
similar commitment on the part of lobbyists. We must demand more
disclosure from lobbyists about their practices and increase the
penalties for their failure to disclose their activities. To be clear,
our Constitution protects the right of Americans to petition their
government. However, what it does not do is protect their ability to
hire lobbyists to buy influence by showering elected officials with
expensive gifts and vacations.
Reining in wasteful spending must also be a part of any ethical
reform we enact. Specifically, we must bring reform and accountability
to the process of earmarking. Although the term ``earmark'' has taken
on a negative connotation, the designation of funds for individual
projects or programs is not in and of itself devious. The practice of
earmarking permits essential public projects that would otherwise go
unfunded and ignored to receive critical funds that can sustain their
important community work. However, the process by which earmarks are
currently distributed is susceptible to corruption and abuse, and that
must be corrected by injecting both accountability and transparency
into the process.
In order to promote accountability, the Senate bill requires that the
legislator sponsoring the earmark identify him or herself and provide a
description explaining the ``government purpose'' served by the
sponsored project. Additionally, I believe we can improve
accountability by mandating publication of the earmark for a minimum
period of time prior to any vote on the underlying measure, ensuring
that both other elected officials and the general public have the
opportunity to scrutinize the sponsored outlay. Taking these common
sense steps would ensure that legislators are made to answer for the
spending they sponsor.
The American people demand a more open and honest government, one
that strives to put their concerns ahead of those of special interest,
one that endeavors to hold its elected officials accountable to the
electorate, and one that inspires the confidence of its people. In
order to achieve these goals, we must remove any semblance of
impropriety. The reforms contained in both the Legislative Transparency
and Accountability Act of 2007 and the Lobbying Transparency and
Accountability Act of 2007 enact much-needed and long-awaited reforms
that move us toward those goals.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor to
this Senate ethics reform legislation. The American people sent a clear
message in the last election. No more scandals. No more bribes. No more
dirty politics. They wanted real ethics reform. The American people
want to know that Congress is working in their interest--not for
special interests. The American people deserve a government which is
honest and open. They want a government which will fight for their
values not for corporate values. Democrats have made it our top
priority to clean up Washington and clean up politics.
What does this bill do? This bill bans all gifts and travel from
lobbyists. It closes the revolving door by extending the lobbying ban
for former Members of Congress from one to two years. It improves
lobbying disclosure requirements and brings transparency to the Senate.
Finally, it requires that all Senators and their staff attend ethics
training.
The American people wanted to clean up Washington. They wanted real
ethics reform. They wanted to know that lawmakers are fighting for the
people they represent--not the special interest lobbyists. This bill
holds lawmakers and lobbyists accountable by creating real penalties
for those who break the law--by punishing them with jail time not just
fines. This bill sets the tone for this Congress--dirty politics will
not be tolerated.
The American people demanded change in the last election. They wanted
a government they could trust. They wanted a government that would
protect everyday, hardworking Americans. This bill is a step in the
right direction. We are listening to what American people are telling
us. We here in the U.S. Senate are taking their concerns seriously. We
are making changes in Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The question is on the
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was
read the third time.

[[Page S746]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, for the information of all Senators, we
will have a vote Tuesday morning--well, at least by noon Tuesday. No
votes Friday or Monday, but we will vote Tuesday at noon or
thereabouts.
Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 2, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 19 Leg.]

YEAS--96

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
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

NAYS--2

Coburn
Hatch

NOT VOTING--2

Brownback
Johnson

The bill (S. 1), as amended, was passed, as follows:
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Mr. BENNETT. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I had asked for this time to spend a few
minutes talking about what has happened in the last few weeks. One of
the things that is going on in our country is that we have a little bit
of a crisis of confidence in our legislative bodies. Some of it is well
deserved.
We have had a bill on the floor under the guise of ethics reform. The
bill is a statute. It is not a rule. It is going to become law. But I
think the American people should be on guard. I was one of two people
who voted against this bill and for some very good reasons.
What the American people would like to see is transparency. They
would like to see clarity. They would like to see sunshine. Some of the
amendments to this bill made it much better; there is no question about
that. But some of the things that happened along the way did not allow
the American people to really know what is going on in terms of what
needs to change. A lot of the amendments tonight were accepted only on
the basis that they would preclude debate. Now it is Thursday night.
The Senate is not in session tomorrow. And the question people have to
ask is, why didn't we debate those amendments? Why didn't we want to
debate those amendments? The reason we didn't want to debate those
amendments is because they are going to be discarded as soon as we get
to conference.
Let me talk about one of them because I believe it is important. We
have had hundreds of stories over the last 2 years of Members of
Congress who have used the earmark process to enhance the well-being of
either members of their office staff's families, personal family
members, and even in the House a couple of occasions where they helped
themselves. I am thinking particularly about a $1.2 million road that
was built for properties owned by the Member of Congress. That fact is,
that should have been debated. The American people need to know what
the problems are, and there needs to be sunshine. There needs to be
transparency about what we do.
The question the American people ought to ask is: What is going to
happen when this bill goes to conference and what is going to come out?
And is all the rhetoric we heard on the floor truly going to be
reflected in an ethics bill that will change behavior?
A lot of effort has been concentrated on lobbyists. Lobbyists aren't
the problem. Members of Congress are the problem. And transparency
solves that problem. So we are not going to have transparency anymore.
We are going to say you can't take a meal from somebody, but you
certainly can deliver on a couple-million-dollar earmark. And we are
going to create a situation where we say we are going to expose it, but
you shouldn't count on that happening until the final bill comes.
My faith and my hope is that we put everything we have done away and
don't do any of the things that have been accepted by the Senate
tonight because of fear of political consequences, but that we do what
the American people want, and that is to be transparent in both our
actions and our deeds. The way to clean up ethical problems in Congress
is for the Members to be transparent about what they do. So if this
bill were to come back and we pass it just as it is, we are going to go
through all these hoops that will have been created, and we are going
to make sure people don't come to the Senate to serve. We are going to
have a ``gotcha'' system. That is what we just passed. Good, honorable
people of integrity are going to make an innocent mistake, and they are
going to be gotten. I am not talking about the things that were
intentionally done that we have seen over the past 4 to 6 years from
both parties. I am talking about good, honest people making an innocent
mistake, and it is going to ruin them. Consequently, people are not
going to come here. Only those who are shielded and armored, who are
careerists and have enough money that no matter what happens, they can
defend themselves with the trial lawyers they are going to need to
defend themselves after we pass all these rules that are going to come.
I know this sounds a bit negative now that we have passed supposedly
an ethics reform bill. But my warning to the American people and to
this body is, we should measure that when we see the final product. And
we should measure the final product against Senator DeMint's amendment
for true transparency on earmarks, my amendment on true lack of ethical
bias in terms of monetary gain for staff members' families or Members'
families in terms of earmarks. My faith will be renewed if, in fact, we
come out with a great ethics bill. I wait and remain to be convinced
that that will be the case.
The final point I want to make is process. Why did we not want to
debate in front of the American people the idea that it is unethical
for somebody to gain monetarily, directly or indirectly, staff member
or staff member's family, Member's family or Member, from an earmark?
Why did we not want to debate that? That is a question the press ought
to be asking. That is a question we all ought to be asking, as the
conference comes back.
The way we solve the problems with ethics in the Senate is through
complete and total transparency about what we do. And if we are not
ashamed of what we are doing, we should not be ashamed of putting up
what we are doing and how we are doing it.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S747]]

____________________