Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006

Mr. President, in recent months, the public has been shocked and outraged over stories dealing with abusive and, I believe, criminal practices--and so do various prosecutors--by lobbyists, senior administration officials, Members of Congress, and even congressional staff. A number of these participants in these schemes that breached the public trust have pled guilty--Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, former staffer for the recent House Republican Majority Leader Michael Scanlon, Republican Member of Congress Duke Cunningham, and one of his coconspirators, Michael Wade. Others are under indictment, including President Bush's political appointee David Safavian.

The guilty pleas, indictments, and documents released to date suggest wrongdoing or improper behavior by many others, including a former Deputy Secretary of the Interior, other former aides to the recent House Republican majority leader, former aides to Republican Senators; Grover Norquist, a close ally of the Bush White House; Ralph Reed, long-time political operative for the Republicans--in fact, he has been State chair of at least one State party--and, of course, the heads of two other groups closely associated with the Republican Party.

The American people understand these are not one or two isolated incidents. They understand this is a clear pattern of wrongdoing-- wrongdoing that can only be explained by an alarming sense of impunity. The public understands these individuals felt that they were above the law. They felt they could ignore the rules. They felt government was not there to serve the people's interest but to serve their own special interests or the interests of some of their cronies.

The public has seen a Republican culture that has distorted government priority and grown into the greatest government scandal since Watergate. So as we begin this debate, it is important to realize this wrongdoing often violated existing laws and congressional ethics rules. It is already illegal to offer or accept a bribe. It is already illegal to defraud your clients. It is already illegal to lie and commit perjury. The rules already prohibit Members from taking trips that have no real business purpose and are just excuses for a golf outing. So much of what went on was already criminal or certainly clearly unethical. The problem, in many cases, was not in the rules. It was in the culture that allowed everyone to believe they could ignore the rules.

But in some cases it was clear, the rules have shortcomings. So even though a number of the things that people did clearly violated the rules we now have, in some of these cases it was clear that the rules had shortcomings and we needed to beef them up. In these areas, we need to expand disclosure and tighten rules that have been abused. We also need to find a way to restore public faith in the integrity of our Federal Government.

The best way to do this is to show the public we take this issue seriously and that we will act aggressively and swiftly to change the culture in the Nation's Capital.

That is why I am satisfied with what my Democratic colleagues have been able to do with this legislation that will shortly be before the Senate. As soon as we returned from the winter recess, we, as a caucus, acted decisively. We unveiled sweeping reform principles and backed them with legislation. It is one thing to address this issue through quickly called press conferences that offer no details; it is another to put reform to paper and to use a reform bill that has supported virtually the entire

Democratic caucus. That is what we did.

The Honest Leadership Act fundamentally changed the debate on ethics and lobbying reform. It is hard to draft legislation. I called upon my staff, one of my most senior persons, someone who was the chief of staff of the Commerce Committee under Senator Hollings, Kevin Kayes. He has worked hard. Saturday nights, Sunday nights, I have spoken to him. I acknowledge the hard work that he has done on this legislation. I appreciate it very much.

We put on paper what we thought was the best thing for this institution. The Honest Leadership Act, Open Government Act, fundamentally changed the debate on ethic and lobbying reform. Democrats stood united. United we said: We are not going to let this process drag on and hope that people get distracted. We are going to seize the initiative and begin to change the culture that we find in Washington. Democrats established the baseline for reform by getting caucus-wide support for a tough and comprehensively formed bill. Democrats raised the stakes on this issue and forced the Senate to deal with this in a meaningful way.

We have had a number of participants on the Democratic side of the aisle. This is not in the order of how hard they have worked, but I express my appreciation--because they have all worked hard--to Senator Dodd, Senator Lieberman, the ranking members of the Committee on Rules and Government Operations Committees. I appreciate the work of Senator Feingold who has been involved in these issues for many years. And a new Senator, Mr. Obama, has done such a good job of expressing himself to the American public how we feel on this side of the aisle about the need to change what is going on in Washington. Senator Levin has also been a stalwart, helpful from the very beginning. He, like Senator Feingold, has been involved in these issues for a long time.

It would not be fair to just list the Democrats. The work performed in the Committee on Rules was a hard job. It was the first body to take this up. It showed the experience of Senator Dodd and Senator Lott. They had a cordial relationship going into this which helped significantly in moving that bill out of the committee very quickly. Senator Lieberman worked very hard with Senator Collins. They came up with another piece of legislation as a result of their ability to work together. I appreciate Senator Lott very much and Senator Collins for their work, working with Democrats. Their work did advance the reform proposals that we introduced.

It goes without saying I am glad we are here today. It is fair to say we would not be here and certainly not with this strong piece of legislation from the Committee on Government Operations and the Rules Committee if not for the efforts of my caucus.

In fact, much of what Democrats supported in S. 2180 has been included in the bills that will come before the Senate today which will be united into one bill. What are some of the things we have done? I will not mention all of them, but I will mention some. Slow the revolving door between government jobs and lucrative private sector employment. Revoke floor privileges for former member lobbyists. A former Member has to decide, if they want to come to the Senate, they are not going to be able to do their work here if they are lobbyists. That is unfair to some who also are lobbyists who certainly never used the floor in any negative way. I think I can say that for most all.

We have to do away with what is wrong and with what appears to be wrong. This legislation will be in the Senate in less than an hour and it eliminates gifts paid for by lobbyists, not just disclosure gifts. There will be more disclosure and scrutiny of privately funded travel. This legislation will stop dead-of-night legislating by making conference reports available on the Internet. This legislation will require more frequent and more detailed lobbyists' disclosure available on the Internet. And there is increased civil rights penalties for violations.

This legislation required ethics training. It will require ethics training for congressional staff and will require disclosure for stealth lobbying campaigns by business coalitions and other organizations that slipped under the radar screen in the past. They will not any more.

Not all of what the Democrats sought is in this bill. I know that. In some cases, the provisions included are weaker than what was in our proposal. But we will offer amendments to strengthen the bill in these areas.

I am pleased that so much of what we worked for as a caucus has now gained broad bipartisan support. We have tried very hard. There are some groups, quite frankly, that there is not enough we could ever do, no matter what we do would never be enough. But it is important to recognize while there may be some outside groups who think we have not done enough, we have done a lot.

During this debate, I hope we remain honest with the American people about an important point. When we approve this legislation--I am hopeful in conference we will--we will not have put the Abramoff scandal behind us. Indeed, it is likely that future indictments and additional revelations will end any confusion on this point. The only way we put the Abramoff and other scandals behind us and restore the public faith in government is by each and every one of us, all 100 of us, and our staffs, conducting ourselves and operating this institution with the highest level of integrity.

This legislation will set parameters that will be easier to follow. The costs of corruption are high, and it is the American people who pay for it. What has happened in Washington has eroded the ability of our Government to meet the needs of our people.

Look at this administration's response to Hurricane Katrina and the growing national unease about our security, both here and abroad. Just imagine, if Duke Cunningham and his coconspirators had not succeeded in spending tens of millions of taxpayers dollars to give their cronies bogus contracts, that money could have been used to pay for body armor, port security, or some other critical need. This is only one example.

The culture of corruption distorts our priorities and frustrates efforts to address the real needs of Americans, these Americans who are trying to cope with high natural gas prices to heat their homes, high fuel prices for the cars, concerns about their own retirement security, and a growing sense that they are having to work harder and harder to maintain even their current standard of living. Each one of us came here to serve the American people. We have been given a tremendously difficult responsibility. But it is one we all sought. Of course, it is a real privilege.

I am confident we can clean up the situation we now have in Washington so we can get on with the Nation's business. America deserves a government as good as its people. Together, America can do better.

I send an amendment to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, when we returned from the winter recess, this Democratic minority acted decisively by introducing S. 2180, which we call the Honest Leadership Act. We put reform to paper and established the baseline for the Senate by getting caucuswide support for what we believe is a very tough and comprehensive reform piece of legislation.

Much of what we worked for as a caucus has now gained bipartisan support. I appreciate the work done by Senators Lott and Dodd. I appreciate the work done by Senators Lieberman and Collins. I especially appreciate the work of the committee members, both Democrats and Republicans.

What we have now is a molding of both the bill that came out of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Rules Committee. That bill included a significant portion of the bill we introduced. I compliment and applaud the two committees for getting us to the point where we are.

There are aspects of the reported bills that need to be strengthened. As far as these measures now before the Senate, we want them to be consistent with legislation we introduced earlier this year. The amendment I have offered does that.

The amendment would make a number of changes to the pending bill. It would prohibit sitting Members of the Senate and senior legislative and executive branch employees from negotiating for private sector employment where a conflict or appearance of a conflict exists.

This amendment would impose criminal penalties in order to put a stop to the system of what many believe is a system of corruption that developed under the so-called K Street project. The K Street project was a form of institutionalized corruption in which Members of Congress limited access to government offices and influence over policy matters, or threatened to do so, as a means of forcing corporations, trade associations, and lobbying firms to hire Republicans and to tilt their political contributions to Republicans. It is a pay-to-play scheme as blatant and arrogant as anyone has seen in Congress.

This amendment increases civil and criminal penalties under the Lobbying Disclosure Act for individuals who knowingly and willingly file false information.

This amendment puts an end to the dead-of-night legislating and the practice of shutting Members and the public out of conference committee proceedings.

One of our real complaints since we have become a minority is the majority does not even go through the sham of holding a conference. They just march over in someone's office and say: This is what the bill is going to be.

That is not the way things previously were done. We had public meetings where there were debates and votes in public. That is what we want to be the future of this Senate. This amendment requires the conference committees hold regular formal open meetings and that each member of the conference be afforded an opportunity to vote on the full text of the bill in open session.

This amendment prohibits all gifts from lobbyists, including meals. This amendment goes beyond simple disclosure and prohibits outside interests who advocate before the Congress from paying for travel for Members and staff, and bans most privately funded travel by companies, groups, business associations, and other special interests that lobby Congress. There would be a limited exemption for travel sponsored by 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charities and educational groups that would be required to certify that lobbyists did not finance, organize, or participate in the travel.

We worked hard to get this bill to the Senate. I hope this amendment will give us the bipartisan support we need to strengthen this legislation now before the Senate.

I am disappointed we have heard today that the House Republican leaders have stated that they prefer a partisan approach, something different than we have had in the Senate to this point. The House Republican leaders have said they intend to tack regulation of 527 groups onto their yet-to-be-seen lobbying reform bill. They also want to pair regulation of 527 groups with measures to weaken McCain- Feingold laws in a way that would principally benefit the majority.

In fact, these are the only clear priorities House Republican leaders appear to have for their bill. That is where the House Republicans' narrow interest lies. Theirs is a partisan goal of changing the rules of our campaign finance system to hedge against the possibility of Republican election losses this fall. They think if you cannot win under the rules, then change them. That is what the House Republican leaders plan.

What we have in the Senate, to this point, has been bipartisan, Democrats and Republicans. What has been talked about in the House today is anti-reform legislation. Our Senate leaders--and I am directing my attention principally to the two committees--have rejected this effort and, again, I congratulate them for that.

As Senator Dodd so aptly put it yesterday, campaign finance reform is much larger than the narrow question of 527 groups. The House Republican leaders want to shut those down because of the perception that these groups benefit Democrats. But what about trade associations which engage in the same types of activities? What about these foundations that we have heard so much about lately that pay relatives and friends and campaign workers? We know these trade associations engage in activities because we have seen their handiwork in advertisements, political advertisements for Republican candidates up this cycle. They were also active in 2004.

Yet the trade associations engaging in these activities are even less regulated than 527 groups. They are not required, as 527s are, to disclose their expenditures and their donors. They operate in the shadows. These groups principally benefit Republicans.

We also need to crack down on abuses of foundations, as I mentioned, and charities which are used by Members for personal gain or for campaign purposes. Curiously, we do not hear Republican calls to regulate any of these activities.

So what Senator Dodd and I say is, if we are going to have a debate on foundations, trade associations, and 527s, let's have a debate on that and not try to bury what we have on the floor, an Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. I understand it is a way that the House thinks it will take this bill down. But as Senator Dodd said, if this comes back from a conference and this is the issue, there will not be lobbying reform. That would be very unfair, wrong for this institution.

As important as these campaign finance issues are, they are on the periphery, really, of the big issue; that is, how do we pay for campaigns? Is public financing--which some Senators believe is the right way to go--where we need to go? That is why a debate should be on campaign finance reform and not trying to muddle up and confuse the Senate on the issue now before us.

Lobbying reform, of all things, should not be twisted into a vehicle exploited by one party to gain electoral advantage. If that is a path which is chosen, it will be a poison pill. The legislation will come down. I hope this does not happen. We have worked with Republicans so far to make sure this issue does not get entangled with campaign finance reform, such as the public funding of campaigns or the regulation of these 527 groups. I hope we can continue to do that.

This amendment is, in effect, an effort to plug the holes that were not placed in this legislation by the Rules Committee and the Homeland Security Committee. I hope we have a good debate on this issue. This is not something that should take a long time. I have told the distinguished majority leader this is no attempt to stall this legislation. I have told the majority leader that unless there are issues outside of what the two committees did that are within their jurisdiction, we

have no intention of offering a myriad of issues we have Members clamoring to offer--issues on the port security deal, minimum wage, all kinds of things dealing with health care. There is a long list of issues we want to bring up as soon as possible, but we are not going to do it on this legislation. We believe this should be for lobbying reform. So I think it needs the good faith of both parties to see if we can move down that road.

I have asked my caucus, if they want to speak on this issue, to do it as soon as they can, hopefully in the morning when we come in. It would be good if we could have a vote before we go to our respective lunches. The majority has a Steering Committee meeting every Wednesday. We have a special caucus tomorrow. It would be good if we could wrap up the vote before then.

Mr. President, I wish everyone a good evening. Good night.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Lautenberg today to introduce urgent legislation to assist the many States which have stepped forward to provide an essential safety net to our Medicare Part D beneficiaries. Our States have acted as ``payers of last resort''--as beneficiaries faced unaffordable costs when errors in implementing their coverage denied them access to vital medications. The Medicare State Reimbursement Act will reimburse our States for their costs in assuring that millions receive their medications. So many of our colleagues have recognized the crisis which was averted-- Senators Coleman, Schumer, DeWine, Feinstein, Collins, Jeffords and many more have joined us in this bipartisan effort to support the States in the vital role they have played in countering a deficit of action by the Federal bureaucracy.

The introduction of the prescription drug benefit is a landmark step in the progress of Medicare. This benefit will save the average senior about $1,000 per year. This is the relief that millions have needed for so long. It must eliminate the terrible choices so many have had to make between vital medications and the other essentials of life--not create new dilemmas.

As we worked to ensure a prescription drug benefit, many of us worked hard to assure special help to those with the most limited resources. We enacted a benefit which provided additional help for those on limited incomes, including millions who rely on both Medicare and Medicaid--our ``dual eligibles''. It was essential that these individuals would see uninterrupted coverage of their essential medications. So we needed to ensure each would be enrolled in a drug plan. To do this, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, randomly assigned each of them to a plan. In a program based on competition--based on choices--plans are going to differ. To find the best plan, one must make an educated choice, not a random assignment.

So the result of random assignment was predictable. Many beneficiaries wound up in plans which did not cover their drugs. My State of Maine immediately stepped forward to work to assure that every beneficiary was matched with the plan which best met their needs. As plans were reviewed, my State found a third of those reviewed--15,000 beneficiaries--were not enrolled in the most appropriate drug plan. Getting each into the plan that met their medication requirements was essential to meeting their needs.

Despite these best efforts to improve the situation, some beneficiaries were not in a plan at all, while others were in plans which seemed not to understand that every beneficiary was to be allowed a refill of their existing medications. So as beneficiaries came to their local pharmacies to get prescription refills, many faced great obstacles in getting the drugs they needed. We had heard of some problems in validating enrollment eligibility, but at year end, these just became worse, and we found beneficiaries were not properly enrolled, plans were not giving the proper transition refills, and co- payments charged were often excessive. As individual faced co-payments of $100 or more--instead of the $5 or less they should have been charged--many simply couldn't afford their medications. Thankfully, our States have stepped in to make sure low income seniors received their medications. In Maine alone, approximately $5 million in assistance has been given to ensure medications are dispensed.

This drug benefit must increase access, not make it more difficult. I am appalled, that with all the technology we have, so many have faced such difficulties in the implementation of this benefit. I salute the forbearance of our pharmacies, as they strived to meet essential needs, and the efforts of my State and others which have assured that these most vulnerable Americans not suffer from the failures of either the Federal bureaucracy or the plan administrators.

So what this legislation does is simple. It authorizes CMS to reimburse the States their costs which they paid for providing medications to those who did not receive the benefits to which they were entitled. It does this by a simple mechanism: an adjustment in the ``claw back'' payments which States make as their contribution for their dual eligibles. Accordingly, CMS is authorized to collect those funds from those who were obligated to serve our beneficiaries--the drug plans and managed care plans which deliver the drug benefit.

It has been confirmed that CMS does not presently have this authority, and it simply is not acceptable to propose that CMS will simply help the States collect from the plans. It was CMS which approved the plans, and it is CMS which administers Part D. They are in the best position to assure plan compliance.

I look forward to prompt consideration of this legislation, and look forward to continuing work with my colleagues to assure that the Medicare drug benefit meets the needs of all our beneficiaries, and that none of our most vulnerable citizens should suffer from such administrative failures as we have seen here.

I call on my colleagues to join us in assuring our States are justly compensated.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Lautenberg today to introduce urgent legislation to assist the many States which have stepped forward to provide an essential safety net to our Medicare Part D beneficiaries. Our States have acted as ``payers of last resort''--as beneficiaries faced unaffordable costs when errors in implementing their coverage

denied them access to vital medications. The Medicare State Reimbursement Act will reimburse our States for their costs in assuring that millions receive their medications. So many of our colleagues have recognized the crisis which was averted--Senators Coleman, Schumer, DeWine, Feinstein, Collins, Jeffords and many more have joined us in this bipartisan effort to support the States in the vital role they have played in countering a deficit of action by the Federal bureaucracy.

The introduction of the prescription drug benefit is a landmark step in the progress of Medicare. This benefit will save the average senior about $1,000 per year. This is the relief that millions have needed for so long. It must eliminate the terrible choices so many have had to make between vital medications and the other essentials of life--not create new dilemmas.

As we worked to ensure a prescription drug benefit, many of us worked hard to assure special help to those with the most limited resources. We enacted a benefit which provided additional help for those on limited incomes, including millions who rely on both Medicare and Medicaid--our ``dual eligibles''. It was essential that these individuals would see uninterrupted coverage of their essential medications. So we needed to ensure each would be enrolled in a drug plan. To do this, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, randomly assigned each of them to a plan. In a program based on competition--based on choices--plans are going to differ. To find the best plan, one must make an educated choice, not a random assignment.

So the result of random assignment was predictable. Many beneficiaries wound up in plans which did not cover their drugs. My State of Maine immediately stepped forward to work to assure that every beneficiary was matched with the plan which best met their needs. As plans were reviewed, my State found a third of those reviewed--15,000 beneficiaries--were not enrolled in the most appropriate drug plan. Getting each into the plan that met their medication requirements was essential to meeting their needs.

Despite these best efforts to improve the situation, some beneficiaries were not in a plan at all, while others were in plans which seemed not to understand that every beneficiary was to be allowed a refill of their existing medications. So as beneficiaries came to their local pharmacies to get prescription refills, many faced great obstacles in getting the drugs they needed. We had heard of some problems in validating enrollment eligibility, but at year end, these just became worse, and we found beneficiaries were not properly enrolled, plans were not giving the proper transition refills, and co- payments charged were often excessive. As individual faced co-payments of $100 or more--instead of the $5 or less they should have been charged--many simply couldn't afford their medications. Thankfully, our States have stepped in to make sure low income seniors received their medications. In Maine alone, approximately $5 million in assistance has been given to ensure medications are dispensed.

This drug benefit must increase access, not make it more difficult. I am appalled, that with all the technology we have, so many have faced such difficulties in the implementation of this benefit. I salute the forbearance of our pharmacies, as they strived to meet essential needs, and the efforts of my State and others which have assured that these most vulnerable Americans not suffer from the failures of either the Federal bureaucracy or the plan administrators.

So what this legislation does is simple. It authorizes CMS to reimburse the States their costs which they paid for providing medications to those who did not receive the benefits to which they were entitled. It does this by a simple mechanism: an adjustment in the ``claw back'' payments which States make as their contribution for their dual eligibles. Accordingly, CMS is authorized to collect those funds from those who were obligated to serve our beneficiaries--the drug plans and managed care plans which deliver the drug benefit.

It has been confirmed that CMS does not presently have this authority, and it simply is not acceptable to propose that CMS will simply help the States collect from the plans. It was CMS which approved the plans, and it is CMS which administers Part D. They are in the best position to assure plan compliance.

I look forward to prompt consideration of this legislation, and look forward to continuing work with my colleagues to assure that the Medicare drug benefit meets the needs of all our beneficiaries, and that none of our most vulnerable citizens should suffer from such administrative failures as we have seen here.

I call on my colleagues to join us in assuring our States are justly compensated.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Lautenberg, Snowe, Schumer, Coleman and many others to introduce legislation to reimburse States for prescription drug expenses they have incurred for their residents who are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. States have had no other option but to step in and ensure seniors can still get their drugs because the implementation of the new Medicare drug benefit has been so poorly handled by the Bush administration.

The faulty implementation of the new drug benefit has caused a major

health emergency in California and States across the country, particularly for seniors with chronic and debilitating diseases who rely on multiple medications every day to keep them alive.

It is incomprehensible to me that with all the money and time given to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, to implement this new drug benefit, stories emerge every day of seniors and disabled individuals being hospitalized because they are being told they have to pay hundreds of dollars for their medications which they cannot afford and thus don't take.

Because of severe glitches in the database run by CMS, these individuals are leaving pharmacies without their medications or are making undue sacrifices to pay for costs they should not have incurred in the first place.

So far, more than 24 States and the District of Columbia have stepped in to say they will cover the cost of prescription drugs for their residents who are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid and who cannot access lifesaving and life sustaining drugs as a result of Federal incompetence.

Earlier this week, the Governor of California and California's State legislative leaders announced a plan to make $150 million available for 30 days to cover drug costs for dual eligible individuals who have fallen through the system. In California, these individuals account for more than 1 million of the State's 4 million total Medicare recipients.

Problems with the Bush administration's implementation of the drug benefit have cost California $5.5 million to fill 63,000 prescriptions, as of January 18. I have no doubt these costs are just the beginning.

Unless these significant implementation errors are fixed immediately, the new drug benefit amounts to a massive unfunded mandate. The Bush administration must reimburse States, in full, for the drug costs they have absorbed as a result of major implementation errors that occurred on their watch.

The legislation I am introducing today with Senators Lautenberg, Snowe, Schumer and Coleman will ensure that States are repaid in full by the Federal Government for all costs associated with prescription drugs for dual eligible individuals. The States did not create the crisis felt by our Nation's poorest and most vulnerable seniors and disabled and the States should not be responsible for costs associated with a Federal program that was intended to provide these individuals with comprehensive prescription drug coverage at little or no cost.

It is simply unacceptable for the Bush administration to tell States and the Congress not to worry because the private health insurance plans will reimburse States for the costs they've incurred. States should not be made to wait to be reimbursed because of implementation foul-ups caused by CMS.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.