A resolution reforming the congressional earmark process.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Senate earmark transparency rules that have not been implemented after so many months. As my colleagues know, we passed two new Senate rules back in January that would shine some light on the earmarking process. It would require us to be open and honest about how we spend American tax dollars.

Unfortunately, these Senate rules, which have nothing to do with the House of Representatives, have been held hostage so they can be gutted in secret when no one is looking. That is right; there are some in this Chamber who don't want to disclose their earmarks, don't want to certify in writing that they will not benefit financially from their earmarks. There are some who want to be able to continue the practice of adding secret earmarks to our bills in closed-door conference committees.

The earmark disclosure rule was originally offered this year as an amendment to S. 1, the lobbying and ethics reform bill. I offered this amendment because the disclosure requirements the majority leader included in his ethics reform bill only covered 5 percent of earmarks that we pass every year. I believed then, as I do now, that disclosure of only 5 percent of our earmarks is not reform and represents business as usual.

As my colleagues know, the leadership on the other side of the aisle originally opposed my amendment and actually tried to kill it. They said it was too broad and that the language, which came directly from Speaker Pelosi in the House, was rushed and therefore flawed.

The majority leader said on January 11:

. . . the distinguished Senator from South Carolina has

said this is exactly like the House provision. I say to my

friend that is one of the problems I have with it because I,

frankly, do not think they spent the time we have on this.

The same day Senator Durbin said:

But the DeMint language is actually unworkable because it

is so broad. . . . Frankly, it would make this a very

burdensome responsibility.

Fortunately, the Senate refused to table the amendment and the Democratic leadership was forced to support full earmark disclosure. To save face, the other side came with a slightly modified version that they said was better than the House language because it required 48 hours of notice on the Internet of all earmarks. We all agreed to this language and passed the Durbin Amendment 98 to 0.

The Democratic leadership immediately changed their tune once the bill was passed. The majority leader said on January 16:

In effect, we have combined the best ideas from both sides

of the aisle, Democrat and Republican, to establish the

strongest possible disclosure rules in this regard.

Senator Durbin said:

I am pleased with this bipartisan solution. . . . I believe

it reflects the intent of all on both sides of the aisle to

make sure there is more disclosure.

Later in the debate, the Senate unanimously accepted an amendment prohibiting the practice of what we call airdropping earmarks in conference; that is, adding earmarks that were not included in either the House or the Senate versions of the bill. Again, we all agreed to this language and accepted it unanimously.

Unfortunately, that is when the public eye turned away from this issue and when the bipartisan support for earmark reform ended.

I came to this floor on Thursday, March 29--70 days after we passed the Senate earmark transparency rules--and asked for consent to enact them. But a Senator on the other side objected. The reason for his objection, according to several news reports, was that the other side of the aisle was caught off guard and was not properly notified.

Well, that sounded somewhat plausible, so I came back to this floor on Tuesday, April 17--89 days after we passed the Senate earmark transparency rules which, again, have yet to be enacted. A Senator on the other side still objected. But this time it was Senator Durbin who objected--the very Senator who worked with me to author the new earmark disclosure rule. He objected to his own amendment being enacted. He said he did so because he didn't believe we should enact ethics reform in a piecemeal way.

But then the majority immediately announced it would self-enforce some of the new earmark transparency rules in a piecemeal way. They said they would allow each committee to decide if and how to disclose their earmarks.

The Congressional Research Service recently provided me with a review of all earmark rules being used in the Senate committees. The analysis shows that the rules have not been applied in many committees, and even those that have been created informally cannot be enforced on the Senate floor. According to CRS, only 4 out of 18 committees have even created an informal rule.

This shows what we all know to be true: The rules are being implemented in a piecemeal way, which is exactly what the other side said they wanted to avoid. It is clear we need a formal rule in place that applies to all committees. That is what we voted for at the beginning of the year when we wanted to show Americans we were going to address the culture of corruption in Washington, and that is what we need to do now.

I came down to this floor shortly before the July 4 recess to talk with the majority leader about these earmark rules. He wanted to go to conference with the House bill, S. 1, the ethics and lobbying reform bill, and I wanted to get his personal assurances that these earmark rules would not be watered down or eliminated behind closed doors. Unfortunately, the majority leader told me he could not give me those assurances, which was a clear sign that the folks working on this bill had plans to weaken the earmark transparency rules we adopted in January.

I tried again to get consent to enact these rules on Thursday, June 28, 161 days after they had passed, and again the other side objected. The reason this time, which was a complete departure from what they said before, was that the other side planned to work with the House to change the rules and that it was unreasonable for me to demand that they be protected.

The majority leader said:

There will be some things that will wind up being a Senate

rule. Some things will wind up being a House rule. That is

part of what the conference is going to work out. No one is

trying to detract from anything that the distinguished

Senator from South Carolina wants. But just because you want

something doesn't mean that you are necessarily going to get

it.

Senator Schumer echoed their desire to change the rules by saying:

. . . maybe there are things that other people might add;

maybe there will be the kinds of legislative tradeoffs that

will make a stronger ethics bill. We all have no way of

knowing . . . To get 90 percent or 95 percent of what is a

good package, most people would say yes.

And Senator Durbin sought to belittle my effort to protect the earmark rules, saying:

It would seem that the Senator from South Carolina is

carping on a trifle here.

And I was carping on his bill. There are three words to describe what is going on here, Mr. President: business as usual. This is one of the worst flip-flop reversals I have ever seen. Even the Senator from Illinois, the very person who had previously praised the new rules, minimized their importance and supported efforts to change them.

I realize the other side never liked these rules to begin with. After all, they did try to kill them. But I thought they had come around and were now supportive. I thought we agreed that earmark transparency was a reasonable step to begin changing the way we spend American tax dollars and to end business as usual. It now appears I was mistaken.

Mr. President, 172 days have now gone by since we passed the Senate earmark transparency rules, and yet a few in the Chamber still refuse to enact them. Instead, these objections offer more excuses--excuses that keep changing as time passes.

First they said the rules were too broad and the House wrote them incorrectly. Then, after the Senate leadership revised the rules to their liking,

they support them. But now, after 6 months have passed, they are saying the rules need to be fixed again, and this time by the House. I am sorry, I realize this may seem like a joke, but I am not making it up.

What we have here is obstruction, pure and simple. It has been 172 days since we passed these earmark transparency rules, and the majority will still not allow them to be enacted. Several Senators on the other side are determined to block these rules and prevent them from ever being implemented. They have now publicly acknowledged that they intend to change the rules behind closed doors and, according to several media reports, the majority leader is even willing to cancel the entire August recess to force those of us who want earmark reform to capitulate. He wants us to stop fighting for the American taxpayers. That is not going to happen. So the quicker we end the obstruction of these earmark reform rules, the quicker we can get on to other business.

I intend to fight for these rules even if it means staying here every day in August. In fact, that might mean the best outcome of all. We need to have a national dialog in this country about how Congress spends Americans' hard-earned tax dollars. I think it would be good for those in this Chamber to explain to the American people why they don't want to be transparent in how we spend their money. That is a discussion we need to have here.

I am now going to seek consent one more time to enact these important disclosure rules. And I ask the majority, if they don't like the language they developed, then make suggestions of how they want to change it. But in the meantime, I think we should go to conference on this lobby and ethics reform bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now to proceed to S. Res. 123 and S. Res. 206, the earmark disclosure resolutions, all en bloc; that the resolutions be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table. I further ask that the Senate then proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2316, the House-passed ethics and lobbying reform bill; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1, as passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill be read a third time, passed, and the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees at a ratio of 4 to 3.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 182, H.R. 2316, Lobbying Disclosure; that all after the enacting clause be stricken, and the text of S. 1, as passed by the Senate on January 18, 2007, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate with a ratio of 4 to 3, with the above occurring without intervening action or debate.

I would say to my distinguished colleague--my counterpart, Senator McConnell--that it is my intent not to appoint the conferees until we get back.

Madam President, I don't wish to relegislate the supplemental. I think it was one of the best things that has happened to the country in a long time. We were able to get some things in that bill, such as minimum wage, for the first time in 10 years; disaster relief for farmers, first time in 3 years; the first time we got money over and above what the President wanted for homeland security; we were able to get $6.5 billion for Katrina.

Having said that, the distinguished Republican leader has my assurance this bill will deal with the subject matter that came out of the Senate and out of the House. It will deal with ethics and lobbying reform.

I further say to my friend, and he and I have had long discussions on this bill and I am sure we will continue to have some, this will be a real conference, as we have had for many years--not recently, but this will be a conference where there will be public debate on what we should do and what we should not do.

We will schedule that the week we get back, schedule the conference as soon as we can when we appoint conferees. There has been a request we not appoint them today. I accept that. We will do it when we get back. The minority need not worry. This legislation, when it comes back, will be perfect for the President to sign if, in fact, that is necessary. In some instances, it is not necessary. But it will deal with ethics and lobbying and nothing else.

It is my understanding there is a unanimous consent pending.

Again, we have delay, delay, delay, on an issue of vital importance. What we are asking is to go to conference. We have already acknowledged there will be nothing that will come out of conference other than what is in this bill. For us to do the conference out here on the Senate floor is a little unusual proceeding. All the conference committees I have been involved in have been ones where the conferees decide what should happen, and then they bring that matter back to the respective bodies. Then there is a vote on it.

If my friend from South Carolina doesn't like what comes back, he has every avenue within the rules at his disposal. No one is trying to take advantage of him. I appreciate the work he has done on earmarks. A number of other people have worked on earmarks. It has been a progressive step forward. But it would not say much about my leadership if we negotiated it out here

on the floor of the Senate as to what was going to be in the conference report. That is what the conferees are all about.

Again, we cannot go forward on the 47 different items that are in this ethics and lobbying reform----

All of which are important. Earmarking is important to my friend from South Carolina. Other Senators have other things of importance in this lobbying/ethics reform. We debated this issue. We debated it at some length. We accepted a lot of amendments. A number of amendments were not in the final draft of what went to the House. They have now completed their work. It is time we go to conference and work this out. But we are not going to piecemeal this out here on the Senate floor.

I am happy to.

Madam President, the House, of course, has issues that affect them only. Sometimes they affect what we do. So we can't do this in a vacuum. I have a suggestion. I think it is a valid, constructive suggestion. I would say to my friend from South Carolina, what he should do is see what he can do to get on the conference. That is what I would suggest. I would be happy to have you on the conference. I don't select who the Republicans put on the conference, but that may be an answer to the problem. I would be happy to have you in the conference. I think it would be a good exercise for you to see what goes on inside of a real conference.

Separate and apart from that, I have to simply say, this is, again, a diversion, a distraction from doing the work of this country.

I am happy to yield.

The Senator from Illinois has it down pat. We have worked within the confines of the rules that have been given us. We have passed a bill. They have passed one in the House. Now is the time to see if we can make it into law.

There will be some things that will wind up being a Senate rule. Some things will wind up being a House rule. That is part of what the conference is going to work out. No one is trying to detract from anything that the distinguished Senator from South Carolina wants. But just because you want something doesn't mean you are necessarily going to get it. I just think this is such a bad way to legislate. Here we were within seconds of being able to go to conference. A phone call came in to the cloakroom. I understand that. The Republican leader has an obligation to take care of his Members. But I think this is not a good way to go.

The eyes of the American public are on us.

I appreciate----

For the first time in 131 years, someone was indicted working in the White House. That man has now been convicted and is in prison. The President's appointee to handle Government contracting was led away in handcuffs from his office. He is now in prison. The majority leader of the House of Representatives was convicted three times of ethics violations. He has now resigned in disgrace after having been indicted in Texas.

We have another Congressman, part of the whole Abramoff scandal, who is in prison. Many staff members have pled guilty to crimes, have quit. Some of them are giving State's evidence. The investigations are still ongoing. A couple of days ago, Mr. Griles, second in command at the Interior Department, was sentenced to prison.

It is time that we got real and change this culture. That is what this legislation is all about. It is time that we started doing things for the American people. One of the things we can do is tell the American people that we are distancing ourselves from this culture of corruption.

That is what this legislation is all about. To not allow us to go to conference on some petty issue that my friend has raised is really bad, not good for the American people. This is a bill loaded with good things. We want to do some good things for the American people.

On some procedural suggestion that is not within the confines of common sense and good judgment, we have an objection. That is wrong. All it does is focus more attention on the culture of corruption.

Madam President, I would assure my friend that I have spoken to the Speaker on more than one occasion. We have been trying to get to conference on this for quite some time now. They completed their work. It has been about 3\1/2\ weeks. I believe without any stretch of the imagination, we will finish this conference in a week. It might go 10 days. But it will only be a question of scheduling. The conference will go very quickly. It will be a public conference.

I would say to my friend--I say this respectfully--did you serve in the House before you came here?

I thought so. So you are probably not familiar with conferences because under Republican leadership, they were eliminated. There were no conferences. I have said we will hold public conferences. So even though my friend is probably not familiar with a real conference, we will have one. It will not take all year. It will not take all conference. We will finish it very quickly.

No one suggests that earmarking is trivial. I suggested that your objection to this is trivial. I say that you shouldn't do this. It is wrong. It is only slowing up what you in your heart want. All you are doing is slowing it up. There is no intent on my behalf to eliminate earmark reform. I think most everybody in this body lives by earmark reform. I think it would be very good that rather than some vacuous thing talking about earmarks, we have something here that we can look to that is either a part of a law or a rule. My friend should not worry about this taking a long time. Once we get to conference, it will not take long.

Madam President, we have a vote scheduled. I have just received word from the Appropriations Committee, bipartisan, they need another 10 minutes. So I ask unanimous consent that they have 10 minutes; otherwise, I will just go into a quorum call.

So the vote will take place at 10 after the hour.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, in explaining my reservation, I first wish to commend the Senator from South Carolina on the courtesy he has extended to both sides of the aisle in notifying us of his intent to make this unanimous-consent request. I wish to make clear to him and to all Members that the Senate Democratic leadership remains fully committed to earmark disclosure, but we believe his suggestion, taking it piece by piece, is not the right way to accomplish our goal.

Earlier this year, we considered comprehensive ethics reform. It is a product of the first 100 days of the new leadership of Congress that we are most proud of. Included in that reform was a provision related to transparency in earmarking. I supported this reform. In fact, I joined Senator DeMint in crafting a new definition of ``earmark'' and requiring that earmarks in legislation be posted on the Internet prior to their final consideration on the floor of the Senate. We both agreed on this language. It passed with an overwhelming majority of 98 to 0, and the underlying bill passed 96 to 2.

No one is suggesting these earmark rules will not be implemented. In fact, today the Senate Appropriations Committee, chaired by the President pro tempore of the Senate, who is now presiding, Senator Byrd, has announced a new policy of transparency in accountability, totally consistent with the language which we agreed on and adopted overwhelmingly on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee's announcement on these sweeping reforms be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, under these new guidelines, all earmarks will be clearly identified in the committee bill and report, including the requesting Senator, the amount of the earmark, the recipient of the earmark, and the purpose of the earmark. An earmark shall be defined as in the Senate-passed ethics reform bill, which Mr. DeMint and I cosponsored. The committee bill and report will be published on the Internet--as my amendment required--so that the world can see these earmarks in advance of final passage. Senators will be required to certify that neither they nor their spouses have any financial interests in any earmark. These guidelines will be in place until the ethics reform bill is signed into law.

I commend the Presiding Officer as chairman of the Appropriations Committee for reaching out to the other side of the aisle, to the ranking member, Senator Cochran from Mississippi, so that he has been informed of our intention to reform this earmark process.

Earmark disclosure, though, is only one part of the much broader package. We need to strengthen gift and travel rules for Members of the Senate, close the revolving door, strengthen lobbying disclosure, outlaw the K Street Project, this notorious project in which Mr. Abramoff and others were involved, and take other steps to clean up the way business is done in Washington.

Now, if the Senator from South Carolina has his way, we will take one piece today. Some will suggest taking another piece tomorrow. I think it will dilute our effort. We need, within the next few weeks, to work with the House to pass this measure. For those who ask: Well, why hasn't it taken place so far, the House ethics reform was done by House rule, did not involve a joint action by the House and the Senate.

So we are going to find a vehicle that will accomplish our Senate ethics reform, statutory and rules reform, and do it in the appropriate manner and do it in a comprehensive way. We have been assured by House leaders that they will move on this bill in the next few weeks. As soon as the House acts, the Senate will move for conference as quickly as possible. We should not take up bits and pieces of the larger bill.

The Senate has expressed a strong support for earmark disclosure, and the Senate Appropriations Committee, which I am proud to be a member of, has taken the lead on this side of the aisle in strong reforms. The goal of the Senator from South Carolina is already being implemented, and I hope he can take ``yes'' for an answer.

I would like to correct one thing he said for the record. When he started his remarks about earmarks, he said at one point that when it comes to earmarks, this Senate is ``business as usual.'' As the Presiding Officer and those who follow the Senate know, that is hardly the case. When we considered the continuing resolution which had all of the pending appropriations bills from the previously Republican- controlled Congress yet enacted, we took a bold move on our part--that is, the Democratic side--and eliminated 9,300 earmarks that were in bills authored when the Senator from South Carolina was in the majority. We eliminated every single one of them--all 9,300 earmarks. It contained no new earmarks. This continuing resolution eliminated funding for over $2.1 billion of earmarks for over 1,900 separate projects.

This is hardly business as usual. Business as usual would have been to take the bills from a Republican Congress, with thousands of earmarks, and enact them into law. We did not do that. So to suggest we are continuing along the path that was the case when there were previous leaders in Congress is just not supported by the facts.

Beyond that, I can give my assurance to the Senator from South Carolina, my colleague, that the earmark language which we adopted in the Senate is going to be the standard by which we live. The Appropriations Committee has made that very clear. I believe that is what we should do.

So at this point, Mr. President, acknowledging the commitment of the Senator from South Carolina to this issue and acknowledging that he should be standing here and saying he has accomplished quite a bit to this point, I would have to say that his additional suggestion today of plucking out one piece of ethics reform and moving on it would be inconsistent with our ultimate goal of having comprehensive ethics reform. In the meantime, we have followed this measure through the Senate Appropriations Committee and, as a consequence, I must object.

It strikes me as odd that the Senator from Oklahoma will not acknowledge the obvious. The earmark reform language which he supported, and the Senator from South Carolina supports, passed the Senate 98 to 0. It was part of the first comprehensive ethics reform package this Senate has seen in many years; many years of Republican rule, I might add. We are

now saying that the Appropriations Committee has voluntarily said, even before the conference committee that we are going to live by these standards.

I will not quibble with the Senator from Oklahoma because he and I see this quite differently. But authorizing a project does not mean it has money. That is why we have authorizing committees and appropriating committees. I can authorize the Sun, the Moon, the stars, and the Milky Way, but I will not deliver any of those to anybody until I get to an appropriations bill.

When I am finished, I will. All of the authorization in the world notwithstanding, unless you appropriate the money from the Treasury for the project, it is just a good idea that might happen.

I said I will. Allow me to finish my sentence. What I am suggesting is, other committees may take this up as well on an interim basis. But the bills that are going to move on the floor of the Senate are the appropriations bills. Now that the budget resolution is passed, our major obligation is to achieve something we haven't done for years. We want to try to pass the appropriations bills on time. That means that the time of the Senators from Oklahoma and South Carolina and all of us will be consumed with appropriations bills, and the rules we will play by on earmarks for those bills which will be front and center, our major business, will be the same rule that you voted for, the vote that the Senator from Oklahoma cast on this floor for earmark reform. So I say to the Senator from Oklahoma, he can be prepared as these bills come to the floor to see the very approach he has suggested be followed voluntarily. In the meantime we have the assurance of the House that this matter is going to conference committee.

Suggesting that we have abandoned our commitment to reform or calling it a flimsy excuse overstates the Senator's position.

I object.

Mr. President, I object to the unanimous consent request.

I object.

Mr. President, I seek recognition.

Mr. President, so we understand what happened, the Senate passed an ethics reform bill. It is a big bill. There are a lot of provisions in the bill that we felt were necessary because of some of the wrongdoing that occurred in Washington over the last several years. We went after the Jack Abramoff scandal. Remember that lobbyist? He is in prison. He had a pretty sweetheart arrangement here. He was sticking things in bills. It went on and on. I will not go into all the gruesome details, but we decided to break this kind of cozy relationship between lobbyists and some Members on Capitol Hill. And then we started to take a look at some of the other aspects of things that were troubling people.

We went into the question of gifts, how much can a Senator receive.

We went into the question of leaving the Senate and picking up a big- paying job as a lobbyist, within a few months making a lot of money. That has happened too often. We said, let's slow down this revolving door.

We went after the disclosure of private employment negotiations that Senators and Congressmen were entering into while they were still sitting in the House of Representatives and in the Senate.

We expanded lobby disclosure requirements. We went to great lengths and said lobbyists have to tell us a lot more about what they are doing with their money and time.

Then we went into prohibiting the old K Street Project. Unless you are a real insider on Capitol Hill, you may not remember that one, but they used to have--I am not kidding now--weekly meetings in the office of a U.S. Senator where the lobbyists would come in and tell them the amendments they wanted, and then the Senators would tell them what fundraisers were coming up. I don't know if there was any connection, but some people thought there was a connection. We put an end to that practice.

Then we talked about Members who were convicted of certain crimes losing their pensions. Understandable, if you are guilty of felonious conduct relating to official duties, that might follow.

Then we talked about the integrity of the process so Members couldn't dump little things in at the last minute in conference reports that hadn't been considered in the House and Senate.

And, of course, we went to the question of earmarks. That was an important part of this bill, but it sure wasn't the only part. Listen to everything I read.

So now we are trying to get this bill to conference. We want to take this bill to conference and work with the House and pass the most significant ethics reform bill in the history of Congress. It is long overdue. I think most Americans would say: Why haven't you done it already? I can tell you why for 12 days we haven't done it: Senator DeMint of South Carolina has objected. Senator DeMint, the man who took the floor and used my name a dozen times, as a great ethics reformer is the Senator who objects to going to conference to make these proposals which passed the Senate--similar measures passed the House--the law of the land. Why? Because he picked one paragraph out of the bill related to earmarks and he wants a guarantee that is going to come out of the conference without a change. I believe it probably will. Mr. President, do you know what the final vote was when it passed the Senate? It was 98 to 0. It is a pretty good indication he is going to see either the exact language he proposed or something very close to it. But unless he gets a locked-down guarantee to get every word of that, he is going to stop all of these efforts at ethics reform. He is going to stop the efforts to put an end to the K Street Project, he is going to stop the efforts of more disclosure, he is going to stop the effort to eliminate outrageous gifts between Members of Congress and lobbyists, and he does this in the name of ethics. I don't follow this at all.

For 12 days now, Senator DeMint has held up our effort to take the ethics bill to conference. For 12 days, he has come to the floor and has said it is because he really believes in ethics. It doesn't track. It doesn't follow. It doesn't wash in Illinois or in South Carolina. I wish he showed a little more humility in this process. That he is going to stop the whole ethical reform because of his section--he is worried about his section I don't think is right. I think he should trust in the substance of his earmark reform, trust in the fact that 98 Senators supported it, trust in the fact that in the end it was a bipartisan agreement. I offered an amendment on the Democratic side to his amendment on the Republican side. What I offered was an amendment calling for more disclosure. Put all the earmarks on the Internet so the whole world can see them. I think that is the way it should be.

I chair a subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. My staff has been working long and hard over the last several weeks to put a bill together. We were on the phone late last night putting all the finishing touches on it. It is going to be the most transparent appropriations bill covering these agencies in the history of the United States, and that is the way it should be. Every Member who has asked for anything in this bill, whether it is in bill language or committee report language, is going to be disclosed. Every Member has to stand by every request they make, and it is printed right there for the world to see. That is the way it ought to be. That isn't enough for the Senator from South Carolina. I am not sure what he wants beyond that. We are already putting into practice what the Senate has virtually accepted, with some slight modifications but nothing of substance. Yet he wants to stop the whole ethics process. I suppose that is

his idea of reform, to stop reform. But it is certainly not my idea of reform.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the ethics bill that has passed the Senate and the House be sent to conference for consideration.

Mr. President, I acknowledge my colleague on the other side of the aisle is standing in for the Senator from South Carolina, but if we are ever going to get to ethics reform, we clearly have to move to conference, and conference is going to require agreement on both sides of the aisle and the understanding--incidentally, the Senator from South Carolina characterized the conference committee as the secret conference committee. He is caught up in the old way of doing things. The new way is that the doors will be open. He can come. In fact, I hope the Republican leader will appoint him as a member of the conference committee. Regardless, it is going to be open for him to come and at least observe, if not participate, in this process.

It is a new day for the conference committees, and I certainly hope the Senator from South Carolina will reconsider, will stop his ethics filibuster, the DeMint ethics filibuster, which is now in its 12th day, and allow us to move to this ethics bill for its consideration.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I would like to address my comments to my friend from South Carolina. The bottom line is very simple. We have conference committees to move things along, not to slow them down. My colleague from South Carolina has concerns about earmarks. I understand them. They are heartfelt. But it is clear that if we acceded to his request, any single Senator, because of any issue on any bill, could hold up progress completely--on ethics reform, on 9/11, on anything else.

I will tell you my reading. I am from a different part of the country than my colleague, but people want us to get some things done. They don't want us to say: If I don't get it exactly my way on my provision, I am going to hold everything up. That is the consequence of what my friend from South Carolina is saying.

I might feel that the worst part of what happened, the scandals we talked about, is the free trips. I might say: I don't want to trust anything to conference reports. Unless free trips are done exactly as we say here, I want to hold up the bill. One of my colleagues might say that they think the worst thing is flying and the airplanes.

I will in a minute. We would be totally gridlocked. If each of us in this body of 100, each with strong opinions and great talents, were to say: I am not going to let anything move forward unless I get my thing done, period, without change, without discussion, without modification, with the other body, we would be where the public doesn't want us: gridlocked on ethics reform, gridlocked on 9/11, gridlocked on everything else.

I am happy to yield to my friend from South Carolina.

Madam President, reclaiming my time.

Madam President, I understand this passed by a whole lot of votes. That is not the point. There are lots of things that pass by a lot of votes, and then they all have to be worked out in conference committees and in other ways. If each of us insists ``it is my way or I hold things up''--maybe there are ways to improve and strengthen the provisions we pass; maybe there are things other people might add; maybe there will be the kinds of legislative tradeoffs that will make a stronger ethics bill. We all have no way of knowing. But we do know one thing: If what the Senator from South Carolina is doing, by asserting his prerogatives in the Senate, was done by everybody, or even five other Senators, we would absolutely have no ethics reform--no ethics reform--no ethics reform.

I am happy to yield to my colleague from California.

Madam President, the average person would say--because the average American is practical--anyone who insists on only his way or her way is gumming up the works. To get 90 percent or 95 percent of what is a good package, most people would say, yes.

I will say another thing to my colleague.

Madam President, I will be happy to yield when I finish my little colloquy with my friend from California.

My guess is, if you ask the person on the street what is the most egregious abuse in terms of lobbyists and ethics, it is the trips. That is what caught the highlights. It was all the free gifts and all the emoluments and going to London and going here and going there. Most people, if you asked them about earmarks, and they knew what the earmarks were--they would say the bridge from Alaska is a bad thing, and there are a few others that are a bad thing--but my guess is that 95 percent of the people in this body--maybe 100 percent; maybe my friend from South Carolina is proud of the earmarks they have put in and they should be made public early and there should be debate on them--but they, in themselves, are not wrong as the free trips, in themselves, are wrong.

So the bottom line is, if you ask the average citizen, my colleague from California is right, they would say: Move forward because there is a lot in this bill that is important. In fact, the No. 1 abuse we read about might have been trips or emoluments or something like that more than earmarks.

Madam President, I am happy to yield to my colleague form Illinois.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Illinois. That is exactly the point I am making. I would say, the reason we have a Senate, and not a body of one, is because there are different views. Some of the things that my colleague from Illinois read to me are the most objectionable that are on the books now.

I would guess the public is probably closer to my view than the view of the Senator from South Carolina. I would guess what bothered them the most with Abramoff, or with anything else, was all the trips and emoluments and the way the lobbyists sort of insinuated their way into the whole process. There are hundreds of earmarks where there were no lobbyists involved. There were many more earmarks--most earmarks--where the public debate would be supported by this body.

So I would say to my friend from Illinois that is exactly the point. If each of us insists that our little provision must be passed on its own--no debate, no discussion, no moving forward with the general process--we would have no ethics reform.

So despite the good intentions of my colleague from South Carolina, the effect of what he is doing is preventing good, strong, tough ethics reform across the board on issues such as earmarks, but also on issues such as trips and the K Street Project, and everything else from moving forward.

So my colleague from Illinois makes a point that I think is----

Madam President, I continue to yield to my colleague.

Well, Madam President, I have served in this body now for 8 years. I had served in the House for 18 years. I cannot recall a single instance. We do have senses of the Senate; we had senses of the House, which are supposed to direct things. But we have never asked for a guarantee. I, for one, cannot recall someone saying: I am holding up everything until I get my guarantee. That is wrong.

Madam President, I will be happy to yield in a second.

I will tell you, I go to my State. It is a diverse State of 19 million people. It is not South Carolina. It is not Illinois. It is not Nevada. It is not California. It is not Washington State. But I will tell you, the No. 1 thing I hear is: Can't you folks each give in a little bit? Can't you folks each work with one another and get something done?

That is what I hear. Yet the path my friend from South Carolina is taking is exactly the opposite because we will get good earmark reform.