Floor Statements

I understand S. 287, introduced earlier today by Senator Kennedy and others, is at the desk. I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for its second reading but object to my own request.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, January 12, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., to receive testimony on Iraq.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that H.R. 2 is at the desk and is due for a second reading.

Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with respect to this bill at this time.

Mr. President, we are going to be in a period of morning business for 90 minutes. The Republicans will control the first 45 minutes, the majority will have the remaining 45 minutes. Following this period of morning business, the Senate will resume the ethics legislation that is pending before this body.

Yesterday, I indicated we would vote this morning on the Stevens second-degree amendment dealing with airplanes. However, Senator Stevens decided to withdraw the amendment in preparation to file another one. There were some problems with that, as he indicated to me. I am sure he will have a new amendment soon. He is working with somebody on this side of the aisle, I understand, to come up with a second-degree amendment.

Other amendments offered yesterday are still pending, and, again, I hope we can move forward in disposing of these amendments. I think Senator Durbin will be here soon--as soon as we have the opportunity after we finish morning business--to move to table some of the amendments dealing with appropriations matters.

Mr. President, I would also note that the Presiding Officer today is from the State of Montana. It is the first time the distinguished Senator has presided. We congratulate you. And I recognize the State of Montana is bigger than the State of Nevada.

I remember, with a lot of fondness, the first time I campaigned in the State of Montana. I was struck by how big that State is. We flew most all of 2 days around that State and never got from one end to the other. It is a big State, and we are very grateful they have a big Senator representing it.

Mr. President, the matters before the Senate have been here. There are no restrictions on any amendments that have been offered. We disposed of some campaign finance amendments that were offered yesterday. I know the amendments were offered in good faith, in good conscience by the authors of the amendments. I agree with the author of those amendments, that we need to take a look at campaign finance reform, but I think it

should be done in the right way and that is to have hearings.

I believe we need extensive hearings on these matters. And both Senator Bennett and Senator Feinstein have agreed to do that. So if there are other campaign finance matters, we would approach those in the same manner as we did these.

It is very important we finish this legislation. We are going to do the very best we can to do that, and we are going to finish it next week.

Now, I told the Republican leader, late last night, that I am thinking of filing cloture tomorrow or Tuesday on this matter. I think people have had every opportunity to offer amendments, to debate those amendments. I am sure there will be others that will be offered and debated, I hope, today. It is an important piece of legislation. But I hope people would do their best to direct it toward what we are trying to do; that is, ethics and lobbying reform.

Mr. President, the distinguished Republican leader, with me and a few others, met with the President yesterday. I told the President how much I thought of him, personally. I told him, even though my fondness for him is significant, I disagree with a number of his policies, not the least of which is what is going on in Iraq.

He announced his new plan last night, and it was basically what he told us there at the White House yesterday. The President admitted he had made some mistakes, and I think that is commendable, the right thing to do, because there have been mistakes made in the waging of that war. But by calling for escalation of this conflict, I think he is on the verge of making another mistake.

As I made clear in a letter to the President last Friday, along with Speaker of the House Pelosi, I oppose his new plan because it sends the wrong signal to the Iraqis, to the Americans, and to the rest of the world. President Bush is Commander in Chief, and his proposal deserves serious consideration by this body, and we will give it serious consideration.

In the days ahead, we will give his proposal and the overall situation in Iraq a thorough review. I received a call late last night from one Democratic Senator who has a proposal, early this morning from another Senator, a Democratic Senator, who has some ideas. We heard, yesterday, from Senator Coleman. He opposes the surge. Senator Brownback is in Iraq and issued a press release saying he opposed the surge.

But we are going to have hearings. Those hearings are starting today on the war that is raging in Iraq. Tomorrow, there will be further hearings by the Armed Services Committee. In those hearings, experts will be asked about his proposal. And when the process is complete, we will have a vote in the Senate. As to when that will be, under Senate schedules, sometimes it is difficult to determine, but we will have one. I will not prejudice the outcome of the vote on the President's plan, but I will say this: Putting more U.S. combat forces in the middle of an Iraqi civil war is a mistake.

In November, voters all across the country spoke loudly for change in Iraq. That was the issue. In overwhelming numbers, they delivered a vote of no confidence on the President's opened-ended commitment and demanded we begin to bring this war to a close.

Last December, the Baker-Hamilton Commission--a respected panel of foreign policy experts who studied the law, patriots all--echoed the voters' call for change. The Commission, which included both Democrats and Republicans, determined the time has come to transition our forces out of Iraq, while launching a diplomatic and regional strategy to try to hold together this destabilized region.

But last night, the President--in choosing escalation--ignored the will of the people, the advice of the Baker-Hamilton Commission, and a significant number of top generals, two of whom were commanders in the field.

In choosing to escalate the war, the President virtually stands alone.

Mr. President, we have lost more than a score of soldiers from Nevada. The same applies to every State in the Union. From the State of Pennsylvania--I was speaking to the junior Senator from Pennsylvania-- they lost more than 140. So many have sacrificed so much. They have done their job, these brave men and women. It is time for a policy, I believe, that honors their service by putting the future of Iraq in the hands of the Iraqis.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I move to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to request the attendance of absent Senators. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, these are the times when some of us who have served in the House yearn for the House procedures. But we are in the Senate. We live by the Senate procedures, and we have to work our way through this.

Everyone keep in mind, the underlying legislation that is bipartisan in nature, sponsored by the Democratic and Republican leaders, is good legislation. It is a significant step forward to anything that has happened in this country since Watergate: ethics reform, lobbying reform, earmark reform--a very sound piece of legislation.

I am going to be patient and listen to what others have to say. I do not know exactly, but I think we have 12 amendments that are pending, maybe 13, and we are going to try to work our way through those.

I have told my friend Senator DeMint that I know his heart is in the right place. He believes in what he is doing. But this amendment he has offered is going to take a little more time.

Everyone should understand that the DeMint amendment strikes the definition of ``earmark'' in the underlying Reid-McConnell substitute and replaces it with language that is basically the House-passed definition.

I am happy to see the House doing their 100 hours and moving things along very quickly. I admire and respect that. But having served in that body, I know how quickly they can move things and, frankly, sometimes how much thoughtful consideration goes into matters that are on that House floor.

With this matter Senator DeMint is trying to change, a lot of time went into this--a lot of time--weeks of staff working so that Senator McConnell and I could agree to offer something in a bipartisan fashion.

The earmark provision is good. It is in the underlying bill. If we have an opportunity to vote on the DeMint amendment, I hope it is rejected because the definition that Reid-McConnell has is very much preferable to what Senator DeMint is trying to do with the ``earmark'' definition.

I repeat, the underlying legislation that deals with earmarks was very carefully vetted by--and I repeat--weeks of work by our respective staffs. And it is stronger in various ways than DeMint.

The underlying Senate definition of ``earmark'' was included in last year's ethics bill. We have refined and defined it a little better now. The relevant committees worked with us on a bipartisan basis. We added language to the underlying section dealing with earmarks that passed 90 to 8 last year.

First, we added language to address the Duke Cunningham situation. Congressman Cunningham wrote his earmarks without actually naming the specific defense contractors he intended to receive Federal contracts. And he never mentioned the defense contractors, but there is only one defense contractor in the world that met his specific definition of that legislation. Under DeMint that would not have to be listed.

Under the new definition in the Reid-McConnell substitute, a Member cannot evade the disclosure requirement by clever drafting. They cannot do that. An earmark is present if the entity to receive Federal support is named or if it is ``described in such a manner that only one entity would qualify.''

Second, the substitute includes an improved definition of ``targeted tax benefit.'' Under the DeMint definition, a tax benefit would only qualify as an earmark if it benefited ``10 or fewer beneficiaries.'' But that leaves open the possibility of drafting mischief. And what kind of mischief could you draft? For example, someone could easily write a provision for 11 or 15 or 50 beneficiaries to evade the definition.

The Reid-McConnell definition says a tax earmark is anything which ``has the practical effect of providing more favorable tax treatment to a limited group of taxpayers when compared with similarly situated taxpayers.'' This subjective standard will capture more earmarks, by far, than the rigid DeMint definition--this ``10 or fewer beneficiaries.''

Actually, the Reid-McConnell definition is based on the definition of ``targeted tax benefit.'' Where did we come up with this? Senator Judd Gregg, in his line-item veto bill. That is where we got that. I do not like the line-item veto bill, but I like his definition of ``targeted tax benefit.'' That is where we got that. I think Senator Gregg has found a sensible definition for this illusive concept.

Third, the Reid-McConnell substitute requires Members to certify they have no personal financial stake in the earmark. This seems to be a commonsense requirement that was not in the underlying bill. We added that to it.

It is important that the Senate rules be amended slowly and with careful bipartisan deliberation. My friend, the distinguished Senator from North Carolina--South Carolina--north, south; they are close together--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 House can change its rules at will, and they do. We cannot. The Senate is a continuing body. Our rules are permanent. It takes 67 votes to change a Senate rule. So when we write a Senate rule, we write it in concrete.

Earmark disclosure will be a major change in the way the Senate works. We should adopt the Reid-McConnell version rather than the House version in the DeMint amendment.

If we need to revisit the issue later, we can do that. I would appeal to my friend from South Carolina. I repeat: I know you are doing this because you think it is the right thing to do. But take the opportunity to look at what is here. It is better than the House version--so much better.

I have only touched upon why it is better than the House version. And, frankly, as we all know, we are going to have to do some work in conference. If the House version is what we send over there, there is no way in the world to improve this.

So I would say to my friend: Let's take another look at this. Do we need to vote on this? I hope not. This should not be a partisan issue. This bill is not meant to be partisan. That is why we worked so hard. One of the hardest provisions staff had to work on to get McConnell and me to agree was this earmark provision. Senator McConnell and I are members of the Appropriations Committee--well, I used to be for 20 years. I know the appropriations process very well. I think, with all due respect, the DeMint amendment will weaken the earmark provision. Let's see what we come up with with the underlying amendment that Reid and McConnell submitted to the Senate.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I couldn't hear the Senator. I am sorry. What did the Senator say?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am happy to see the Presiding Officer who is presiding for the first time--a new Senator, longtime Member of Congress, but we are happy to see you presiding over the Senate.

Mr. President, yesterday, we made significant progress on the ethics and lobbying reform bill. This will go a long way toward helping to reduce cynicism about this body. We began debate on the bill. The Republican leader and I offered a strong substitute amendment that made numerous important improvements to the underlying bill. And then I offered an amendment to strengthen the bill even further. Then we have had a number of other Senators come to the floor and make statements, offer amendments. And I think that is certainly appropriate.

Mr. President, I do emphasize this morning this is not a campaign finance reform bill. My personal feeling is campaign finance reform needs a very close going over. We need to hold extensive hearings on this issue. There are a lot of very complicated issues dealing with campaign finance reform, some of which deal with not only the Rules Committee but the Finance Committee because there are tax implications. I respectfully submit to my colleagues--both in the majority and minority--this is not the place to do rifle shots on campaign finance reform. I was a real cynic in the past about doing anything with, for example, 527s. I now think we have to take a look at a lot of these campaign finance issues, including 527s. But it has to be done in a thoughtful, probative way. I hope we can do that.

This is not a campaign finance bill. Campaign finance is an important issue, and we are going to have a full consideration of campaign finance in this Congress. But this bill is not the place for those amendments.

I look forward to Senators continuing to offer amendments today and hope we can make more progress in the coming days to wrap up this bill next week. We will wrap up the bill next week, even if it is a long week. If things slow down or there appears to be some stalling, I will have to see if cloture is the only alternative, which it might be. But for now let's keep moving forward. I have had people come to me and say they have some amendments to offer. I think that is very important. This is an open process. People should be able to do that.

We are going to be in a period of morning business for an hour, as soon as I and the Republican leader sit down. The majority will control the first half hour and the minority will control the last half hour. Once morning business closes, the Senate will resume the consideration of the ethics bill.

As I have said, there are a number of amendments pending. And as I have indicated, there are other Members who are interested in offering amendments today. I hope we will be in a position later this morning to take action on some of these pending amendments. The managers have expressed their desire to work with Members in regard to these two amendments.

The two managers of this bill are two of our finest. Senator Feinstein in the past has managed bills as a member of the Appropriations Committee. Senator Bennett is someone who has a great knowledge of Senate procedures. He is, in my opinion, a Senator's Senator. He does such a good job in everything he is involved in. We have two very good, thoughtful managers of this bill. If anyone can move this forward, I know the two of them can.

Mr. President, if I could say one thing before the Republican leader leaves. I want everyone to hear what I said before. The first measure Senator McConnell and I introduced, S. 1, will be the most significant lobbying and ethics reform bill since Watergate, if nothing else happens. And then we went a step further and, on a bipartisan basis, offered the substitute amendment which moves the ball down the field by a long way.

This bill is significant, and if nothing else happens other than S. 1 and the substitute, this will be a tremendously important piece of legislation in the annals of the history of this country. We have a lot of other people who want to improve the bill in their mind, and that is what this amendment process is all about. But we cannot lose sight of the fact that this is a significant move forward in ethics and lobbying reform with the two measures that have been put forward on a bipartisan basis. We have done already, some good work for the Senate.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, prior to starting the vote on this and granting the request for the yeas and nays, we are going to come in at 9:30 in the morning. There will be a period for morning business for an hour. Then we hope to have debate on the Stevens amendment, a serious amendment, dealing with travel. We hope to be able to complete that debate fairly quickly, in an hour or so. So there will be a vote on that amendment, if things work out the way we hope, at around 11:30 in the morning.

There are a number of amendments pending. The managers have done extremely well. As I said earlier this morning, we couldn't have two better people managing this bill. People who have amendments to offer, please come and offer them; otherwise, we are going to get the idea that maybe people are wanting to move forward on this legislation in some other way.