Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 127, S. 849.

Mr. President, I wish the record to reflect how much I appreciate the work of Senator Leahy on this very important matter. The Freedom of Information Act is something that has needed amending for some time, and I am happy we are able to do it tonight.

I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements be printed in the Record, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the recess/adjournment of the Senate, Senate committees may file committee- reported Legislative and Executive Calendar business on Wednesday, August 29, 2007, during the hours of 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the recess or adjournment of the Senate, the President of the Senate, the President of the Senate pro tempore, and the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent action of the two Houses or by order of the Senate.

Mr. President, I have been informed the Presiding Officer has received something I have never gotten in all the many years I have been in the Senate, the Golden Gavel Award. For those who are listening, it is given to those people who preside 100 hours, and you have done that. That is tremendous. It is only July, but it shows what a workhorse the Senator from Rhode Island is. There is no better indication than that--presiding. Of course, we will present this award to Senator Whitehouse in the first caucus we have in September.

On this, the most important legislation we dealt with today, FISA--no one worked on it any more than you. The hours you put in on that, well past midnight--you were the talk of the Judiciary Committee. Even though you are a junior member of that committee, your experience as attorney general and as a U.S. attorney, doing all the good things you have done, certainly qualified you, and people looked to you for guidance on that most important piece of legislation.

I say to my friend from Rhode Island how fortunate we are to have you in the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to executive session, that the Finance Committee be discharged from the nomination of Tevi David Troy to be Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, that any statements be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 12 noon, Tuesday, September 4; that on Tuesday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning business until 1 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, and that the time be equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees; that at 1 p.m. the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 207, H.R. 2642, the Military Construction/Veterans Affairs appropriations.

Well, it has been a long hard struggle. We have accomplished a lot. I am so glad it is time that I say: If there is no further business, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the provisions of S. Con. Res. 43.

Madam President, this morning there will be 2 hours of debate on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 1, the Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act.

The time is to be equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees. Following the 2 hours, the leaders will, if they wish, use leader time to conclude the debate. Therefore, the vote on the motion to invoke cloture is expected to occur at around 11:45, or shortly thereafter.

After that cloture vote, we will remain on the lobbying measure until we complete action.

I have spoken to the participants. It appears they are not going to require a lot of time. That should not take much time, so we can get back to work on the matter relating to children's health.

The manager on our side this morning is going to be the distinguished chair of the Rules Committee, Senator Feinstein. She will be first recognized because she is the manager of the bill.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 270, H.R. 2900, the FDA reauthorization bill; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and Senator Kennedy's substitute amendment be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees, with the conferees being the members of the HELP Committee.

Further, there were tax measures in this matter that we dealt with on the floor. They have been stricken from the bill. That is what Senator Kennedy's amendment is all about. I hope we could go to conference on this matter.

Mr. President, if this is the way the Senator feels, I am happy to have him and Senator Kennedy see if this can be worked out.

I withdraw my unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I wish to make a brief comment on the tragedy in Minneapolis, MN. Watching those pictures on television and listening to the accounts on the radio and seeing newspaper accounts and the pictures, this is a real tragedy. My heart and the hearts of all Americans go out to the people of Minnesota--to those who have died, those who have been injured, and certainly the families and friends of all those people.

I am confident we will find out why that disaster occurred. Right now, we don't know. There is every reason to believe it was not an act of terrorism. I feel that is the case, based on hearing the Governor of that State making an announcement this morning.

In passing, I say this. After every storm, the sun shines. I think we should look at this tragedy that occurred and make it a wake-up call for us. All over this country, we have crumbling infrastructure-- highways, bridges, and dams. We need to take a hard look at that. We need to look at it as the right thing to do and also not only for the fact that the infrastructure needs repairing or rebuilding, but it is good for America in more ways than that.

For every $1 billion we spend in our crumbling infrastructure, 47,000 high-paying jobs are created. I hope we will take a look at our highways, bridges, dams, water systems, and sewer systems, and see if we can do something about this infrastructure that needs such attention.

We have some things coming up in the Senate in the near future we need to focus on. This tragedy is a wake-up call. We will have the Transportation appropriations bill, and we will have WRDA, which should be coming from the House. We will have Energy and Water appropriations and other matters. We need to work in a bipartisan way and also to work with the White House and have them realize there are things that need to be done with our country's infrastructure.

Mr. President, I should have mentioned this. I appreciate very much my distinguished counterpart mentioning Senator Klobuchar and Senator Coleman. I listened to them being interviewed last night on television. You could tell from their presentations how much this meant to them.

Amy Klobuchar's house is, I think, a mile from where the bridge collapsed. Today, they are where they should be. We have matters in the Senate, and we will certainly miss them. For example, Senator Klobuchar has been heavily involved in this ethics and lobbying reform measure. If there were ever a situation where they should miss votes, this is it.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that all time has been used.

Mr. President, last November, there was a call across this country that culminated in the November election. It was a call for a change in the way Congress does its business. We had nine new Democratic Senators. During the campaign, they called for change--and they will achieve change today.

The legislation before us shows Congress heard this call for change. The change we have in this legislation, in fact, is big-time change. It is the most significant change in lobbying and ethics rules in the history of our country--some have said since Watergate, but I say in the history of our country.

This is S. 1, which was the first bill introduced in this body this year--our first and most important bill of the new Congress. Why was it No. 1? The American people--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents-- knew our progress would depend on renewing the people's faith in the integrity of Congress. What does this legislation do?

Among other things, it requires Senators to pay fair market prices for charter flights, putting an end to abuses of corporate travel.

This legislation slows the revolving door by extending the ban on lobbying by former Members of Congress and senior staffers, and it prevents Senators from even negotiating for a job as a lobbyist until their successor has been elected.

It puts an end to pay-to-play schemes such as the notorious K Street Project. It shines the light of day on lobbying activities by vastly increasing disclosure requirements, including disclosure of bundled campaign contributions.

It requires the Senate to disclose all earmarks for the first time ever.

We originally passed it by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 96 to 2.

In June, I tried to send the bill to conference. I tried and I tried, but we were unable to go to conference because of objections by the minority. Some Republican colleagues expressed concern that this bill might lead to legislation that doesn't achieve the goals of the original bipartisan bill. I assured them then, and I assure them now, this bill has teeth. I asked them to withhold judgment until the final bill was complete.

I have heard a number of statements today about this bill from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle. They say we gutted earmark disclosure, that we have tried to hide earmarks, keep them in the shadows. This claim is just absurd.

For the first time ever, Senate Democrats have required all committees to disclose their earmarks and earmark sponsors. We didn't have to. It wasn't the law. But we did it. Last year, when the Republicans controlled this institution, not one earmark was disclosed. I don't recall a single speech about that failure last year by any of the Republicans who have spoken today.

Now, for the first time ever, we are already being transparent--fully transparent--about earmarks, and we are here to talk about that. But we hear these breathless claims made today that earmarks are being hidden. How can you describe how ridiculous that is? That is what it is.

Thirty-four pages of this legislation deal with earmarks. I might boast a little bit. Other staffs have worked on this, but I had two of the finest legal minds in this community working on it: Ron Weich, a graduate of Yale Law School, who worked on Capitol Hill for many years with Senator Kennedy, went downtown and became a very successful lawyer. He decided he wanted to engage in more public service, so he came back to Congress to work with me. He is an experienced attorney, and he worked on this. He also worked with a Harvard law graduate, Mike Castellano, a wonderful young man who has spent months--not weeks, not days, not hours but months--working on this. So for anyone to castigate this legislation, they are castigating these two fine men, who have worked with numerous people throughout this body.

For each of the 11 appropriations bills reported so far this year, similar earmark disclosure is available on the Internet. It is already searchable. Those talking about earmarks, my Republican friends, are either ignorant of what is already happening or they are living in a parallel universe.

This legislation puts into the Senate rules the revolution in earmark disclosure and accountability we began this year. It requires all earmarks in bills, joint resolutions, and conference reports be disclosed on the Internet 48 hours prior to action on the floor. We don't intend to have to wait until 48 hours, so the bill directs committees to issue earmark lists as soon as possible after the bill is reported.

The bill requires that earmarks and amendments be posted on the Internet as soon as possible after being introduced. The language originating in S. 1 did not have any rules on amendments. We put them in there. If we were trying to hide amendments and hide earmarks, why would we add that to the bill?

This legislation, for the first time ever, allows a point of order to be raised against new earmarks added in conference.

One of the main arguments used by the opponents of reform is that the certification required by the committee chair or the majority leader would be a sham. We deal all the time with budget points of order. Do my colleagues think the Parliamentarians will say: Let's see, does this amendment exceed scoring levels? No, they have to depend on the chairman of the Budget Committee. The Budget Committee reports to them. They depend on the Budget Committee. The Parliamentarians--that is what they do, they are referees but they get their information from the committee chairman.

The argument of my opponents is beyond the pale. If effect, these Senators are arguing that the committee chairs and the leaders would cheat and lie. Who other than the chairman of the committee, similar to the Budget Committee, can tell the Parliamentarian where there are earmarks? It is impossible for the Parliamentarian to know if a Senator has requested an item. Someone has to tell him. I'm sure these Senators are not saying that Senator Byrd or Senator Cochran would lie. That is not a very good argument to use in this body. To say that would be an affront to what we do around here.

Further, the opponents have ignored a simple and unavoidable fact. The definition of ``earmark'' requires that the provision be added primarily at the request of a Senator. The Parliamentarian can't know that. The only person who could ever know for sure how a provision got added to the bill is the author of the legislation, the committee chair. The Parliamentarian has no capacity to figure out that a provision was added primarily at the request of a Senator, or was added because the President wanted it, or because everyone agreed it was a good policy. Under any circumstances, the Parliamentarian would have no choice but to defer to the committee chair.

I ask my friend, the junior Senator from South Carolina, as an example, to understand the hard work put into this legislation--hard work, really hard work. If there is something that is wrong with the legislation, talk to us about it. We will try to change it in subsequent legislation if this doesn't work. If there is a problem, I am happy to work with him, but don't denigrate this bill. We worked hard on it.

I so appreciate the work of Chairman Feinstein. I so appreciate the work of Chairman Lieberman. They both have reputations that are impeccable. One may not always agree with their policy, but their ability for honesty and integrity is above reproach.

I must also talk about Russ Feingold. When this session started, I asked Russ Feingold to draw up legislation, and he did that, and we have worked around that. Does anyone question the integrity of Russ Feingold? You cannot question his integrity, Dianne Feinstein's, or Joe Lieberman's integrity. That is what this legislation is all about.

Anyone saying this bill is an obscenity--that is what one Senator said in the press, that this legislation is obscene--is impugning the integrity of three of the finest public servants we have in this country.

Another important leader on this issue is Senator Obama. He was in many ways the face of this bill last year. He has played an important role last year and this year, and I appreciate his input into this legislation.

This bill is not just a little bit of reform. Just listen to the outside reformers. Fred Wertheimer, a man who has been in this town since I have been here, talking about how we can improve this body in many different ways, Fred Wertheimer said this is ``landmark legislation.'' Those are his words, not mine.

The effort by opponents to try to denigrate this legislation is shameful. I don't care if they disagree with this legislation, but don't impugn the integrity of the people who are trying to do something that is positive and good.

This is good legislation. We have succeeded, the Democratic majority has succeeded. I appreciate the support of the minority, but the Democrats have succeeded in what Republicans couldn't do last year or the year before, and they have seized on one issue, earmarks, and blown it way out of all proportionality or rationality and have ignored reality to create doubts in people's minds.

The fact is, we have sweeping reform legislation in a whole host of areas--gifts, travel, lobbyist disclosure, stealth coalitions, reporting of lobbyist contributions, the revolving door. It is sweeping. The bill will change the way we do business.

Our work on this issue is done for now. I am confident the judgment of Democrats and Republicans alike will be favorable. The vote was 411 to 8 in the House of Representatives. Let us do the same. Let us send a message from coast to coast that this Congress is serious about delivering to the American people a government as good and as honest as the people it serves.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, we have two Senators who have requested to speak on this matter. Senator Byrd wishes 20 minutes, Senator McCaskill, 10 minutes. Following that, we would return to SCHIP and the vote on this bill--cloture was just invoked--will occur at 1:50 this afternoon. The time between 1:30 and--the time after Senators Byrd and McCaskill speak will be controlled by Senators Baucus and Grassley.

I ask unanimous consent that be the case.

Mr. President, I ask the motion to concur with the amendments be withdrawn.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I have had a conversation with the two managers of the bill, and we have two or three amendments left, and one of those could go away, which means we will have a couple of votes, maybe three votes before final passage.

The managers, I think we would all acknowledge, have done a very outstanding job on a difficult piece of legislation.

I would also say, Mr. President, we are going to have to be in session tomorrow. At 9:30 in the morning--I told Senator Byrd it would be a 9:45 vote--there will be a 9:30 vote in the morning. We will vote on a judge at 9:30. Then we will proceed on some other matters. We are going to try to complete the WRDA conference. We are going to have a real yeoman's try at completing the competitive matter. I understand there is a hold on that now. We would hope we could complete that by unanimous consent; if not, a short timeframe within which to debate that and vote. It is something that is bipartisan and Members have worked on for well more than a year.

We also have, of course, good news tonight. The mental health parity is being hot-lined tonight. I hope we can complete that tonight. That is legislation Senator Domenici and others have been pushing for a long time. I am not going to mention all the people who have been pushing it, but Senator Domenici has been talking about it a lot in recent days, and I appreciate his advocacy for that.

The big issue tomorrow is to see what we can do to complete the problems that everyone has read about dealing with the surveillance program that is going on to listen to these bad people who are trying to create problems in our country and around the world. We do not have that worked out yet. I have had a conversation with the distinguished Republican leader. Hopefully, we can have that set up so there is some way of disposing of that issue tomorrow.

Now, that is what we have left before we leave here. It is not an easy agenda, but it is one we can complete with a little cooperation from both sides.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the vote on the judicial nomination of the judge from Oklahoma be modified for the vote to occur immediately after the Senate convenes tomorrow morning, Friday, under the same conditions provided under the previous order.

I would say this has been cleared with Senator Leahy and Senate Specter.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2272, the 21st Century Competitiveness Act of 2007; that the conference report be adopted, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, that any statements be printed in the Record as if given.

Mr. President, I hope we can, in a minute or two, clear this wonderful piece of legislation. It is something I think people will write about for a long time. It is going to improve America's stature in the world and allow us to be more competitive.

Mr. President, I certainly also applaud the Senator from Tennessee. He worked hand in glove with Senator Bingaman, Senator Kennedy, Senator Inouye.

I think it is appropriate to send a bouquet to my friend, the distinguished junior Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign. This is something he has believed in for a long time. He has worked with a number of individuals, and he has been out front on this going on for well more than a year.

The Republican leader and I have left off people who deserve attention, but we all deserve some credit. As we have said before, when we do something that is good, there is credit to go around. When we fail to accomplish things, there is blame to go around. Tonight, we can all claim a little bit of the credit, and rightfully so.