Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007
LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - January 16, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. SANDERS] proposes an amendment numbered 57 to amendment No. 3.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require a report by the Commission to Strengthen Confidence in Congress regarding political contributions before and after the enactment of certain laws)
On page 60, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:
(b) Report Regarding Political Contributions.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit a report to Congress detailing the number, type, and quantity of contributions made to Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives during the 30-month period beginning on the date that is 24 months before the date of enactment of the Acts identified in paragraph (2) by the corresponding organizations identified in paragraph (2).
(2) ORGANIZATIONS AND ACTS.--The report submitted under paragraph (1) shall detail the number, type, and quantity of contributions made to Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives as follows:
(A) For the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173; 117 Stat. 2066), any contribution made during the time period described in paragraph (1) by or on behalf of a political action committee associated or affiliated with--
(i) a pharmaceutical company; or
(ii) a trade association for pharmaceutical companies.
(B) For the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-8; 119 Stat. 23), any contribution made during the time period described in paragraph (1) by or on behalf of a political action committee associated or affiliated with--
(i) a bank or financial services company;
(ii) a company in the credit card industry; or
(iii) a trade association for any such companies.
(C) For the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58; 119 Stat. 594), any contribution made during the time period described in paragraph (1) by or on behalf of a political action committee associated or affiliated with--
(i) a company in the oil, natural gas, nuclear, or coal industry; or
(ii) a trade association for any such companies.
(D) For the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Public Law 109-53; 119 Stat. 462), any contribution made during the time period described in paragraph (1) by or on behalf of a political action committee associated or affiliated with--
(i) the United States Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Business Roundtable, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Emergency Committee for American Trade, or any member company of such entities; or
(ii) any other free trade organization funded primarily by corporate entities.
(3) AGGREGATE REPORTING.--The report submitted under paragraph (1)--
(A) shall not list the particular Member of the Senate or House of Representative that received a contribution; and
(B) shall report the aggregate amount of contributions given by each entity identified in paragraph (2) to--
(i) Members of the Senate during the time period described in paragraph (1) for the corresponding Act identified in paragraph (2); and
(ii) Members of the House of Representatives during the time period described in paragraph (1) for the corresponding Act identified in paragraph (2).
(4) DEFINITIONS.--In this subsection--
(A) the terms ``authorized committee', ``candidate', ``contribution', ``political committee', and ``political party' have the meanings given such terms in section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431); and
(B) the term ``political action committee' means any political committee that is not--
(i) a political committee of a political party; or
(ii) an authorized committee of a candidate.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, let me begin by applauding Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, and all of those who are responsible for advancing this important ethics reform bill. There is no question but that the confidence of the American people in the Congress is now at an almost alltime low. There is no question there have been ethical abuses in Congress in recent years. And there is no question but that we should support the strongest ethics reform possible.
Members of Congress do not need free lunches from lobbyists. Members of Congress do not need free tickets to ball games. And they do not need huge discounts for flights on corporate jets. Congress does need transparency in earmarks and holds, and we do need a new policy regarding the revolving door by which a Member one year is writing a piece of legislation and the next year finds himself or herself working for the company that benefited from the legislation he or she wrote. In other words, we need to pass the strongest ethics reform bill possible. But in passing this legislation, we need to understand this is not the end of our work but, rather, it is just the beginning, and much more needs to be done.
Today in the United States of America, the middle class is shrinking, poverty is increasing, and the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider. In fact, the people at the top, the very wealthiest people in our country, have never, ever had it so good since the 1920s. The sad truth is that Congress, especially over the last 6 years, has not only failed to respond to this crisis, to the decline of the middle class, but in many ways Congress has made the situation even worse.
Time and time again, this Congress has chosen to ignore the needs of ordinary Americans and, instead, has acted on behalf of the interests of the wealthiest and most powerful people in our country. In fact, much of the legislation that has come to the floor of the House and the Senate in recent years has clearly come at the behest of multimillion-dollar corporate interests. This has included a Medicare part D prescription drug bill that, while costing the taxpayers of this country a huge amount of money, in fact provides a relatively weak benefit for our seniors.
Included in this bill, as I think seniors all over this country are beginning to understand, is a very large doughnut hole in which they are going to have to pay 100 percent of the cost of their prescription drugs.
Also, included in that bill is language which prevents the Government from negotiating with the drug companies for lower prices for the American people. We pay today the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, and yet the Government is prevented from negotiating for lower prices. Meanwhile, despite strong majority support in the House and the Senate, Congress has failed to pass legislation widely supported by the American people that would allow for the reimportation of safe, affordable prescription drugs from well-regulated countries such as Canada and from Europe that would provide huge discounts to Americans of all ages.
At the same time, while there is more and more concern in our country and throughout the world about the danger of global warming and what it will mean for our planet and for our children and our grandchildren, Congress has failed to adequately fund energy efficiency and sustainable energy. But somehow Congress did manage to fund an energy bill that includes billions and billions of dollars in tax giveaways and subsidies to the largest oil companies in America, companies that are enjoying recordbreaking profits, as well as tax breaks and subsidies to other big-energy interests.
Most American workers now know that our current trade policies have failed and that they have failed miserably. During the last 5 years we have lost some 3 million good-paying manufacturing jobs, and we are now on the cusp of losing millions of good-paying, white-collar information technology jobs. In my own State of Vermont, not a major manufacturing center, we have lost 20 percent of our manufacturing jobs in the last 5 years alone, and we just learned the other day that another 175 jobs in Middlebury, VT, are going to be lost because of global competition. Yet despite a $700 billion trade deficit and the loss of millions of good-paying jobs, Congress refuses to fundamentally change our trade policies, a change that is desperately needed.
I know some people like to talk about ``special interests,' but the truth is that special interests, as I understand them, in fact, are corporate and monied interests. What do we mean when we talk about special interests? Are we talking about millions of American working families who are struggling to keep their heads above water economically? Are they a ``special interest'? I don't think they are. Are we talking about the children of America, 18 percent of whom are living in poverty? Are they a ``special interest'? Not to my mind. Are we talking about millions of seniors who want nothing more than to live out their retirement years with some form of economic security and dignity? Are they ``special interests'? I don't believe they are.
The challenge we face is to rein in the influence and the power that lobbyists and their large corporate clients have over the Congress. The problem is not that the children of America have too much power. It is not that working people have too much power. The problem is that big-money interests, to a very significant degree, dominate what goes on in Washington, DC.
The lobbying reform legislation that we are considering is a very important step forward in addressing that issue. I thank Senators Reid, Feinstein, Lieberman, Feingold, Obama, and all of those on both sides of the aisle who have worked hard on this issue for their leadership on lobbying reform so that we can begin to restore the confidence of the American people in Congress. But we must keep in mind that while we are eliminating the $20 lunches and the club-level tickets to local sporting events, this bill does not address what is an even more pressing issue; namely, the $10,000 campaign contributions that come from corporate PACs. We have a fundamental problem which literally threatens our democratic form of government, and that is that Senators and Members of the House and their challengers are forced to raise millions and millions and millions of dollars in order to run a winning campaign.
In terms of campaign contributions, let's be very clear. Despite what anyone may have heard, corporate interests are king. They run the show. From 1998 to 2005, for example, drug companies spent more on lobbying than any other industry--$900 million, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. They donated a total of $89.9 million in the same period to Federal candidates and party committees.
We hear a lot about ``labor money' and about ``big labor.' But, in fact, corporate interests give more than 10 times as much to candidates than do labor unions. In the 2006 cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, labor gave less than $50 million. That is a lot of money, $50 million. But corporate interests gave well over $525 million--$50 million/$525 million, 10 times as much. That disparity may well explain why the needs of working Americans all too often take a back seat to corporate interests in the Congress. But, more importantly, it tells us why we need real campaign finance reform so that the needs of all Americans are heard rather than just those who can afford to make huge campaign contributions.
To strengthen our democracy we need reforms on a number of fronts. We certainly need to pass this lobbying reform bill, but we also need very strong campaign finance reform. My own view is that we need to move toward public funding of elections. We also need media reform to stem the growing concentration of ownership among television, radio, and newspaper companies with the result that what Americans see, hear, and read is increasingly controlled by fewer and fewer media conglomerates. Most importantly, in my view, if we are going to change the balance of power, if ordinary Americans are going to get their day in Washington, DC, we need a revival of a grassroots democratic movement from one end of this country to the other, where ordinary people begin to stand up and say: Washington, DC, pay attention to my needs rather than just the needs of large corporate interests.
I understand that the legislation before us today relates only to issues around lobbying reform and that many of the other critical issues I have laid out will be considered at a later time. That is why I have offered the amendment we have before us today. The amendment will provide this body with some of the information it will need when we address campaign finance reform at a later date.
Specifically, this amendment requires the Commission to Strengthen Confidence in Congress, created by the underlying legislation, to report on the aggregate amount of campaign contributions given by certain identified corporate interests 24 months prior to and within 6 months after the passage of four specified pieces of legislation. These four pieces of legislation are the Medicare Part D Program, the bankruptcy reform bill, the Energy bill, and the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
The goal of this report is to begin to throw some light on the volume of corporate contributions that are showered on Congress when legislation important to multinationals comes before the Congress. As a result, this report will focus on the amounts given and the identity of the givers.
It is our obligation to return control of the Congress to the American people. I look forward to helping make that happen with the ethics reform bill we are now considering and the many other equally critical reforms that voters across this great Nation told us they wanted this past November.
I thank the Chair.
http://thomas.loc.gov/