Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007

LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - January 16, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, at 5:30 the Senate will be voting on my second-degree amendment to an amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint. I thank the Senator from South Carolina for working with Senator Reid and myself to craft a strong provision to deal with earmark reform.

One of the concerns many had about the underlying DeMint earmark reform was that we did not think the language was strong enough when it came to tax provisions. There were provisions in appropriations bills which direct money to entities. They can be private entities or public entities, they could be State governments, local governments, any number of different types of governmental units, as well as private entities.

For example, I have directed money in the Defense appropriations bill to two firms in Illinois that are doing breakthrough research on a variety of things of importance to the Department of Defense, so the actual firms were named. That is the nature of an appropriations earmark. I, in my practice in the office, have been as transparent as possible. There is a race to put out a press release as soon as it is done because I take great pride in what we support.

What we are trying to do is to put into the rules of the Senate and the control of legislation in the Senate more transparency, more accountability, so there is no question, so we avoid any abuse such as led to some of the more embarrassing episodes in the last Congress resulting in corruption charges against lobbyists and Members of Congress.

The initial intent of Senator DeMint in his amendment was positive, to move toward more appropriations earmarks disclosure, but we felt that his language, when it came to tax provisions, needed to be strengthened.

Of course, one can benefit a company by sending money for research. One can also benefit a company by giving them a break in the Tax Code. Both are of value to the company. They should be treated the same when it comes to disclosure, transparency, and accountability.

The purpose of my second-degree amendment was to strengthen the language of the earmark disclosure when it comes to that. We broadened the definition of what is known as a limited tax benefit. If we were to provide a cut in the tax rate for all Americans in certain income categories, that does not have a particular impact on an individual or a company. That is a general tax benefit. When we deal with limited tax benefits, they can be written in a way when they benefit one specific entity, one specific company, or a few, a handful, we want those tax earmarks to be treated with the same disclosure requirements as the earmarks in appropriations.

The DeMint amendment defined a limited tax benefit as a revenue-losing provision that provides tax benefits to 10 or fewer beneficiaries or contains eligibility criteria that are not the same for other potential beneficiaries. That is his original language.

I have thought that the number 10 was the problematic element in his approach. I don't know where the number 10 came from. I think it might have been in an earlier House version, but I think the language we replace it with makes more sense.

We define ``limited tax benefit' as any revenue provision that provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to a particular beneficiary or limited group of beneficiaries. Our definition is more expansive, would cover more tax earmarks, would require more disclosure, more transparency, more accountability. I think that was the goal of Senator DeMint's amendment.

It is my understanding that he is going to accept my second-degree amendment which is going to tighten this language when it comes to tax earmarks.

Second, the Durbin amendment requires the earmark disclosure information be placed on the Internet in a searchable format for at least 48 hours before consideration of the bills, resolutions, or reports that contain the earmarks. The DeMint amendment did not have a similar provision. In the world of the Internet, we know that posting this information 48 hours before the bill can be considered so that the earmarks are known to all who care to look is the best way to make sure there is transparency. So we have added this 48-hour disclosure provision before the consideration of a bill, resolution, or report that contains either an appropriations or a tax earmark. In that way, we have expanded the availability of information for those who follow the proceedings of the Senate.

There is more to be done. Senator Harkin of Iowa is not in the Senate now, but he pointed out an element of the underlying bill that is problematic when it comes to language on this tax benefit provision. Senator Harkin is right. Paragraph B in this bill is subject to misinterpretation. He has suggested at some point--before the vote or after--we have a colloquy to make it clear what our intent would be. I am going to join him in that. I am hoping we can either clean up this paragraph B by way of amendment in the Senate, if not in conference. We do not want any ambiguity when it comes to the applicability of this provision as it relates to limited tax benefits.

I have discussed this with Senator DeMint, and we will see if we can get this done in the Senate. If not, I hope we can address it in the conference committee. We will be working with the Committee on Finance, which is our Senate committee responsible for tax provisions, to make sure they understand what our intention will be and take any advice they have to offer that will help us come up with better language.

I am pleased with this bipartisan solution to the concerns that several Senators had with the original DeMint earmark amendment. If the second-degree amendment is agreed to, we will have a positive vote in passing this amendment. I believe it reflects the intent of all on both sides of the aisle to make sure there is more disclosure.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I believe that the Senator from Iowa has raised an important point. we need to clarify how the amendment applies to targeted tax benefits. We would like the language of the amendment to capture a wide variety of situations where a small number of taxpayers receive special treatment. I hope that we can work with Senator DeMint, the Senate Finance Committee, and any other interested Senators to make appropriate changes to this amendment during conference, if not sooner, so that the language is clear and the outcome increases transparency and accountability.

http://thomas.loc.gov/