Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007--Continued

LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2007--Continued -- (Senate - January 17, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I would like to ask the distinguished majority leader if he would recount for us what happened 2 years ago when we faced passage of an ethics reform bill, with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, when the Republicans were in control of the House and Senate.

Mr. REID. They would not take it to conference. We never got it done.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we have been working for a week and a half on this bill, S. 1, which is the highest priority of the Democratic majority in the new Congress because we believe, as it says, providing greater transparency in the legislative process is a starting point. Trying to restore public confidence in the way we work here is a starting point.

I was heartened by the fact that this bill, as well as the substitute amendment and other amendments offered, has largely been bipartisan. Most of the debate has been bipartisan in nature. With few exceptions, the rollcalls have been bipartisan. It troubles me that we have reached this procedural impasse with the minority that, with the power given to it in the Senate, is threatening to bring down this bill. I am searching my mind to understand why they would want to bring down a bill that would clean up this culture of corruption in Washington and make substantial ethical changes.

I have come to the conclusion that it has to do with indigestion. What I am referring to is this: For every decision in political life there is usually a good reason and a real reason. The good reason stated by the Republican side--or one they portray as a good reason--is they want to offer an amendment, which is characterized as a simple amendment. The bill is 55 pages long; the amendment is 24 pages long--almost half the size of the bill. It is not simple; it is very complex. It is on the legislative line-item veto.

Senator Reid, as majority leader, has already made a good-faith offering even before we came to the floor to the Republican minority and said that it is important and deserves its day on the Senate floor. We will guarantee you that we will debate this bill before the Easter recess, a like bill to be offered on the Democratic side. Let's bring it to a debate and a vote and see which, if either, prevails and take it from there. That was a good-faith offering.

So the so-called good reason the Republicans are threatening to bring down the ethics bill just doesn't hold. We have already made the best offer that the minority could ever expect, and I know that having served in the minority for most of my time in the Senate.

But there is also a real reason they are trying to insert line-item veto into this ethics bill. Sadly, I am afraid it is because as they sat together over lunch and read the provisions of this bill that will now likely pass, it caused indigestion among the Republican ranks and, as a consequence, they said we need a reason to stop this bill. Well, the reason turned out to be the legislative line-item veto.

For those who follow what happens in Washington, it is my belief that somewhere in the White House the President has a veto pen. I don't know if it is one pen or many pens, but my guess is if it is one pen, most of us know already that there is a lot of ink left in this pen. For over the 6 years the President has been in the White House he has only vetoed one bill, and that was the stem cell research bill. He has never vetoed a spending bill in the entire 6 years that he has served as President.

The suggestion by the Republicans now that this President has been longing for the chance to veto spending bills to show how fiscally conservative he is is not supported by the evidence. Time and again, this President signed appropriations bills without hesitation. Now we are being told if he just had this new power, he could bring spending under control. We know better. We know spending starts with the President's budget. We know that year after year, the President has taken us away from the surplus of the Clinton years into the deepest deficits in the history of the United States.

Now we are being told the reason we cannot address ethics is we need to give the President a new power to veto spending bills for the first time in over 6 years. It doesn't really stand the test of scrutiny for us to consider this as a suggestion that is based in fact. It clearly is a reason to stop the ethics bill.

I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, let's not give up on this bipartisan effort and see this ethics bill go down. Yes, as the minority, you have the power to bring the bill down. Perhaps you believe the legislative line-item veto is the way to bring it down, but the American people are not going to buy it. They understand that strengthening disclosure on earmarks, eliminating dead-of-night provisions in conference reports, respecting minorities in conference committees, and ensuring proper valuation for gifts and meals and tickets that Members of Congress receive, closing the loophole and the revolving door as Members leave public life and go into the private sector, negotiating for lobbying jobs while still in Congress, enhancing the oversight of staff level job negotiations, enhancing fiscal transparency and lobbyist disclosure, lobbyist certification and compliance with gift rules--these are powerful. They are big changes and they are long overdue. We tried a year ago under Republican leadership and failed. I hope we don't fail again because the Republican minority wants to bring the bill down. I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will reconsider their position. I hope they will come back and join us in passing this bipartisan bill, making sure we do the people's work before we leave this week.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for the record, a year ago when we debated ethics reform, the cloture motion was opposed on the Democratic side after we considered one amendment--one amendment. We have considered 12 amendments to this bill to this point, plus there have been others that have been accepted by the managers. So our objection a year ago was the fact that we had not opened it to an amendment process. I do not think anyone can argue that point this evening when the minority decides, if they do, to oppose the motion to invoke cloture.

I do not want to read too much into this. I hope this is just a bump in the road. But this is going to be a long journey of 2 years, and it does not start well when a bipartisan bill sponsored by the two leaders--the Democratic and Republican leaders--a substitute cosponsored by both leaders, and amendments cosponsored on both sides of the aisle are not enough impetus for us to pass a bill which is long overdue.

We considered this bill a year ago. It has been set over and over again, but nothing happened. We were determined with the mandate of the last election to see some change on the floor of the Senate. I thought we were off to the right start with a bipartisan measure, an effort to cooperate, an effort to compromise--and there have been many compromises on the floor. To think it is going to break down this evening because we refuse to consider a measure which is not even part of this bill, not even relevant to this bill, not even germane to this bill, tells me that we have reached a bad spot in the road. I hope we can get beyond it. We have a lot of work we need to do in the time to come. I hope it starts off in the same bipartisan manner, but I hope it ends better.

I yield the floor.

http://thomas.loc.gov/