Unanimous Consent Request --S. Res. 123

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--S. RES. 123 -- (Senate - April 17, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in explaining my reservation, I first wish to commend the Senator from South Carolina on the courtesy he has extended to both sides of the aisle in notifying us of his intent to make this unanimous-consent request. I wish to make clear to him and to all Members that the Senate Democratic leadership remains fully committed to earmark disclosure, but we believe his suggestion, taking it piece by piece, is not the right way to accomplish our goal.

Earlier this year, we considered comprehensive ethics reform. It is a product of the first 100 days of the new leadership of Congress that we are most proud of. Included in that reform was a provision related to transparency in earmarking. I supported this reform. In fact, I joined Senator DeMint in crafting a new definition of ``earmark'' and requiring that earmarks in legislation be posted on the Internet prior to their final consideration on the floor of the Senate. We both agreed on this language. It passed with an overwhelming majority of 98 to 0, and the underlying bill passed 96 to 2.

No one is suggesting these earmark rules will not be implemented. In fact, today the Senate Appropriations Committee, chaired by the President pro tempore of the Senate, who is now presiding, Senator Byrd, has announced a new policy of transparency in accountability, totally consistent with the language which we agreed on and adopted overwhelmingly on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee's announcement on these sweeping reforms be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, under these new guidelines, all earmarks will be clearly identified in the committee bill and report, including the requesting Senator, the amount of the earmark, the recipient of the earmark, and the purpose of the earmark. An earmark shall be defined as in the Senate-passed ethics reform bill, which Mr. DeMint and I cosponsored. The committee bill and report will be published on the Internet--as my amendment required--so that the world can see these earmarks in advance of final passage. Senators will be required to certify that neither they nor their spouses have any financial interests in any earmark. These guidelines will be in place until the ethics reform bill is signed into law.

I commend the Presiding Officer as chairman of the Appropriations Committee for reaching out to the other side of the aisle, to the ranking member, Senator Cochran from Mississippi, so that he has been informed of our intention to reform this earmark process.

Earmark disclosure, though, is only one part of the much broader package. We need to strengthen gift and travel rules for Members of the Senate, close the revolving door, strengthen lobbying disclosure, outlaw the K Street Project, this notorious project in which Mr. Abramoff and others were involved, and take other steps to clean up the way business is done in Washington.

Now, if the Senator from South Carolina has his way, we will take one piece today. Some will suggest taking another piece tomorrow. I think it will dilute our effort. We need, within the next few weeks, to work with the House to pass this measure. For those who ask: Well, why hasn't it taken place so far, the House ethics reform was done by House rule, did not involve a joint action by the House and the Senate.

So we are going to find a vehicle that will accomplish our Senate ethics reform, statutory and rules reform, and do it in the appropriate manner and do it in a comprehensive way. We have been assured by House leaders that they will move on this bill in the next few weeks. As soon as the House acts, the Senate will move for conference as quickly as possible. We should not take up bits and pieces of the larger bill.

The Senate has expressed a strong support for earmark disclosure, and the Senate Appropriations Committee, which I am proud to be a member of, has taken the lead on this side of the aisle in strong reforms. The goal of the Senator from South Carolina is already being implemented, and I hope he can take ``yes'' for an answer.

I would like to correct one thing he said for the record. When he started his remarks about earmarks, he said at one point that when it comes to earmarks, this Senate is ``business as usual.'' As the Presiding Officer and those who follow the Senate know, that is hardly the case. When we considered the continuing resolution which had all of the pending appropriations bills from the previously Republican-controlled Congress yet enacted, we took a bold move on our part--that is, the Democratic side--and eliminated 9,300 earmarks that were in bills authored when the Senator from South Carolina was in the majority. We eliminated every single one of them--all 9,300 earmarks. It contained no new earmarks. This continuing resolution eliminated funding for over $2.1 billion of earmarks for over 1,900 separate projects.

This is hardly business as usual. Business as usual would have been to take the bills from a Republican Congress, with thousands of earmarks, and enact them into law. We did not do that. So to suggest we are continuing along the path that was the case when there were previous leaders in Congress is just not supported by the facts.

Beyond that, I can give my assurance to the Senator from South Carolina, my colleague, that the earmark language which we adopted in the Senate is going to be the standard by which we live. The Appropriations Committee has made that very clear. I believe that is what we should do.

So at this point, Mr. President, acknowledging the commitment of the Senator from South Carolina to this issue and acknowledging that he should be standing here and saying he has accomplished quite a bit to this point, I would have to say that his additional suggestion today of plucking out one piece of ethics reform and moving on it would be inconsistent with our ultimate goal of having comprehensive ethics reform. In the meantime, we have followed this measure through the Senate Appropriations Committee and, as a consequence, I must object.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. It strikes me as odd that the Senator from Oklahoma will not acknowledge the obvious. The earmark reform language which he supported, and the Senator from South Carolina supports, passed the Senate 98 to 0. It was part of the first comprehensive ethics reform package this Senate has seen in many years; many years of Republican rule, I might add. We are
now saying that the Appropriations Committee has voluntarily said, even before the conference committee that we are going to live by these standards.

I will not quibble with the Senator from Oklahoma because he and I see this quite differently. But authorizing a project does not mean it has money. That is why we have authorizing committees and appropriating committees. I can authorize the Sun, the Moon, the stars, and the Milky Way, but I will not deliver any of those to anybody until I get to an appropriations bill.

Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DURBIN. When I am finished, I will. All of the authorization in the world notwithstanding, unless you appropriate the money from the Treasury for the project, it is just a good idea that might happen.

Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DURBIN. I said I will. Allow me to finish my sentence. What I am suggesting is, other committees may take this up as well on an interim basis. But the bills that are going to move on the floor of the Senate are the appropriations bills. Now that the budget resolution is passed, our major obligation is to achieve something we haven't done for years. We want to try to pass the appropriations bills on time. That means that the time of the Senators from Oklahoma and South Carolina and all of us will be consumed with appropriations bills, and the rules we will play by on earmarks for those bills which will be front and center, our major business, will be the same rule that you voted for, the vote that the Senator from Oklahoma cast on this floor for earmark reform. So I say to the Senator from Oklahoma, he can be prepared as these bills come to the floor to see the very approach he has suggested be followed voluntarily. In the meantime we have the assurance of the House that this matter is going to conference committee.

Suggesting that we have abandoned our commitment to reform or calling it a flimsy excuse overstates the Senator's position.

I object.

Source