Unanimous Consent Request --H.R. 2316
Floor Speech
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 2316 -- (Senate - June 28, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I would like to address my comments to my friend from South Carolina. The bottom line is very simple. We have conference committees to move things along, not to slow them down. My colleague from South Carolina has concerns about earmarks. I understand them. They are heartfelt. But it is clear that if we acceded to his request, any single Senator, because of any issue on any bill, could hold up progress completely--on ethics reform, on 9/11, on anything else.
I will tell you my reading. I am from a different part of the country than my colleague, but people want us to get some things done. They don't want us to say: If I don't get it exactly my way on my provision, I am going to hold everything up. That is the consequence of what my friend from South Carolina is saying.
Mr. DeMINT. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SCHUMER. I might feel that the worst part of what happened, the scandals we talked about, is the free trips. I might say: I don't want to trust anything to conference reports. Unless free trips are done exactly as we say here, I want to hold up the bill. One of my colleagues might say that they think the worst thing is flying and the airplanes.
Mr. DeMINT. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SCHUMER. I will in a minute. We would be totally gridlocked. If each of us in this body of 100, each with strong opinions and great talents, were to say: I am not going to let anything move forward unless I get my thing done, period, without change, without discussion, without modification, with the other body, we would be where the public doesn't want us: gridlocked on ethics reform, gridlocked on 9/11, gridlocked on everything else.
I am happy to yield to my friend from South Carolina.
Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Senator for the comment. You are exactly right. If this was just what I wanted, I would not hold up anything. This is something you voted for. Every Senator voted for this earmark reform as a Senate rule, not as something we are going to debate with the House but as our rule. All I am asking is that we adopt the rules for the Senate that we have already passed. I do not want to hold up this conference.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, we have a vote scheduled. I have just received word from the Appropriations Committee, bipartisan, they need another 10 minutes.
So I ask unanimous consent that they have 10 minutes; otherwise, I will just go into a quorum call.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. So the vote will take place at 10 after the hour.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, reclaiming my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I understand this passed by a whole lot of votes. That is not the point. There are lots of things that pass by a lot of votes, and then they all have to be worked out in conference committees and in other ways. If each of us insists ``it is my way or I hold things up''--maybe there are ways to improve and strengthen the provisions we pass; maybe there are things other people might add; maybe there will be the kinds of legislative tradeoffs that will make a stronger ethics bill. We all have no way of knowing. But we do know one thing: If what the Senator from South Carolina is doing, by asserting his prerogatives in the Senate, was done by everybody, or even five other Senators, we would absolutely have no ethics reform--no ethics reform--no ethics reform.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SCHUMER. I am happy to yield to my colleague from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I come from the House of Representatives, as my friend from New York and my friend from South Carolina. Over there, in that body, the Speaker decides how everything is going to go, whether the Speaker is a Republican or Democrat. Then some people come over here from the House, and they decide they are going to use the rules of the Senate to call attention to what they think is the issue of the day.
I want to thank my friend. My question to my friend is this: If you went out and asked the average person on the street what they think about the Congress and whether we need ethics reform and if we should pass ethics reform, my friend, I think, would agree--and I will ask him this--they would answer, yes.
Then, if you followed it up, I say to my friend, and said: Well, there are one or two things missing from this bill; we took care of 12 things, but it is tough because we have to work across party aisles. It is tough because everybody has his or her own idea. Do you think it is good to get started with the package we have and get it done for the American people?
What does my friend think the average person would say?
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, the average person would say--because the average American is practical--anyone who insists on only his way or her way is gumming up the works. To get 90 percent or 95 percent of what is a good package, most people would say, yes.
I will say another thing to my colleague.
Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, will my Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I will be happy to yield when I finish my little colloquy with my friend from California.
My guess is, if you ask the person on the street what is the most egregious abuse in terms of lobbyists and ethics, it is the trips. That is what caught the highlights. It was all the free gifts and all the emoluments and going to London and going here and going there. Most people, if you asked them about earmarks, and they knew what the earmarks were--they would say the bridge from Alaska is a bad thing, and there are a few others that are a bad thing--but my guess is that 95 percent of the people in this body--maybe 100 percent; maybe my friend from South Carolina is proud of the earmarks they have put in and they should be made public early and there should be debate on them--but they, in themselves, are not wrong as the free trips, in themselves, are wrong.
So the bottom line is, if you ask the average citizen, my colleague from California is right, they would say: Move forward because there is a lot in this bill that is important. In fact, the No. 1 abuse we read about might have been trips or emoluments or something like that more than earmarks.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, will the Senator from New York yield for a question?
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I am happy to yield to my colleague form Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, is the Senator aware that the bill just objected to by the Republican Senator from South Carolina that we want to take to conference to make into law includes provisions that toughen the rules concerning gifts and travel, banning gifts from registered lobbyists, requiring the market value be paid for tickets to events, prohibiting Senators from participating in events to honor them at a national convention, extending the ban on travel paid for by lobbyists, requiring Senators and staff to receive approval from the Ethics Committee before accepting expenses for any trip paid for by private sources, requiring full disclosure of any travel on
[Page: S8670]
noncommercial airlines, requiring certifications and disclosures filed by Senators and staff available to the public for inspection?
Also, it includes slowing down the revolving door between Senators and staff, so those leaving the Senate are limited in the jobs they can take; reducing and eliminating negotiations for another job by a sitting Senator in terms of where they might go when they leave the Senate; also, prohibiting staff contact with lobbyists who are family members of the Senator; also, voting to significantly expand lobbying disclosure.
It goes on for lengthy paragraphs: voting to prohibit partisan efforts like the K Street Project, that notorious project involving lobbyists and Members of the Senate; voting to deny pensions to former Members convicted of certain crimes; voting to protect the integrity of conference reports.
Does the Senator from New York not make this point, that when one Senator stands up and says: Well, I have one little section that I want to guarantee is going to be in the final conference report, that Senator is stopping us from considering all of these elements of ethics and lobbying reform, each of which points to some concern of Members of the Senate where we want to change the ethics standards, clean up the culture of corruption?
So when the Republican Senator from South Carolina objects to going to conference, he stops us from considering any and all of the things I just read.
Is that the point the Senator from New York is making?
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I thank my colleague from
Illinois. That is exactly the point I am making. I would say, the reason we have a Senate, and not a body of one, is because there are different views. Some of the things that my colleague from Illinois read to me are the most objectionable that are on the books now.
I would guess the public is probably closer to my view than the view of the Senator from South Carolina. I would guess what bothered them the most with Abramoff, or with anything else, was all the trips and emoluments and the way the lobbyists sort of insinuated their way into the whole process. There are hundreds of earmarks where there were no lobbyists involved. There were many more earmarks--most earmarks--where the public debate would be supported by this body.
Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SCHUMER. So I would say to my friend from Illinois that is exactly the point. If each of us insists that our little provision must be passed on its own--no debate, no discussion, no moving forward with the general process--we would have no ethics reform.
Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SCHUMER. So despite the good intentions of my colleague from South Carolina, the effect of what he is doing is preventing good, strong, tough ethics reform across the board on issues such as earmarks, but also on issues such as trips and the K Street Project, and everything else from moving forward.
So my colleague from Illinois makes a point that I think is----
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for another question?
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I continue to yield to my colleague.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I would like to ask my colleague from New York, as to the notorious K Street Project, where lobbyists had regular meetings with Members of the Senate to discuss which legislation would come up, which amendments would be considered, which provisions in the Tax Code would be passed, and which would fail--all of these things are now prohibited under the bill that we want to send to conference. They do not relate directly to earmarks, which are appropriations measures, but everyone across America would concede there were clear abuses when it came to this K Street Project.
So when the Republican Senator from South Carolina objects to taking this bill to conference, he has gone beyond earmarks. He is not allowing us to consider the broader question about what we consider to be unethical and illegal contacts between lobbyists and Members of the Senate. He is stopping us from passing new laws to bring some ethics reform to the Senate.
I ask the Senator from New York, the issue of earmarks was voted on with an overwhelming vote in the Senate. The Appropriations Committee, on which I serve, is moving forward with real earmarks reform. So it would seem that the Senator from South Carolina is carping on a trifle here. We have a huge number of important legislative items to consider in S. 1.
I ask the Senator from New York, in the time he has served in the House and the Senate, can he recall a time when a Senator or Member of Congress could receive a guarantee that a conference committee was going to produce exact language as each Member would like going into the conference?
Mr. SCHUMER. Well, Madam President, I have served in this body now for 8 years. I had served in the House for 18 years. I cannot recall a single instance. We do have senses of the Senate; we had senses of the House, which are supposed to direct things. But we have never asked for a guarantee. I, for one, cannot recall someone saying: I am holding up everything until I get my guarantee. That is wrong.
Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I will be happy to yield in a second.
I will tell you, I go to my State. It is a diverse State of 19 million people. It is not South Carolina. It is not Illinois. It is not Nevada. It is not California. It is not Washington State. But I will tell you, the No. 1 thing I hear is: Can't you folks each give in a little bit? Can't you folks each work with one another and get something done?
That is what I hear. Yet the path my friend from South Carolina is taking is exactly the opposite because we will get good earmark reform.
Source