Unanimous Consent Request --H.R. 2316

Floor Speech

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 2316 -- (Senate - June 28, 2007)

BREAK IN TRASNCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Will the majority leader yield?

Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the majority leader if I understand what has happened here. We have adopted the language of the Senator from South Carolina in S. 1, 96 to 2. We sent it over to the House for consideration. The Senator from South Carolina came to the floor while the House was deliberating and insisted that we move forward. We said we had to wait for House action, and House action has taken place, moving us to a conference. Now the Senator from South Carolina is objecting to going to a conference so that this could become the law of the land and the rules applying to the Senate. Is that where we are today? The Republican Senate is objecting to going to conference on ethics and lobbying reform?

Mr. REID. The Senator from Illinois has it down pat. We have worked within the confines of the rules that have been given us. We have passed a bill. They have passed one in the House. Now is the time to see if we can make it into law.

There will be some things that will wind up being a Senate rule. Some things will wind up being a House rule. That is part of what the conference is going to work out. No one is trying to detract from anything that the distinguished Senator from South Carolina wants. But just because you want something doesn't mean you are necessarily going to get it. I just think this is such a bad way to legislate. Here we were within seconds of being able to go to conference. A phone call came in to the cloakroom. I understand that. The Republican leader has an obligation to take care of his Members. But I think this is not a good way to go.

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. REID. The eyes of the American public are on us.

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask the majority leader, wasn't there a clear message from the last election that people wanted us to clean up the culture of corruption in this town, that they wanted ethics and lobbying reform? Isn't that why the Democratic majority picked it as S. 1, the first piece of legislation we considered, made it a high priority, and passed it with a strong bipartisan vote? And isn't it a fact that because of the objection from the Republican side of the aisle, we now run the risk of having nothing, no change, no reform in lobbying or ethics, and that the Senator from South Carolina has asked for you to guarantee a result from a conference committee?

Mr. REID. I appreciate----

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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
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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

Source