Earmark Reform

Floor Speech

EARMARK REFORM -- (Senate - July 09, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, so we understand what happened, the Senate passed an ethics reform bill. It is a big bill. There are a lot of provisions in the bill that we felt were necessary because of some of the wrongdoing that occurred in Washington over the last several years. We went after the Jack Abramoff scandal. Remember that lobbyist? He is in prison. He had a pretty sweetheart arrangement here. He was sticking things in bills. It went on and on. I will not go into all the gruesome details, but we decided to break this kind of cozy relationship between lobbyists and some Members on Capitol Hill. And then we started to take a look at some of the other aspects of things that were troubling people.

We went into the question of gifts, how much can a Senator receive.

We went into the question of leaving the Senate and picking up a big-paying job as a lobbyist, within a few months making a lot of money. That has happened too often. We said, let's slow down this revolving door.

We went after the disclosure of private employment negotiations that Senators and Congressmen were entering into while they were still sitting in the House of Representatives and in the Senate.

We expanded lobby disclosure requirements. We went to great lengths and said lobbyists have to tell us a lot more about what they are doing with their money and time.

Then we went into prohibiting the old K Street Project. Unless you are a real insider on Capitol Hill, you may not remember that one, but they used to have--I am not kidding now--weekly meetings in the office of a U.S. Senator where the lobbyists would come in and tell them the amendments they wanted, and then the Senators would tell them what fundraisers were coming up. I don't know if there was any connection, but some people thought there was a connection. We put an end to that practice.

Then we talked about Members who were convicted of certain crimes losing their pensions. Understandable, if you are guilty of felonious conduct relating to official duties, that might follow.

Then we talked about the integrity of the process so Members couldn't dump little things in at the last minute in conference reports that hadn't been considered in the House and Senate.

And, of course, we went to the question of earmarks. That was an important part of this bill, but it sure wasn't the only part. Listen to everything I read.

So now we are trying to get this bill to conference. We want to take this bill to conference and work with the House and pass the most significant ethics reform bill in the history of Congress. It is long overdue. I think most Americans would say: Why haven't you done it already? I can tell you why for 12 days we haven't done it: Senator DeMint of South Carolina has objected. Senator DeMint, the man who took the floor and used my name a dozen times, as a great ethics reformer is the Senator who objects to going to conference to make these proposals which passed the Senate--similar measures passed the House--the law of the land. Why? Because he picked one paragraph out of the bill related to earmarks and he wants a guarantee that is going to come out of the conference without a change. I believe it probably will. Mr. President, do you know what the final vote was when it passed the Senate? It was 98 to 0. It is a pretty good indication he is going to see either the exact language he proposed or something very close to it. But unless he gets a locked-down guarantee to get every word of that, he is going to stop all of these efforts at ethics reform. He is going to stop the efforts to put an end to the K Street Project, he is going to stop the efforts of more disclosure, he is going to stop the effort to eliminate outrageous gifts between Members of Congress and lobbyists, and he does this in the name of ethics. I don't follow this at all.

For 12 days now, Senator DeMint has held up our effort to take the ethics bill to conference. For 12 days, he has come to the floor and has said it is because he really believes in ethics. It doesn't track. It doesn't follow. It doesn't wash in Illinois or in South Carolina. I wish he showed a little more humility in this process. That he is going to stop the whole ethical reform because of his section--he is worried about his section I don't think is right. I think he should trust in the substance of his earmark reform, trust in the fact that 98 Senators supported it, trust in the fact that in the end it was a bipartisan agreement. I offered an amendment on the Democratic side to his amendment on the Republican side. What I offered was an amendment calling for more disclosure. Put all the earmarks on the Internet so the whole world can see them. I think that is the way it should be.

I chair a subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. My staff has been working long and hard over the last several weeks to put a bill together. We were on the phone late last night putting all the finishing touches on it. It is going to be the most transparent appropriations bill covering these agencies in the history of the United States, and that is the way it should be. Every Member who has asked for anything in this bill, whether it is in bill language or committee report language, is going to be disclosed. Every Member has to stand by every request they make, and it is printed right there for the world to see. That is the way it ought to be. That isn't enough for the Senator from South Carolina. I am not sure what he wants beyond that. We are already putting into practice what the Senate has virtually accepted, with some slight modifications but nothing of substance. Yet he wants to stop the whole ethics process. I suppose that is his idea of reform, to stop reform. But it is certainly not my idea of reform.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the ethics bill that has passed the Senate and the House be sent to conference for consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. HAGEL. On behalf of the junior Senator from South Carolina, I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I acknowledge my colleague on the other side of the aisle is standing in for the Senator from South Carolina, but if we are ever going to get to ethics reform, we clearly have to move to conference, and conference is going to require agreement on both sides of the aisle and the understanding--incidentally, the Senator from South Carolina characterized the conference committee as the secret conference committee. He is caught up in the old way of doing things. The new way is that the doors will be open. He can come. In fact, I hope the Republican leader will appoint him as a member of the conference committee. Regardless, it is going to be open for him to come and at least observe, if not participate, in this process.

It is a new day for the conference committees, and I certainly hope the Senator from South Carolina will reconsider, will stop his ethics filibuster, the DeMint ethics filibuster, which is now in its 12th day, and allow us to move to this ethics bill for its consideration.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Source