Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007

Floor Speech

LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - August 02, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, more than 6 months after the Senate passed its own lobby reform bill, we are now being asked to vote on a Democrat-written alternative that promises to be less effective but in some ways stronger than current law.

I was a cosponsor of the original version, and its passage by an overwhelming vote of 96 to 2 in January marked an early high point of bipartisanship in this session and it was an unmistakable sign of the strength of that original bill.

Americans were right to be outraged by the scandals that surfaced last year. They were right to hold their lawmakers to the highest standards of conduct, and passing this bill will send a strong and necessary signal that the Senate has recommitted itself to that trust.

As I said, in some key areas, this bill is an improvement over the status quo. But this isn't the bill I would have written, and it would have benefited from a lot of Republican input.

The earmarks provision was passed unanimously in January and was supported by every single Democrat in the Senate, and it was strong; the earmarks provision in this bill is not.

Several new provisions make hardly any sense at all. My largest concern is what we are doing to our own staff. It is unclear to me why in this bill we treat House staff more leniently than our most trusted advisers in the Senate or even those in the executive branch, for that matter. I find this provision particularly offensive.

The gift ban and the new travel restrictions are tricky and vague by extending the ban to not just lobbyists but also to any entities that employ or retain them. Does that mean I have to refuse the key to a city, since cities have their own lobbyists and mayors belong to associations that employ and retain them?

How about a 22-year-old staff assistant who has to wait tables to make ends meet? What happens when they wait on a lobbyist or someone who works for an organization that retains one? Do they have to refuse their tips? You get the drift.

This provision is bound to create problems for well-intentioned Members and staff. I look to the Ethics Committee to provide some clarity to what, at the very least, can be described as a rather murky and unworkable provision.

The new rule on charter flights is seriously deficient. Members who are rich enough, or have family members rich enough, to own their own planes have nothing, of course, to worry about. Everybody else does.

For example, all Presidents, who are required by the Secret Service to travel on Air Force One, will have to reimburse the Government at the full charter rate--which is roughly $400,000 per hour--if they use it for campaign travel. That not only means the end of Presidential fundraisers outside Washington for Democrats and Republicans, it means the end of Presidents doing fundraisers for Members outside the District of Columbia. You would have to have a $5 million fundraiser to pay for the trip. I assume this was not the intent of the authors of the bill, but it will be the effect of what they have written. I know some Members, in particular, who might be surprised to learn about this. We have many of them in this body running for President on both sides.

Every one of these weaknesses would have been improved with Republican input, but we were unable to do so because there was not a conference.

I assure you we will return to the earmarks provision. It will be back. This bill isn't nearly as tough as it would have been on earmarks if Republicans had been involved in writing it. But weighing the good and the bad, many provisions are stronger than current law. I will support its passage.

I yield the floor.

Source