quorum call:

mr. inouye: madam president.

the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. inouye: i ask the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inouye: i rise today to speak against the toomey amendment that would impose a permanent ban on congressional initiatives or earmarks. madam president, the constitution grants to the congress the power of the purse. there is no authority more vital to the separation of powers than the one that prevents the executive branch from directly spending the tax dollars collected from the citizens. depriving the congress of the ability to direct money to specific projects does not save money or reduce the deficit. it simply gives additional power to the president and weakens the legislative branch. madam president, as i stated

when i announced the initial moratorium on appropriations earmarks last february, i continue to support the constitutional right of members of congress to direct investments to their states and districts under the fiscally responsible and transparent earmarking process that we have established. madam president, hawaii is a long way from the capital city. it is simply not possible or a bureaucrat here in washington to understand the needs of my home state as well as i do. and i believe that such is the case with all 50 states. each one is unique. each one has individual challenges and each one has issues that cannot be fully understood by civil servants

located thousands of miles away. madam president, this amendment has nothing to do with lowering the deficit, and let me state that again. eliminating earmarks will not save a single penny in spending. it will simply take decisions that were rightfully made by congress and delegate them to the executive branch. madam president, in truth, this is a political amendment meant to give cover to those who seek to mislead the american people into thinking that earmarks are responsible for our current deficit, and that simply is not the case. hour deficit is driven by entitlement spending that is rising at a rate three times that of inflation, not by discretionary spending that is

now capped at less than the rate of inflation. our deficit is driven by the fact that revenues are at their lowest level in 50 years. a permanent ban on earmarks addresses neither of these matters. and, madam president, finally, i note that my colleagues that the voluntary moratorium in appropriation bill for fy 2012 was 100% successful, and the committee will continue the moratorium for fy 2013. madam president, prior to the moratorium taking effect, the appropriations committee had to put into place a series of reforms that ensured openness and tans pearns for earmark requests -- transparency for earmark requests. every earmark was posted on

line. every earmark that was approved was listed along with the sponsor's name in committee reports and posted on line. there were no secrets, and no back-room deals. the reality is that without congressional earmarks, we find ourselves at the mercy of the bureaucrats to ensure our local needs are fulfilled. if we approve this amendment, from now on earmarks will be at the sole discretion of the executive branch. local needs will either go unmet or will be included through deals made between our elected officials and the white house or unelected bureaucrats. no longer will we show the american people what earmarks we are funding and why. instead, there will be -- they

will be part of a trade-off between members and bureaucrats, a bridge in return for support of a trade agreement. by permanently banning earmarks, the spending decisions will move from the transparent process to discussions that are hidden from the public. so we face a choice between an open and transparent method for allocating targeted funding, or one that will be done with phone calls, conversations, winks and nods. one method allows for accountability and another leaves us all at the whim of unelected bureaucrats, and so, madam president, i urge my colleagues to vote against the toomey amendment. this amendment will serve to deprive the congress of essential congressional

prerogatives. it has no impact on the debt and it is simply designed to give political cover to those who refuse to address the core drivers of our fiscal imbalance, lack of revenues and every-increasing entitlement spending. i yield the floor, madam president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. inouye: i ask the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inouye: on behalf of the leader i ask any time spent in quorum calls be equally divided between the two sides. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inouye: thank you, madam president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. kyl: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: thank you. i ask unanimous consent further proceedings under the work be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: madam president, i rise to speak on the pending toomey amendment, an amendment we'll be voting on here after a little bit, number 1472, known assist thas theearmark elimination act.

i thank senators toomey and mccaskill for continuing this discussion, as well as numerous others, including senators mccain, coburn and demint, who have championed reforms to washington's earmark culture. as noted by senators, the earmark process lacks scrutiny. i would like to confirm, madam president, that this effort does not restrict congress' ability to protect the american taxpayer from unnecessary expenses and significant legal exposure. in certain situations, the united states is required to fulfill legal obligations. for example, the united states must resolve water rights claims that american indian tribes assert against the united states and other water users within an affected state. in those instances, as is common in other litigation, it is in

the interest of the united states and the american taxpayer to limit ongoing legal exposure by settling the tribe's water rights claims. effectuating the terms of such i settlement requires congressional review and approval. congress will undoubtedly apply the searching scrutiny to require whether the settlement is in the best interests of the american people. such settlements, however, are not amenable to a formula-driven or competitive award process. rather, the settlements must be addressed and negotiated if and when the claims are asserted against the united states. congressionally enacted indian water rights settlements have not previously fallen within the earmark moratorium. in that vain, i want to confirm with my colleague from pennsylvania that the earmark elimination act does not restrict congress' authority to protect taxpayers by limiting the united states' exposure to similar legal challenges. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. a senator: thank you, madam president. the senator from arizona is absolutely correct. the earmark elimination act is not intended to preclude

congress from effectuating legal settlements such as indian water rights settlements, that resolve claims against the united states. this body must maintain its ability to avoid costly lit imaition examine to limit the united states -- litigation and to limit the united states exposure in a way that ultimately benefits american taxpayers. mr. kyl: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: i thank my colleague from pennsylvania and i concur my colleague if expressing a commitment to ensuring that these positive efforts to reform the earmark process do not result in an unintended consequence whereby congress' efforts to settle legal claims against the united states are subject to a point of order. i thank my colleague from pennsylvania for his efforts, and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. inhofe: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: the time i may consume. thank you very much, madam president. we're going to have a number of votes on amendments this afternoon, and i think it's important that we kind of look

at this in historic perspective. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, that the senator from ohio be recognized for such time as he -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: i can remember back in 2007 -- i'm referring to the amendments and the meaning of the amendments, of the toomey amendment that will be coming up i think is very significant. most people think in earmarks, yeah, we want to do away with this. i'm the first one to admit that there has been a lot of abuse of the earmark process, and i -- i don't want to take sides between authorizers and appropriators, but i can remember several times sitting down here on the floor when appropriation bills are coming through, when people are legislating on appropriation bills, when they are swapping out deals, and that's the kind of thing that is -- we want to stop. i think we have an opportunity to -- to do that today.

i have an amendment that it is my understanding the way the amendments are stacked up, there is going to be a vote on the toomey amendment, then a vote on my amendment. let me go back and talk a little bit about how long we have been working on this issue. way back in 2007, i gave a talk to the grover nor cyst quist -- grover norquist group, on july july 25, 2007, that i gave a history, the senate history of both the long 200-year fight between appropriators and authorizers. in 1816, the responsibilities for authorizing versus appropriating have been -- have been debated, and in that year, the senate created the first 11 permanent standing committees. i think most people understand that we in the united states senate, each one of us is on at least two standing committees, and many of these are authorizing committees or

appropriating committees. mine happen to be authorizing committees. my two major committees that i have been on since i have been serving in the senate are the senate armed services committee and the -- the environment and public works committee. both are authorizing committees. now, what's significant about this is that there has always been a fight. this isn't a new fight. people think this is just going on today. this has been going on for -- literally since 1816. in 1867, the senate created the appropriations committee, and the purpose of that was to have the tax writing committee put in the finance committee and then have the appropriating committee as a separate committee keep those functions divided. here it is now, a couple of hundred years later, and we're still trying to do the same thing. today may be the day that we can do it. my amendment actually would do that. in 1921, the senate passed -- i'm reading notes right now from the speech i made in 2007 at the

grover norquist event. the senate passed the -- in 1921, the budget and accounting act of 1921. the senate tried to ensure that authorizing had to take place in a separate committee. there we go. that's what we're talking about today. my amendment actually resolves the problem because it says -- it defines an earmark as an appropriation that hasn't been authorized. in a minute, i'm going to talk about that because there is a lot of support for that that's that's -- currently that should be considered. well, let me kind of say and use my -- my committees as an example. if we were to do away with all earmarks as they are described in the house bill, the earmarks would actually do -- would be defined as any appropriation or authorization. now, that gets into the huge question that we're talking about in a minute, what our constitution says. it says that we in the house and the senate should do the

spending or the appropriating, and this has been this way for a long time, and i'm hoping that members will go back and read justice story and some of the great people in the past who have talked about why it's necessary for all the authorizing and the spending to take place in the -- in this body, in the senate and in the house. now, if that doesn't happen, we're going to be in a position where we are giving to the president our function, we're ceding our constitutional obligation to the president, in this case, president obama. back in the time i was making this speech initially, i talked about such things, and i mentioned this on the floor yesterday. let's take -- a lot of people don't understand. the budget that comes to us is a budget from the president. it's not from congress, not from the house, not from the senate, not from the democrats, not from the republicans. it is from the president, and the president is a guy that

sends the budget down. i'm so critical of this president because every one of his budgets now -- we have just gotten the fourth budget -- have a deficit of over a trillion dollars. unheard of. i can remember back in the days when -- in 1996 was the first $1.5 trillion budget. that was during the clinton administration. i remember coming down to the floor and saying we can't sustain this level of spending. well, that was $1.5 trillion to run the entire united states of america. what president obama has sent down is $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion in each of his budgets, just deficit alone. and so obviously we can't continue to do that. but when the budget came down, an example i used yesterday -- i'm in the armed services committee. it's an authorizing committee. it's a committee with a staff with experts in every area. missile defense, strike fighters, all the things having to do with defending america.

of course when the budget comes down, historically -- now, i'm talking about historically for 100 years or so, we have taken that budget and we have analyzed that budget, and the chair is fully aware of this because she sits on that committee, and we determine what is the best way to spend that given number of dollars that come down on the budget to best defend america. an example i used yesterday was in one of the first budgets that came down -- i think it was the first budget from president obama. it had one item that was a $330 million item that was for a launching system that was referred to as a bucket of rockets. a good system, i might add. but with the scarce dollars, we made a determination in the armed services committee that we could take that same $330 million, and instead of spending it on a launching system, spend it on six new f-18 strike fighters, aircraft. and we did that.

and that's what we should be able to do. but if you have an earmark ban, then you wouldn't be able to do that. it depends on how it's going to be interpreted, but the way i interpret it, it would mean we have to take -- we can't change what the president sends down because that would be called a congressional earmark. some might argue and say i know it, it's only if it happens to be in your district or something like that. that's not what it says, though, but the way it's defined is anything that would be an authorization or an appropriation. so there we had the example there on the armed services committee, and one of the other -- one of the unintended consequences would be -- and i would just use this as an example. we have -- i can remember back in the days, i'm old enough to remember back when reagan was president and nobody believed that we would ever have a problem with people sending over a missile with a -- with some type of a weapon on it that would be very destructive to america. nor did they believe it would be possible if a missile is coming

in that we could knock down that missile. well, we now have settled that. everyone knows you can hit a bullet with a bullet. we have done it before. we're doing a good job. and we also know that after having gone through 9/11, that we should have at the very top of our concern as representatives of this country to defend america and to have an enhanced system. so we had a policy that we wanted to have a redundancy in all three phases of missile defense. now, missile defense you have three phases -- a boost phase, a mid course phase, a terminal phase. we want to have -- so when we are addressing that, if the president comes in with something that is not -- doesn't follow that redundancy, it could be that we would be in a position where we would not be able to do what's in the best interests of our country. i can use the same example in the transportation committee that i sit on, but i would only say this. i'm not the only one who believes that when we say we

want just an outright ban on all spending -- and that's what we're saying -- an outright ban on all spending, there is an article that i -- that i took out of "the hill" magazine. that would have been about three years ago, three or four years ago saying "lobbyists hitting up federal agencies as earmark rate drops." in other words, as we quit spending here, it doesn't save a cent. that money goes back into the bureaucracy, and they are spending it at that point. so that puts us in the position of admittedly they are talking about they are actually lobbying the bureaucrats as opposed to members because that's where all the power is. in other words, we have ceded that power. and i can see a lot of the democrats wanting to pass an all-out ban on congressional earmarks because they are supporting obama, and obama wants to do the spending.

they want him to. i understand that. and i heard from some of the democrats who don't agree with that, and i appreciate their making that statement on the floor. but i think as we address this and we go back to things that we did on the floor a year and a half ago -- this is november of 2010 -- we talked about the constitution and how it restricts spending only to the legislative branches. it specifically denies that honor to the president. we take an oath of office. now, i'm reading now from a statement i made on the floor a year and a half ago. we take an oath of office to uphold the constitution of the united states. that means that we take an oath of office to uphold article 1, section 9 of the constitution. what does that say? that says that the spending in our government should be confined to the legislative branch. that's us. as you go and look in the federalist papers and talk about this, it's over and over again. the judges without exception have reinforced this as the

obligation, the constitutional obligation we have. i miss senator bob byrd sometimes more than other times. this is one of the times i do. i can hear him standing on the floor saying why is it we give up our constitutional right? remember he used to carry around the constitution. he would hold it up. i wish he were here today so he could talk about article 1, section 9 of the constitution and how we are ceding that authority to the president. i mentioned yesterday that one of the problems i have on a permanent moratorium without a definition of what an earmark is, is one of the problems we have in giving the president and ceding our authority to -- to him. during -- there's no better example, a lot of us got quite upset in this body when the president had his 800 or so billion-dollar stimulus plan. remember the stimulus plan that

didn't speculate and -- stimulate and when he signed it he was talking about -- as it turned out, by the way, only 3% of that went into roads, highways and so forth and only 3% into defending america. but when he signed it, this is a quote from president obama. he said -- quote -- "what i am signing then is a balanced law with a mix of tax cuts and investments. it's been put together without earmarks, and -- or the usual usual, spending -- the push pork barrel spending. where is that list? anyway, we had had such examples of -- of -- of earmarks and in fact i remember when it was sean hannity on his program he had the 102 most's graduallious earmarks, in those were $219,000 to stoody the hookup behavior of college coeds in new york, a million dollars to do fossil research in

argentina, $1.2 million to build an underpass for deer crossing in wyoming. and 102 egregious earmarks and not one of them was a congressional earmarks. they're all bureaucratic earmarks. we ceded that so the president through our action was able to do all those things that he couldn't otherwise do. and i had a longer list that i asked be made a part of the record at this point in my presentation of about 10 or 15 other egregious earmarks. as it turned out, the president was the one who did the earmarks of the $800 billion stimulus program. again getting back to article 1, section 9, no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law. law, that's us. three -- the -- we're the legal, legislative branch of government. that is what we are supposed to do. i think everyone understands that. it's unintended, i know a lot

of people and a lot of people out there would be rating a vote and saying we want to kill all earmarks without stopping to think that that is all spending and that's our constitutional duty. so i would say that the -- if we continued making permanent and current moratorium on congressional earmarks, then we're limiting our ability to govern with the president. if all we are doing is handing the president pots of money and requiring that he have competitive grants to disburse the funds, we're just washing our hands of the outcome. no light or transparency inherit to the federal grandmaking process. so what we're doing is giving up our constitutional responsibility and ceding that to the president. now, it could be that things are going to be refined and further definitions and i have no objection to that but i'm saying we have one very simple solution to it. and when the votes come up

today, i'm going to announce right now that if we don't have a definition of earmark then i would vote against a -- a permanent moratorium on earmarks. because that is our constitutional responsibility. now, my amendment is a little bit different because what i do is define what an earmark is, and an earmark is defined as an appropriation that has not been authorized. i was very proud two days ago, senator toomey said some earmarks ought to be funded but they ought to be funded in a transparent and honest way subject to evaluation by an authorizing committee. that's exactly what my amendment does. and i've talked to senator toomey and i appreciate the fact that he is very open about this. i'll repeat that. some things ought to be funded but they should be funded in a transparent and honest way subject to evaluation by an authorization committee. that's my amendment. a definition of an earmark is

spending or appropriating without authorizing. and others, my junior senator last year, senator coburn, i'm quoting now, "it is not wrong to go through an authorization process where your colleagues can actually see it. it's wrong to side something in a bill." amen. i agree with that. i said earlier and i said yesterday that i can remember democrats and republicans on consideration of appropriation bill sitting on the floor swapping out deals, making deals back and forth. that's what we want to do something about. this isn't a partisan thing. this is something that's been going on. and we have a way now in doing it. senator mccain, he was kind enough to endorse a free-standing bill i had that does the very thing of defining an earmark as an appropriation that hasn't been authorized. he said -- quote -- "some of the earmarks are worthy and if they're worthy, then they should be authorized." authorized, there's the key. and senator mccain is capital x.l. right.

if you authorize it, then that's the process we want. and when an earmark is considered by an authorization committee before it's appropriated real transparency is brought to the fact. i remember it was senator coburn said on the floor, this is about a year and a half ago, he agreed with me and said one good thing about requiring an authorization before an appropriation is that then if it's a bad one, we have two chances to kill it. he's right. senator coburn is right. we can kill it in the authorization phase or we can kill it in the appropriation phase. the example that i used is a good example in terms of what we in the armed services committee should be doing and are not doing. but i would say to you that this afternoon when we have these votes it's my understanding we're going to have around 20 votes, a lot of these will be voice voted, i'm sure, but the two votes i'm concerned about are number one, the vote on the toomey bill which i strongly --

i support it, but i support it if you can define it and make real transparency set in by having an authorization process in place. so i just would only say let's go back to the constitution, let's go back to the statements that were made by as i mentioned, senator toomey, senator mccain, senator coburn, that we want transparency but don't want to cede the power, our constitutional duty as members of the senate, to the executive branch. i know some in here would probably want to do that. some are stronger supporters of obama than i am. i'm very critical of what obama has done and in terms of the deficits which we've talked about and what he's doing to the military, some trillion dollars over a period of ten years would be taken out of our military, when you add his budgets to the sequestration that's something that shouldn't happen. energy. right now the president is going around talking about how he is for developing our energy in

this country and yet he is the obstacle to the development to that, he has in his budget investigators -- various things that make it difficult if not impossible to get our resources that we have out there in oil and gas. in fact, it was kind of humorous a little bit, very clever of him when the president during his state of the union message last -- last week, was talking about wanting to exploit all of our natural gas and all of that, he slipped in a little phrase that hardly anyone heard. i know that senator boxer heard it because she was necked to me -- next to me and we disagree. he said yeah, we want to go after all the tight formation and all the shales that are out there but we don't want to poison the ground at the same time. what he's talking about there is hydraulic fracturing. if you take that away and put that in the hands of the federal government you might as well say goodbye to all these tight formations, oil and gas, we would not be able to do it.

i'm critical of him in that respect. in the fourth area, in addition to what he's doing to the military, the deficit spending and what he's doing to energy in this country, is regulations. you know, we have -- i'm the ranking member of the -- the environmental and public works committee. with all of these enact programs, that's maximummable achievable control technology, he's trying to do away, put emission requirements where there is no technology to get into that type of requirements. so it's very expensive. a the other thing he's trying to do and i know this is the most controversial issue among liberals and conservatives, and that is we were able to successfully stop this whole global warming cap-and-trade legislation that has been out there ever since we'd refused to ratify kyoto and made it very clear, one thing that nobody argues with, we know it's true, if you were to have legislation for cap-and-trade,

the cost would be between $300 billion and $400 billion a year, we know that that's true because that's come from m.i.t., it's come from c.r.a., it's come from the wharton school, and so that's the range that they talk about. however, now this president is talking to do by regulation what we have voted down in legislation. right now in this body of 100 senators, there are more at the very most of 25 -- 25 members itself senate who would vote for cap-and-trade. and yet he's trying to do that through regulation. and i have to say that would be the largest amount of money in terms -- that would probably exceed the obligations that we have to pay back even the deficits that he has had. so we'll be talking 340er about that later. -- more about that later. but the issue is the two votes that are coming up. and by encourage us to vote for my amendment which would define an earmark as an appropriation that has not been authorized.

and i've read to you quotes from virtually everyone in here who would agree with that except for those individuals who want to see -- cede this power to the president of the united states. with that i yield the floor and i understand under unanimous consent the senator from ohio would be the next speaker. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown:: at the conclusion of my remarks i ask the senator from iowa, senator grassley, be recognized. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i thank senator inhofe for the sensible nature of his words and in terms of the difference between a presidential and a congressional earmark. i think he brought good sense to this and i appreciate his words. madam president, i rise in support of amendment number 1481, cosponsored by senator merkley. our amendment that will -- the amendment to the stock act, i thank senator gillibrand for her

good work managing this legislation. "usa today" had an editorial from tuesday, said if lawmakers weir really concerned with ethics, they'd put their equity holdings in blind trust so they wouldn't have the obvious conflict of interest that comes from setting the rules for the companies they own. banking committee members wouldn't invest in financial institutions, armed services committee members wouldn't invest in defense contractors, energy committee members wouldn't invest in oil companies. how simple is that, how straightforward is that, how right is that? these stories simply don't reflect well in the world's greatest deliberative body. most of us think these investments don't affect our decisions here and they probably don't. but isn't it time we held ourselves to a higher standard? senator merkley and i are proposing that putting the people's interests first act is an amendment to the stock act. it would require senators and their senior staff who are subject to financial disclosure, no more than two or

three or four of our staff people in each office, the most well paid, those in the -- in the major -- the most -- highest ranking decisionmaking position and the senator, to sell individual stocks that create conflicts and put their investments in blind trusts or to invest only in widely held mutual funds. no one is required to avoid equities. we could still invest in broad-based mutual funds or exchange traded fund. you can keep your ownership interest in your family farm or small business. i'll repeat that. in no ways to does it affect your ownership in family farm or small business. setting up a blind trust you can instruct the trustee to hold on to stock in your family company. this would address sustains to address conflicts of interest or at least the appearance of conflicts. senate ethics rule 37.7 requires committee staff making more than $25,000 per year, way more strict than our -- our

amendment in that way, to divest himself or herself of any substantial holdings which may be directly affected by the actions of the committee for which it works. unquote. the armed services committee requires staff and spouses and dependents to divest themselves of stock in companies doing business with the department of defense and the department of energy. the committee does permit the use of blind trusts. when asked about a requirement to divest, former defense secretary william perry said this was painful but i do not disagree with the importance of doing this. the potential for corruption is very high. it keeps our government clean. in the executive branch, federal rules in federal criminal law generally prohibit employees, their spouses and their children from owning stock in companies they regulate. all senator merkley and i are saying are members of the senate should hold themselves to the same standard that we already require of much of our committee

staff and executive branch employees. we have our staffs, we have our staff -- our staff requirements are more severe than ours and we're the ones whose names are on the ballot, we're the ones who are sworn in to do the bidding of the american people, we're the 100 people in this so-called exclusive club yet we're going to have different rules for us than we have for $30,000 a year staff person? that hardly seems right. some argue that selling all our stock will make us lose touch with the rest of society. that kind of thinking falls on deaf ears for most americans. the ranking member of the house financial services committee doesn't invest in stocks. instead he investses in state and local bonds with a small amount in mutual funds. congressman of massachusetts said i get a steady 4.5 trs prs, help my state in the process, i'm a patriot, i'm making money, too. why should members of the senate who own stock in oil companies vote on issues that affect the

oil industry? why should members of the senate who might own stock in a pharmaceutical company vote on issues that affect health care on a generic drug bill or a biologicals bill or on the legislation over on medicare or medicaid? appearances matter. right now the american people don't trust that we're acting in the nation's best interests far too many times. investing in broadly held funds or a blind trust will keep us in touch with society. it isn't a retreat from the u.s. economy. instead it will keep us from picking winners and losers, show the public that our focus is on policies that will help grow the economy. again, i'm not accusing any of my colleagues if they own an oil stock that they would vote for -- that they vote against -- more tax breaks for the oil industry. i'm not saying that they do that. i'm saying there's the appearance that some of them might do it. public service, we need to remember, is a privilege. folks around washington are already paid well on these jobs. no reason they need to be buying

and selling stocks in small or multimillion-dollar portfolios. when asked about the fact that the senate armed services committee conflict of interest rules apply only to staff and department of defense employees but not to senators -- again, when asked about the fact that senate armed services committee conflict of interest rules applies to staff people and again, not necessarily highly paid staff only, staff people and department of defense employees, president bush's department of secretary defense gordon england said congress should live by the rules they impose on other people. no kidding. congress should live by the rules we impose on the staff. in his state of the union message president obama said let's, we all as we cast votes, the hundred members of the senate, have an impact on all kinds of industries every day. on all of our economy. i agree with undersecretary

england, i agree with president obama, i agree that with senator merkley as we offer this amendment, it's simple, it's direct, the public should expect nothing less from us. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: before i speak on an amendment, i have to ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and i would call up my amendment number 1493 and make that amendment pending. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from iowa, mr. grassley, proposes amendment numbered 1493. mr. grassley: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: "the wall street journal" recently reported that political intelligence is an approximately $100 billion --

$100 million industry. the article also says that networks employ over 2,000 people to do political intelligence in washington, d.c. we have to say approximately because no one really knows how many people work in this industry. we don't know who they seek information from, what happens to that information, and how much they get paid. and that is problem if you believe in transparency in government, if you believe in the purposes behind this legislation -- and i do -- the underlying legislation that members of the senate and congress should not benefit from insider trading information. and so we have people in this city or people that come into the city to get information on what congress might do or what the regulators might do that

might affect the stock in some company or something, and this political intelligence information is gathered and given to people who presumably profit from it. or i guess these people wouldn't be employed in the first place. so there is a growing unregulated industry with no transparency. if a lobbyist has to register michael jordan to advocate for a school or a church or a private corporation, shouldn't the same lobbyist have to register if they're seeking and getting inside information that ends up in making people a profit. this is especially true if that information would make millions for a hedge fund or a private equity fund. so we have current law. under current law, this is not the case. no registration of these people.

we don't know who they are. so you go back to amendment 1493. it merely brings sunlight to this unregulated area. it dehe fines what political -- defines what political intelligence lobbyist is and requires that person or firm to register. in other words, make them do what urn the 1995 law every lobbyist has to do. i understand that some would say that there have not been hearings on this subject and that it should be studied first, but there isn't much that's complicated about this amendme amendment. it's pretty simple. if a person seeks information from congress in order to make money, the american people have a right to know the name of that person and who that person's

selling that information to. now, that's just pretty basic good government, isn't it? just like if a person is a lobbyist for a piece of legislation on laws going back to 1946 and amended since then, they have to register. public has a right to know who the lobbyist is, who they're working for, and what they're lobbying for or against. so this amendment isn't just helpful to the american people, though. it isn't helpful just to make people responsible, because the more transparency you have, are more accountability there is, the more openness we have in government, the better off we arement but it also -- so, you know, i make a case to help the american people, yes, but it's also going to help members of congress and our staff who are trying to decipher their duties

under this proposed legislation. senators have raised questions. how will we know if the people we speak to trade on what they say? so to answer that question, to make the people doing it responsible, to have more transparency in government, to even help members of congress and our staffs, because these political intelligence people are pretty smart. they know where to get the information. they come to us, ask questions. you might not know why they're asking the questions. so it's going to help members of congress and our staff as well. by requiring lobbyists who sell information to stock traders, to register, members and staff have an easy way then to track who these people are and who they would sell their information to. this strengthens the bill from my point of view and helps

members and staff comply with this requirement. so, madam president, i hope that we can pass this amendment soon and bring light and transparency to this growing industry and know who -- when we're talking to, who they are, what they seek, who they're working for, et cetera. with that, i'll yield the floor. mr. grassley: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. shelby: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. shelby: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. shelby: madam president, i rise again today to speak on behalf of fairness. we've heard quite a bit from the president on the campaign trail about fairness, but it appears that there's no interest in fairness when it comes to transparency for the executive branch. the bill that we're currently debating here in the u.s. senate will subject congress to additional reporting requirements for certain financial transactions. the goal is to ensure that members of congress and congressional staff are not using their unique access to

confidential information for personal gain. that goal is worthy. i believe this is an appropriate goal and one that i fully support. i do not understand, madam president, however, why the additional reporting requirements do not extend to members of the executive branch, who arguably have even greater access to such confidential information than members of congress and their staffs do. madam president, it only seems fair that executive branch officials who are already required to file annual financial reports, as we are, also be directed to meet the same additional reporting requirements being imposed on the legislative branch. i've yet to hear a compelling argument against equity between the branches. some people have argued that the executive branch has other ways to deal with insider trading.

think about it. but none of those will subject executive branch employees to the same public scrutiny as this legislation would. i believe what is good for the goose it seems to me should be good for the gander. we've heard that all our life. i understand there is a willingness on the other side to expand the reporting requirements, but it would fall far short of parity. madam president, some have said here that it would cost too much, but if we're willing to expand the population of executive branch officials required to report publicly, then any further expansion will only present marginal additional cost. currently, less than 1% of the executive branch workforce is required to file financial disclosure statements. the other 99% aren't.

my parity amendment will not expand that universe. it will only require them to meet the same reporting standards that will apply to the congress itself. madam president, as i understand it, the democratic alternative to my amendment would produce some bizarre results. for example, a senate office administrator who meets the reporting threshold would be required to report publicly, as directed in this bill. but the head of enforcement of the sacramento is being woul isd exchange commission would not. that's bizarre. a senate scheduler may have to make additional disclosures. but the general counsel of the federal reserve would not. madam president, this is not fair, and i believe it is unacceptable. my amendment simply says that if you're an executive branch or independent agency official and

you currently file financial disclosure reports, you will have to comply with the same public reporting requirements contained in this bill that we plan to impose on the congress. my amendment also contains the same military personnel exemption that the democrat alternative does as well as the same two-year implementation provision. madam president, my amendment is simple, fair, and deserves the support of every member of this body. if my friends on the other side of the aisle really believe in fairness, this would be a very good way to show it. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. gillibrand: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: on behalf of senator boxer, i ask unanimous consent that the boxer-isakson number 1489 be modified with the changes that are at the desk, that the order for a collins side-by-side amendment be vitiated, that the paul amendment 148 5b modified with the changes that are at the desk. further, that the order for the lieberman side-by-side amendment to the paul amendment be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: i ask consent to set aside the pndzing amendment so that i may call up on behalf of senator lieberman the side-by-side amendment to the shelby amendment number 1491 and on behalf of senator portman his amendment 1501. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: mrs. gillibrand proposes for mr. lieberman amendment 1511. the senator from new york, mrs. gillibrand, for mr. portman, proposes an amendment numbered 1505.

mrs. gillibrand: madam president, we here in the senate are so close to doing something so basic to begin to restore the faith and trust the american people have with this institution. i have encouraged that we have found more to agree on today than that which we disagree on so we can bring this bill to the floor for a vote. i want to thank leader reid for his extraordinary perseverance and leadership. i also want to thank senator lieberman and senator coul linls for their heart work in bringing this piece of legislation to the floor. i also want to thank senator scott brown and our other cosponsors who have worked so hard to do the right thing for the american people. i want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have worked with us in good faith to bring this legislation to fruition. we have tried to focus on the specific task at hand, and that's closing loopholes to ensure that members of congress play by the exact same rules as

every other american. while there are some amendments today that won't meet that test, there are others that will make this bill stronger, and i believe that the final product will have teeth. this sorely needed bill would establish for the first time a clear fiduciary responsibility to the people that we serve. we will remove any doubt that both the f.c.c. and the cftc are imord empowered to prosecute cases involving trading of classified information. we are entrusted with a profound responsibility to the american people, to look out for their best interests, not to do what's in our financial interest. let's show the people who have sent us here that we as a body can come together and do the right thing. today we are take the steps forward to show them that we are

worthy of their trust. i encourage all of my colleagues to take this step with us today. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. in six or seven minutes, the senate will begin a series of votes on the matter before us. the stock act. i wanted to take just a few moments to restate the

underlying main purpose of the legislation, which is to respond to the republic concern informed by testimony before our committee from experts on securities law that it's not totally clear that members of congress and our staffs are covered by antiinsider trading laws enforced by the securities and exchange commission. so that the number-one accomplishment of this proposal would be to make that crystal clear. we're not exempt from that law, we shouldn't be exempt. i presume most members of congress have assumed we have never been exempt, but this will make clear that if anybody does cross the line, they can't defend themselves by saying that members of congress are not covered by the law. we have also added in committee a couple of provisions which embrace the old but still important notion that sunshine is the best disinfectant in government by requiring that the

annual financial disclosure reports that we file will now be filed electronically and available therefore on the internet. right now, these are public documents but when they are filed in the office of the secretary of the senate, you have got to go there and make copies of them to see them. as senator begich, our distinguished colleague from alaska, said that's not easy if you're an alaskan. so this will bring that system up to date. the third part, i know controversial for some but i think sensible is to require that within 30 days of any stock trades, disclosure forms are filed with the senate and also online. i can tell you that the securities and exchange commission has made clear in testimony before the house committee and in discussion with our staff that that kind of periodic requirement for disclosure of trades in stock and security will enable them --

will help them do the job we want them to do to make sure that insider trading laws are not being violated, and of course we'll keep the public, our constituents, informed of what we're about. a number of amendments are up. as senator reid said, i sure hope we don't have roll call votes on all of them. a number of them i think will receive unanimous support on both sides and i hope we can adopt them by voice. there is one amendment, senator shelby's amendment 1491, to which as part of the agreement i have filed a side-by-side as it were. i support the goal that senator shelby has here of holding the executive branch accountable in ways similar to the way we are. that is, the amendment generally speaking would extend this 30-day reporting requirement of the disclosure requirement to a very large number of executive

branch employees, and that's to me the problem. it's too broad. it would be -- it would again create a cost, i think an unnecessary reporting system for many executive branch employees. and i -- i want to point out here that when it comes to avoiding and preventing conflicts of interest, the executive branch is probably well ahead of the legislative branch, our branch. the ethics rules requirements and guidance that have been put forth over the years by the office of government ethics and at the agencies are extensive and address a wide range of potential conflicts of interest or improprieties, and they have teeth, criminal sanctions. for instance, high-level executive branch employees already file financial disclosure forms that face a very extensive system of agency review. these agency officials and

career civil servants are often forced to divest themselves of their stock holdings. if they seem to be in conflict with their responsibilities or to recuse themselves not to be involved with matters to minimize potential conflicts of interest. so that's a much different standard than we impose on ourselves, which is the standard of disclosure. i have introduced a version of senator shelby's amendment which i think achieves his goal in a significant way but not so broadly. rather than tens of thousands of people encompassed in the shelby amendment, my amendment is targeted at policymakers who are most equivalent to those of us here in congress and those who work with us, and that is positions in our government that are senate confirmed and also certain high-level white house and agency staff that may not be

senate confirmed but are these policy makers. they have high profile roles that come with increased scrutiny requirement would include the president, the vice president, appointees if the white house including the so-called policy czars or special assistants to the president as well as members of the federal reserve board. so i hope that we can take this significant step to achieve what senator shelby had in mind, but not, if i can put it this way, overdo it in a way that will actually according to comments we've had had from people in the executive branch, get in the way of the existing very tough ethics rules that they live under now. i'd yield the floor at this point. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you,

madam president. madam president, first let me commend the chairman of our committee, senator lieberman. as always, it's been a great pleasure to work with him to produce this bill. i also want to commend the author of the bill, senator scott brown, who was the first to introduce this legislation in the senate, and also praise the work of the senator from new york, senator gillibrand for her contributions. the stock act is intended to affirm that members of congress are not exempt from our laws prohibiting insider trading. now, there are disputes among the experts about whether or not this legislation is necessary, but we feel that we is send a very strong message to the american public that we

understand that members of congress are not exempt from insider trading laws. and that is exactly what this bill does. we need to reassure a skeptical public that we understand that elective office is a place for public service, not for private gain. underscoring that important message is clearly the purpose of this bill, and that is why i support it. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the following amendments are wrap. amendment number 1478, endment numbered 1477, amendment numbered 1474, amendment numbered 1490, amendment numbered 1492 and amendment numbered 1503. under the previous order, the question occurs on amendment numbered 18 offered by the senator from connecticut,

mr. lieberman. mr. lieberman: madam president, this is a highly technical amendment. it simply says that the g.a.o. report required by the underlying bill on the question of political intelligence be sent not only to the committee on government oversight in the house but also to the judiciary committee, and if there's no objection now, mr. president, i would move adoption of the amendment. yobl there is any on -- i don't believe there is any opposition and no need for a roll call. the presiding officer: is there any objection? is there further debate? if not, all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question occurs on the paul amendment numbered 1484. there are two minutes of debate, equally divided on this amendment.

mr. lieberman: mr. president, i don't see -- oh, he is here. no the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i rise today in support of this amendment. this amendment would strike the underlying bill and would replace it with an affirmation that we are not exempt from insider trading and that each senator would sign a statement each year affirming that they did not participate in insider trading. i think this is the way to go. i think the american people want to be sure that we are not exempt and i think this is a good way to do it without creating a bureaucracies and a

nightmare that may well have unintended consequences. mr. lieberman: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i respectfully oppose the amendment. as the senator from kentucky with his characteristic directness said, would strike the entire bill and the affirmation by members that they have not violated insider trading laws is in my opinion not enough, and -- and in the opinion of the s.e.c. it's not enough because it doesn't establish the duty of trust that this underlying bill does that is required to guarantee that charges against a member of congress or staff on insider trading will not be successfully defended against on the argument that members are not covered. so i would yield the res rest -- the rest of my time to my friend from maine. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i,

too, am opposed to the amendment offered by senator paul. i do think the idea of a certification is a good one but, unfortunately, senator paul's bill -- or his amendment would strike the provision of the bill that affirm the duty that we have to the american people. and the scholars who testified before the committee said that was necessary. mr. paul: mr. president, i request the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators who have not yet voted or who wish to change their vote?

the presiding officer: are there any senators who have not yet voted or who wish to change their vote? if not, on this vote, the ayes are 37, the nays are 61. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i move for reconsideration. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president, i move to lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 1487 offered by the senator from kentucky, mr. paul. this amendment is subject to a 60-vote threshold.

the senate will be in order. mr. paul: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: this amendment would say that the executive branch -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. paul: this amendment would say that those in the executive branch would decide loans and grants, if they have a self-interest in the company or their family has a self-interest in the company that they should not be making decisions regarding grants and loans. i think the idea that you should not make money off of government is an important one, but it is not just congress that this should apply to. this should apply to the executive branch and we should not have hundreds of millions of dollars in loans, even billions of dollars in loans, dispensed by people who used to work for that company or whose family still works for that company. thank you, and i yield back my

time. the presiding officer: the? frr connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, this is one of a series of amendments in which our colleagues are applying ethics rules to the executive branch, although the bill is focused, of course, on member of congress. in this case, this applies probably the harshest penalty that has ever been applied to members of the executive branch. the faght is that executive branch employees are already subject to an effective and in some ways broader ethics regime than we face now, and it's backed up by criminal sanctions. as an example, executive branch employees file financial disclosure forms, the agency ethics officials who examine them can compel divestiture of holdings, they can require the individual to recuse them self from certain matters and if recusal is not sufficient, the agency can reassign the individual. yeah, and in this case, senator

paul would say that an executive branch employee is forbidden from holding a position in which they or their family have any financial interest of $5,000 or more. so i oppose the amendment. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. mr. paul: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there any senator who has not yet voted or who wishes to change his or her vote? the presiding officer: is there any senator who wishes to change his or her vote or who has not yet voted? if not, on this vote the yeas are 48. the nays are 51. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the

amendment is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president, i move to reconsider. ms. collins: mr. president, i move to lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 1511 offered by the senator from connecticut, mr. lieberman. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. mr. president, this is a -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. mr. president, this is a side-by-side with an amendment offered by my friend from alabama. the question is: how many of the employees of the executive branch of government should be required to electronically file their disclosure statements? i believe respectfully that

senator shelby's amendment requires almost maybe more than 300,000 federal employees, including many who file confidential disclosure statements. our amendment, this amendment would include people in the federal executive branch who hold positions most equivalent to those of us in congress who are policy-makers. that includes the president, the vice president, appointees in the white house, members of the federal reserve board, senior executive service. it's a difference between applying this requirement to 2,000 executive branch employees or more than 300,000. i yield the remainder of my time to senator collins. the presiding officer: no time remaining. the senator from alabama. mr. shelby: mr. president, can we have order? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order.

the senator from alabama. mr. shelby: mr. president, the lieberman amendment, this will be side by side with the shelby amendment. the lieberman amendment would create and undermines the true transparency incourage and i encourage my colleagues to oppose it. on the other hand, my amendment would be side by side and creates parity, fairness and true transparency. without transparency, the american people would be left in the dark. also he's talking about who would have to file. it's the same people that will have to file disclosures now. why should they be exempt? my amendment would make a level playing field. it makes a lot of sense. it's fairness, it's honest. and the executive branch should not be excluded for any reason i can think of. thank you. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment.

the yeas and nays are asked for. is there a second? appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? hearing none, the yeas are 81, the nays are 18. the amendment is passed. mr. lieberman: madam president, i ask for -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. lieberman: madam president. the presiding officer: we will continue when the senate is in order. the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the chairman and president and ask for reconsideration. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment 1491

offered by the senator from alabama, mr. sheb. ms. collins: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: madam president, could we have order, please? thank you. madam president, first i want to commend senator paul and senator shelby for raising the issue of extending these requirements to the executive branch. i agree with them, and i supported the amendment offered by senator lieberman, but i also encourage my colleagues to support the amendment offered by senator shelby. it would take the independent regulatory agencies and it goes a little bit deeper into the executive branch. so i think both principles are correct that the kind of disclosures that we're going to be required to make should also apply to high-level executive branch employees, and i think both the senator from kentucky

and the senator from alabama for their leadership. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. shelby: madam president, i appreciate the senator from maine's remarks. she is urging people to vote aye on the shelby amendment. i appreciate that. it's a good amendment, and i would do the same thing. vote aye. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: madam president, i respectfully ask for a no vote. as he indicated in support of the side-by-side i offered, executive branch employees now are under very tough ethics regulations requiring in many cases divestiture, recusal, and this adds -- this adds a good requirement, which is for some of them to file electronically the disclosure statements they have to make. but the amendment we just passed, mine would add that requirement to 2000 of the top-level policymakers in our federal government. senator shelby's would extend

that to more than 300,000 federal employees, including some by our account and the office of government ethics drivers, secretaries, and in addition to the burden it would place on them unduly, we're asking agencies to stretch personnel and resources to fulfill a totally new requirement when, in fact, we want them to save money and not figure out ways to spend more money. so i respectfully ask my colleagues to vote no. the presiding officer: the question is on the shelby amendment as modified. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? hearing none, the yeas are 58, the nays are 41. the amendment is passed.

mr. lieberman: madam president, i move to reconsider. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: madam president, i move to table. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 1485 offered by the senator from kentucky, mr. paul. the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. paul: i think the issue have been addressed by the previous amendments. i thank the chairman and the ranking minority member for their addressing this problem and i ask unanimous consent the amendment be withdrawn. the presiding officer: without objection. the amendment is withdrawn. mr. lieberman: that's i thank the senator from kentucky. i'd urge others with amendments listed here of following that

example. as i look at the next four amendments, i think they're all noncontroversial, and i'd urge their sponsors to have the two minutes of debate and hopefully let's have a voice vote so we can proceed. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: madam president, i believe my amendment is next. the presiding officer: there will now be two minutes of debate, equally divided on the boxer amendment number 1489. mrs. boxer: thank you very much, madam president. i would be delighted to take a voice vote on this amendment, which i'm proud to say was written by myself and senator isakson. and i'm very pleased that senator collins suggested the modification. all this really does is broaden the mortgage disclosure

requirements on all of us, members of congress, and it does the same thing for the president, vice president, the executive branch employees who are subject to the advice and consent of the congress. so i think it is fair, i think it is wise, and i think that we've had issues that require this to be done. so with that, i would yield back my time to senator collins. mrs. collins: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mrs. collins: thank you, madam president. madam president, i'm very pleased the senator from california has agreed modify her amendment to apply it to the executive branch. i thank her for her cooperation on this and i would suggest the amendment be adopted as adopted by a voice vote.

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i ask unanimous consent we visual the 60-vote requirement on this amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on the amendment. all those in favor say aye. opposed. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the amendment as modified is agreed to. mr. lieberman: i move to reconsider. the presiding officer: without objection.

ms. collins: i would that we vitiate it by a voice vote. the presiding officer: the senator connecticut. mr. lieberman: i have no objection. the presiding officer: question is on the amendment. all in favor say aye. opposed, no. the yeas appear to have it. the amendment is approved. ms. collins: lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided on the enzi amendment number 1510. ms. collins: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. madam president, this is a very good amendment that senator enzi has offered. it recognizes the fact that we do not control trades that happen within mutual funds and, thus, there is not a need for reporting every 30 days. rather, that we should keep the annual reporting requirement. it has been cleared on both sides. i do not believe that it requires a roll call vote. i would suggest that we vitiate any roll call vote that was suggested and adopt it by a voice vote. with the concurrence of the chairman of the committee. mr. lieberman: madam president, this is a good amendment and i support it. ms. collins: on behalf of senator enzi, i call up the amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from maine, ms. collins, for mr. enzi, proposes an amendment

numbered 1510. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. all in favor say aye. opposed? the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. lieberman: move to reconsider. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: and lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided on the blumenthal amendment number 1498. whethemr. blumenthal: madam pre? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. a senator: thank you, madam president. i would like to thank senator blumenthal and senator kirk. as you all know, senator kirk is battling to come back with us and also, as you know, this is a good-government measure. this particular amendment, number 1498, extends the number and types of felonies for which members of congress and

executive branch employees or an elected state or local government official can lose his or her pension. mr. brown: this is a good-government amendment, an appropriate way to honor our colleague, senator kirk, who we wish a speedy recovery. i ask to have the yeas and nays by voice vote. mr. blumenthal: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, madam president. i want to join in acknowledging senator kirk's contribution on this amendment. the reason that i have offered it is very simply to send a message and have the effect that no corrupt elected official, no official convicted of a flown in connection -- felony in connection with his official duties as a member of congress should receive one dime of taxpayer money. and that breach of law should have consequences. and i join in asking for a voice vote. thank you, madam president. mr. brown: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. will brown: thanmr. brown: than, madam president. i ask to vitiate the 60-vote threshold on this amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on the

amendment. all in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is approved. mr. brown: madam president i bm? move to reconsider. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: and i move to lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided on the toomey amendment number 1472. mr. toomey: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: thank you, madam president. i rise in behalf of -- in support of my amendment. i want to thank senator mccaskill for cosponsoring this amendment and her support on this ban of earmarks. what this amendment does is it would codify the current moratorium that's in place. i commend the majority senators for extending that moratorium. but let's just codify this now, put this in place and end this process that lacks any transparency.

this is a surgical point of order that would not be held against the entire bill but, rather, just the specific earmark. unlike the next amendment, which would allow earmarks on authorization bills and would permit, for instance, earmarking of the bridge to nowhere and would only forbid earmarks on approps bills, this would be a ban on earmarks of all kinds. some suggest that wedding be ceding our constitutional control of the purse strings. this is clearly not true. most of all government spending is not earmarked. most discretionary spending is not earmarked. that doesn't mean that we have ceded our authority to the executive branch. the fact is, we define the terms and the rules under which the spending can occur. that is appropriate but it ought to happen under scrutiny and should be subject to full review. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the senator from hawaii. mr. inouye: madam president, this amendment does not save any money, it does not reduce the deficit, it just simply gives

additional power to the president. thereby weakens the legislative branch. the reality is that without these earmarks, we find ourselves at the mercy of bureaucrats to ensure our local needs are fulfilled. no one in this chamber believes that a bureaucrat here in washington knows better or understands the needs of their home states as well as they do. so i say again, madam president, the voluntary moratorium is now 100% successful. it will continue in fy 2013. i urge my colleagues to vote against the toomey amendment. mr. toomey: madam president, i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. mooa senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. [inaudible] the presiding officer: there is no time remaining.

[inaudible] the presiding officer: is there any objection? objection is heard. mr. durbin: i withdraw my objection. the presiding officer: withdrew. a senator: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: reserving the right to object. if the gentleman will grant a minute on his amendment, then i will not object. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: first of all, i appreciate the opportunity to be heard. i agree with what the author, senator toomey, is trying to do here in terms of what most people think of as a -- as an earmark. the problem is this, you can vote for this if you're voting for and against all earmarks.

as it is defined, it depends on how do you it. in the house, it's defined under their rules and it has been defined here as any type of appropriation or authorization. i suggest to you, if you get the constitution and look up article 1, section 9, it says that's what we're supposed to be doing here. and so if you would -- if i knew that my next amendment would pass, which defines a -- an earmark as an appropriation that has not been authorized, which i know senator tomb toomey and sel others agree that would be a good idea, then i would be in wholehearted support of this. so obviously we should have had that vote first. so i would vote against this even though i agree with what they're trying to do. but my next amendment is going to be the one that would be necessary. the presiding officer: time has expired. the question is on the amendment. and this amendment has a 60-vote threshold. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? the yeas are 40, the nays are 59. under the previous order requiring 60 voted for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. mr. lieberman: i ask for a reconsideration. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: and that it be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided and one minute controlled by the senator from pennsylvania, senator toomey, on amendment number 1500 offered by the senator from oklahoma, mr. inhofe. this amendment is also subject to a 60-vote threshold. mr. inhofe: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma.

who have could we get some order, please. the presiding officer: please take your conversations out of the well. the senate will be in order. mr. inhofe: first of all, madam president, i have the utmost respect for senator toomey and what he is trying to do. to me, this bill is compatible -- this amendment is compatible with what he is trying to do. it merely defines and earmark as an appropriation that has not been authorized. now, my junior senator said on the floor a year ago, he said in a way that's good because if a bad earmark comes up, we have two shots at it, one on authorization, one on appropriation. and both senator toomey, senator mccain, and others have been very supportive of the idea that we should -- we should go back to authorizing. we've been fighting this battle since 1816, and it's thyme that we end it. this is a way of doing it. defining an earmark as an appropriation that hasn't been authorized. i retain the balance of my time.

the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: thank you, madam president. i would just point out that the constitution doesn't make a dings between authorizing committee and appropriating committees and i don't think we ought to be having a discussion and argument over who gets to earmark and who doesn't get to earmark. it is the process that's flawed. it's the process that doesn't have the kind of scrutiny and the transparency and is not subject to competition the way it ought to be before taxpayer dollars get spent. and so my objection is to this process where ever it occurs in the congress, in the senate, or the house. so while i respect the intentions of my colleague from oklahoma, i would -- i have to say that i disagree with him on this and i would suggest a "no" vote on this amendment. mr. inhofe: madam president, i further say that during the -- after the stimulus bill, there were 102 of the most egregious -- the presiding officer: would the senator hold, please.

go ahead. mr. inhofe: well, all of the -- the 102 most egregious votes last year were earmarks, not one was a congressional earmark. they were all burticeaucra earmarks. if we don't do our job, our constitutional job under article 1, section 9, of the constitution, then the president will do our job. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 26. the nays are 73. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. mr. brown: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60-vote requirement threshold on amendments numbers 1471 and 1483. the presiding officer: is there

objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. brown: i also ask unanimous consent to have the yeas and nays by voice vote on 1471 and 1483 as well. the presiding officer: is there objection? if not, so ordered. mr. brown: mr. president, further, i want to just briefly set up before i yield to senator mccain 1471, freddiend fannie have cost american taxpayers billions of dollars, and this year they paid out exorbitant bonuses to their executives. i want to commend senator mccain for his work on this very important issue and his leadership, and i encourage everybody to vote aye for it, and i would now yield to senator mccain. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, i don't have anything more to say. on behalf of myself and senator rockefeller, i offer this amendment.

i yield. mr. lieberman: through you, i was going to ask my friend from arizona if he was feeling all right. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, the question is on the mccain amendment. all those signify by saying aye. opposed. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. mr. brown: mr. president, i move to reconsider. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: am i correct that amendment 1483, the leahy-cornyn amendment is next. the presiding officer: the amendment is now pending, sir. mr. leahy: this amendment is supported by the national taxpayers union, the f.b.i. agents association, the league of women voters and many others. it provides investigators and prosecutors the tools they need

to hold officials at all levels of government -- -- accountable. i ask unanimous consent to put my full statement in the record, but senator cornyn and i have worked across the aisle as well as with the other body to craft this amendment. mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i hope our colleagues will support this amendment. senator leahy and i have worked on it. it is an expansion of our public corruption prosecution and improvements act which passed the judiciary committee last year. i have a lengthier statement which i would ask unanimous consent be made a part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i just want to briefly thank the senators from vermont and texas for this amendment. it strengthens the bill as does the preceding amendment offered by senator mccain, and i urge its adoption. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. all those in favor signify by saying aye. opposed.

the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment passes. without objection. there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided on the coburn amendment. the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: this is a simple bipartisan amendment that we have voted on. identical amendment. my colleague, the senator from colorado, has been gracious enough to support this amendment. this is straightforward. we just need to know what we're doing when we do it. it requires the c.r.s. to show us if we have duplicated anything before a bill comes before the senate. i would yield to my colleague from colorado. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: i have a longer statement i would like to include in the record. senator coburn and i don't

always agree on the reach of government and the investments we ought to make, but we agree our government ought to be smart, efficient and it shouldn't have duplication. this amendment will see us to that goal. 63 of us voted for this amendment last year. let's get 63 votes and more. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. mr. president, i respectfully oppose the amendment put in by my two friends. this would amend the senate rules to make it out of water for the senate to proceed to any bill or joint resolution unless the committee of jurisdiction has posted on its web site a c.r.s. analysis of whether the bill would create a new program, office or initiative that duplicates or overlaps an existing one. so it sounds pretty good on the surface. two problems. one is that c.r.s. tells us it would be hard pressed to carry out this responsibility, certainly in a timely manner, and the second results from the first, which is that this would

mean that another way to slow up legislation because it did not have yet the c.r.s. analysis. a final point is this -- the committees of jurisdiction ought to be making their own judgment and probably know better than c.r.s. whether they are creating a new program that duplicates or overlaps an existing one. so respectfully, i would urge a no vote. a senator: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i have the greatest respect for my chairman on homeland security, i love him dearly. g.a.o. has already told us that we're not doing our job. the first third of the federal government showed $100 billion worth of duplication. the second study is coming. c.r.s. will have this easy because g.a.o. will have already showed them where all the duplication is. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment.

the yeas and nays have been called for. second. there appears to be. this amendment does require a two-thirds threshold. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 60, the yeas are 39. two-thirds of the senators voting having voted in the affirmative the amendment is not agreed to. the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i move to reconsider and lay the matter on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 1488 offered by the senator from south carolina, mr. demint. this amendment is subject to a 60-vote threshold. the senator from south carolina. mr. demint: thank you. it's unfortunate the actions of

a few make it necessary for us to create more rules for the many honest people that serve in congress. but we must reassure americans that we're here to serve them and not ourselves. congressmen and senators have lots of power and we know that power corrupts. the longer we stay in office, the more power we have, and, unfortunately, we've seen that that power over a period of time creates more opportunity and temptation for us to benefit ourselves rather than our constituents. all of the cases of corruption and bribery that i've seen, unfortunately, come from more senior members. no offense to my senior members, please. but this is just one of many reasons why we should have term limits in congress. my amendment is not a statute. it's just a sense of the senate that says that we should have some form of constitutional limit on our terms, on the term in office. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. demint: thank you,

mr. president. again we are not specific in the number of years, the number of terms, but it's just a sense of the senate that we should have some limit on the amount of time that we serve. i'd encourage my colleagues to at least support this and get the debate started. thank you and i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: for some members of congress, two years in office is too long. and for some members of congress, 20 years in office is not long enough. who should make that decision? the constitution in its wisdom says the voters of america make that decision. let's stand by that constitution and its language and defeat this sense of the senate resolution. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 24-rbgs the nays are 756789 under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.

under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 1493, offered by the senator from iowa, mr. grassley. this amendment is subject to a 60-vote threshold. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: this is a good-government amendment, just like the underlying piece of legislation is a good-government amendment. now, the manager's going to tell you it ought to be studied a little bit longer. but we've gone on far enough not having enough transparency in government. so what my amendment does, it takes these people that you call political intelligence professionals and have them register just like every lobbyist registers so it's totally transparent so when these people come around to get information from you, that they sell to hedge funds, that you'll know who they are. you don't know that now and

transparency in government is very important if you want accountability. and for us senators and our staffs that have to abide by this -- by these laws and you want to make sure you aren't doing anything unethical, you got to know who these people are. and they can come around and ask you questions, i don't know how many times maybe each of us have been caught up in this. you give them some information. they've got information that people don't have on wall street and they sell it and you ought to know what you're being used for. and this gives identity to these people. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. grassley: i want these people registered like lobbyists. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman lieberman: mr. pr, there may be a problem here. mr. grassley: mrs. a problem. mr. lieberman: but this amendment doesn't fix it. mr. grassley: there is a problem. mr. lieberman: in the bill are the committee there was an amendment to bring the so-called political intelligence und