Jim DeMint

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. With that, I will now propound a unanimous-consent request that would enact the earmark transparency rules and request that we go to conference with the House on the total ethics bill. I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 123 and S. Res. 260, the earmark disclosure resolutions, all en bloc; that the resolutions be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table. I further ask that the Senate then proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2316, the House-passed ethics and lobbying reform bill; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1, as passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill be read the third time, passed, and the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees at a ratio of 4 to 3.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, you would never know it from our debate the last couple of weeks, but we are here to talk about the Defense authorization bill, this rather large bill that is at all of our desks. Much broader than just any particular conversation about Iraq, or any particular battle, this is to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008, for military activities and the Department of Defense, for military construction, for defense activities and the Department of Energy, to proscribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and other purposes. One of the most important bills that we debate and pass, this includes money for aircraft, missiles, weapons systems, vehicles, all of the things we need to protect and secure our country--a very important bill. I appreciate that the minority a number of times this evening has said: We need to go ahead and vote, particularly on the amendment in front of us, the Levin amendment. And while the normal procedure is to get agreements between the sides on when we vote, the minority filed cloture on this bill. There is really no need to delay the cloture vote any further.

Mr. DeMINT. Thank you. Bad habits die hard. Thank you for correcting me. But we do need to move ahead with the cloture vote. There is no need for the theatrics through the evening on this. And since the majority has filed for a cloture vote, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote for the pending Levin amendment occur at 8:30 this evening.

Mr. DeMINT. I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the pending Levin amendment occur at 8:30 this evening.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, it is clear that the cloture motion as has been filed by the majority is clearly not what they want to happen this evening. So it does seem to be that this is all about a political circus to keep us here all night for some political theater to try to embarrass the President and in the process demoralize our troops and embolden our enemies. Instead of talking about substantive amendments to the Defense authorization bill, what I hear the majority speaking of is message amendments, to try to message their political theater. The fact is, this is about winning elections. The majority has given many quotes to the media. One senior Democratic aide on Fox News, when asked about staying up all night, said: Is this a publicity stunt? Yes. Senator Reid was quoted as saying at a press conference: I don't know if we will get 60 votes, but I tell you one thing, there are 21 Republicans up for reelection this time. Senator Reid was quoted in the Washington Post as: We are going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding. So while the majority is putting us through political theater in hopes of picking up Senate seats in 2008, our National Intelligence Estimate, which just came out, is very clear in their key judgment. It says: We judge that the U.S. homeland will face a persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next 3 years. The main threat comes from Islamic terrorist groups themselves, especially al-Qaida driven by their undiminished intent to attack the homeland and a continued effort by these terrorists groups to adopt and improve their capabilities. The report is clear that we have a broad threat, a global threat. It is not just about Iraq. The whole Defense authorization is very important. We should not be sidelining the discussion of important issues of national defense and security with political theater this evening. But it is important, as some of my colleagues have done, to kind of review what we have been through the last few months. Certainly, all of us are concerned about the progress in Iraq, the safety of our troops. We all want to finish our job with honor, with victory, to bring our troops home. We have had a lot of debate this year. But recently when the President submitted his war spending bill, emergency supplemental bill, to fund our troops, we had a lot of debate. My Democratic colleagues had a lot of different ideas. The President vetoed one version. After that, we came to an agreement. The Democrats would force the President to agree that after we sent General Petraeus there--and that was a unanimous thing, to send General Petraeus to Baghdad to secure the area, we sent thousands of new troops. The Democrats agreed on that funding, but they requested that we have a report from General Petraeus in the middle of September to find out what progress we were making. We all agreed to that. But after we all agreed and had the signing at the White House, that is now not good enough for my Democratic colleagues. As we heard one political strategist say about the Democrats, any day they are not talking about Iraq is a bad day. They want to make political hay out of this difficult situation that our country faces. We have a new plan almost every day of how we are going to withdraw and retreat, a strategy du jour in the Senate. We will be talking about a lot of those new strategies as we go through the evening. But as has already been mentioned by some of my Republican colleagues who talk a lot with the troops who come home, almost without exception they believe in our mission, and they believe they can win. What we are asking tonight of the majority is to let them win. Let Petraeus do what we sent him to do. Give him the time that we gave him--until September--to demonstrate that we can secure Baghdad, at least reasonably, in a way that the Government can function and the economy can rebound and the country can begin to establish itself as a free and independent democracy. What we are seeing again is what we have seen over the past years. My Democratic colleagues, while well intended, are very often weak on defense and national security on almost every measure fighting for security. We would not even give our homeland security the same tools to fight terrorists as we give our law enforcement to fight drug dealers. Certainly, terrorists are as much a threat to us. Some of my Democratic colleagues have even said this is a bumper sticker campaign, not a real war. I think we have to begin this whole process by recognizing, as our national intelligence estimate tells us time and again, this is a real threat, a continuing threat, one that we need to be prepared for in many ways, and we need to develop more of a consensus in the Senate of how we are going to fight it. Our troops do believe in what they are doing. They believe it is a right cause, and they believe they can win. We need to let them win. We shouldn't continue to talk through the night and talk day after day about ``we have lost'' or ``we can't win'' or ``we shouldn't be there'' or ``we are not making progress,'' when those who are there doing the fighting are telling us quite a different story. Mr. President, I wish to address at least one amendment to the Defense authorization bill that I think is an example of what we need to be doing to make our military more efficient. There are a lot of things we do as a Congress that force our military to do things maybe for political reasons that don't help us militarily. One is related to aircraft retirement. I have an amendment that I hope we can get to, amendment No. 2302, that is related to aircraft retirement. Some call it flyable storage. I was amazed to find out that Congress has required the Air Force to maintain in flying condition permanently grounded aircraft at the cost of millions of dollars a year. Many of these older aircraft, because of structural integrity, safety concerns, will never fly again. Yet we require them to be maintained in operational status for that last flight to the junkyard. Between 2000 and 2007, retirement restrictions cost the Air Force $893 million, and almost $143 million has gone to modify aircraft the Air Force would like to retire. This year, the Air Force will spend $8.1 million to maintain the aircraft in flyable storage, $8.1 million to maintain aircraft that will never be used again. This will happen year after year. There has been some political pressure to keep this because some maintenance happens in different States where various Senators and Congressmen want that to continue. My amendment will just give the Air Force the flexibility to retire aircraft that needs to be retired. Most Americans would think that is just basic common sense, and I hope we can agree on that in the Senate. I hope we can get back to the debate on this Defense authorization bill. I am very sorry that the majority will not let us move to the cloture vote on the Levin amendment, which is pending. But if we need to talk through the night, we will continue to talk through the night. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Broadcast Freedom Act, which I offered along with my friends from Minnesota and South Dakota, Senators Coleman and Thune. Some would say that the fairness doctrine is the perfect example of a regulation whose time has past. Others would say it is a regulation that was never necessary to begin with. In any event, it is certainly not a regulation that we need today. I think it is worth a brief recap of history of American mass media to show how utterly silly this doctrine would be if reinstated in today's environment. In 1949, the year the fairness doctrine was created, there were 51 television stations in the United States. In 1985, when the doctrine was repealed by the FCC, there were 1,200. Today, there are nearly 1,800 television stations. The radio industry tells a similar story. In 1949, there were about 2,500 radio stations in the United States. In 1985, the number had grown to 9,800. Today, there are almost 14,000. There was significant growth of these numbers between 1985 and today. We need to understand why it is happening. You see, it was in 1985 that the FCC said the following when it repealed the fairness doctrine: We believe that the interest of the public and viewpoint diversity is fully served by the multiplicity of voices in the marketplace today. That was when we had far fewer radio and television stations. That statement was made over 20 years ago. The number of voices in the market was plentiful then. In the last two decades, those numbers have grown even larger--by 50 percent in television and over 40 percent in radio. Keep in mind, too, that there was no Internet in 1985, and there was no satellite radio offering hundreds of channels nationwide. There was no digital television or radio allowing for multicasting. There were not even wireless phones, much less ones that could go on line and even carry video. Of course, nobody had yet heard of the podcast, blogging, or YouTube. All of this has now changed. It is easy to see that if the fairness doctrine was unnecessary in 1985 because of the multiplicity of voices, it is downright laughable today. I also wish to speak to the fact that this doctrine, if reinstated, would have the opposite effect that its opponents tell us they seek. They say they want both sides of important issues presented with equal time. Well, what happens if nobody is available or willing to offer an opposing viewpoint? The answer, clearly, is that the discussion will not take place at all. And all the bureaucracy that is required to keep track of what someone said and what has to be responded to would cause most of these stations not to deal with important issues at all. Commercial radio and television are businesses. They are on the air only as long as someone is willing to pay for advertising. Advertising is only attractive when someone is watching or listening. People watch or listen to things they find worth their time. If a radio or television station is prevented from airing programming on public issues or is forced to carry programming that may not suit their audience, they will have a very difficult time retaining listeners, advertisers, and ultimately their businesses. It is not in the public interest for the Government to force content on or prevent content from reaching the American people. The FCC recognized that in 1985, and we should all recognize it today. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support the Broadcast Freedom Act, which prevents the FCC, now or in the future, from reinstating the arcane and damaging so-called fairness doctrine.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I modify my request that I have 15 minutes and my colleague have 15 minutes as well.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 15 minutes in morning business.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I am more long-winded than I thought here. Let me conclude, although we will need to continue this debate. My goal is to get the lobby and ethics reform bill to conference. But a key part of that bill has always been earmark reform. The House has passed earmark reform as a House rule. We have passed the rule on the Senate side, but we have not adopted it. There is no reason to send a Senate rule that governs how we do business to a conference with the House. I wish to see this body accept this as a rule that has been unanimously voted on so we can move on to conference with lobby and ethics reform. I am not holding up ethics reform or lobbying reform; I am asking this body to do what we have already voted on, and that is to accept the rule that we will be transparent about earmarks and how we spend American tax dollars. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I first thank my colleague from Oklahoma for bringing to the floor this important issue of free speech in America, and the bill that would help to keep the FCC from imposing gag rules on talk radio and other media. But that is not the purpose of my trip to the floor today. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the ongoing effort in the Senate to block earmark reform. It has now been 175 days--over 6 months--since we passed our earmark transparency rules. Yet they still have not been enacted. As my colleagues know, we passed two important earmark transparency rules back in January that, first, require public disclosure of earmarks and, second, prohibit Congress from adding secret earmarks behind closed doors in conference committees where they cannot be openly debated or voted on. Both of these rules were unanimously supported by the Senate. But now--over 6 months later--Democrats are insisting that we change or drop these rules behind closed doors. I asked the majority leader before July 4 if we could agree to protect these earmark reforms in conference, but he said no. I am not asking for an ironclad agreement. He said they would change in conference. I asked him what changes he wanted to make to these important earmark rules that had passed unanimously, but so far we do not have a response. In fact, in CongressDailyAM, they put it quite clearly when they said: [Democrats] could not guarantee that DeMint's earmark language would survive negotiations with the House. I would only correct one thing about that quote. This was actually Nancy Pelosi's language, modified slightly by Senator Durbin, and voted on unanimously in the Senate. They are hardly my earmark requirements. Well, there you have it. After stalling and blocking the enactment of these important ethics reforms for over 6 months, and after coming up with every excuse in the book to put them off, the Democrat leadership is now beginning to admit they plan to kill earmark reform. It is now day 175 of business as usual in the Senate, and the party that said it would clean up the culture of corruption in Washington is already embracing it. The majority leader and the majority whip made several statements on this issue on the Senate floor the other night, and I want to address them. First, the majority leader said that my efforts to protect earmark reform were a ``ploy,'' a ``diversion,'' and a ``smokescreen'' to stop the ethics bill. This accusation is completely false, and these two Senators are probably the only two people in America who believe it. I voted for the lobbying and ethics bill, and I even supported going to conference. In fact, I came to the floor on Monday and asked for consent to adopt the earmark transparency rules and to go to conference with the House on the ethics bill. But the other side objected because they only want to move forward on the ethics bill if they can gut the earmark reforms in secret. The truth is, the only thing stopping the lobbying and ethics bill from moving forward is the Democratic leadership and their desire to kill meaningful earmark reform behind closed doors. They may want to hide their opposition to transparency by accusing me of having a secret plan to kill the bill, but Americans know the truth. They know folks in Congress love earmarks and will do anything to keep this process secret and easy for Members to designate money to their pet projects. It is clear, the only thing stopping this bill is obstruction to earmark reform. Next, the majority leader said it was a ``fantasy'' for anyone to think they would kill earmark reform behind closed doors. Again, I am not sure how these things can be said with a straight face. Several Senators on the other side, including the majority leader himself, have publicly said they intend to change these rules behind closed doors, but they won't say how they are going to change them. If this is all a fantasy, then why won't they tell us what they plan to do with these reforms? This is supposed to be a bill about transparency, but the other side wants to rewrite it in secret. But setting aside for a moment the fact that they have publicly admitted they plan to change these rules, we need to realize it is earmark reform we are talking about here. The culture of earmarking runs very deep in this town, and it is no fantasy that there are many in this body on both sides of the aisle who want to preserve that culture. Next, the majority leader said Democrats are already complying with the rule and therefore we should trust them. The truth is the earmark disclosure the Democrats have given us is spotty at best. In fact, the Congressional Research Service says only 4 committees out of 18 have implemented even an informal disclosure rule. Even worse, it says these four informal rules cannot be enforced on the floor of the Senate. The Defense bill we are debating right now is a perfect example. The committee put out a partial list of the earmark sponsors, but it has failed to make public the letters from these earmark sponsors certifying that they have no financial interest in the projects they have requested. This is a recipe for more Duke Cunninghams. It is a recipe for corruption. Congressional Quarterly put it quite clearly when it stated: The earmarks--listed in the defense bill for the first time ever--would not have been published at all had most Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee gotten their way. But the Democratic leadership wants us to trust them anyway. They want us to trust the people writing the earmarks to follow the rules without any accountability. It won't work, and the Defense bill is a perfect example. It is also important to note that the Democrats have done nothing to address the practice of adding secret earmarks in closed door conference committees. As my colleagues know, one of our earmark transparency rules prohibits this awful practice. The Democrats in the House have been trying to get away with adding their earmarks in secret without any oversight, and now Senate Democrats are blocking a rule to stop it on our side. Everyone knows the game around here. Everyone knows if you want a questionable earmark, you wait until the bill gets to conference and then you slip it in where it cannot be seen, where it cannot be debated, and where it cannot be stopped. Nothing has been done to stop this practice. The majority leader may believe Democrats have been transparent enough, but it is clear they have not. That is why we need a rule that will hold us all accountable. Next, the majority leader said I am preventing the Congress from ``restoring the faith'' of the American people in their Government. Congress will never restore faith with the American people until it addresses earmarks. As long as Members of Congress can direct Federal tax dollars to the special interest of their choosing with little or no accountability, we will see more bribes, more indictments, more prison sentences, and more Duke Cunninghams. Ethics reform is not complete without earmark reform. Americans know what I am talking about. That is why we need to get this right. Next, Senator Durbin said if I would only look at the bills, I would see the Democrats have fully complied with the proposed rules. The truth is if Senator Durbin would look at the earmark disclosure rule-- which he wrote--he would know it requires Senators to certify they have no conflict of interest in the earmark, and that these certifications will be made public on the committee Web site. If he would do some checking and go to the Armed Services Committee Web site, he would see there are no letters there for all the earmarks that were added to the Defense authorization bill we are currently debating. That is one example of how the majority is skirting the rules and it is one example of why they don't want a formal rule that would stop them from pulling these tricks. But setting aside their failures to be fully transparent, if Senator Durbin believes they are in full compliance with the earmark rules, then why is he so opposed to enacting them? What is he afraid of? If they are already complying with these rules, why not formalize them so they can be actually enforced? The truth is they are not fully complying with the rules and they have no plan to. They have been earmarking at will for years and they don't want anything that would make them more open or transparent. The majority leader also said my desire to protect earmark reform is a ``guise'' to kill the ethics bill. Again, this is completely false. For me, this is about reforming the way we spend American tax dollars. That is my motive. I am one who believes that the culture of earmarks is what drives the culture of corruption, and I know many others agree. The only ``guise'' here is the guise the Democrats are putting up to hide their opposition to earmark reform. They keep saying they want to go to conference on the ethics bill, but they refuse to tell us what they plan to do with the earmark reform once they get there. Instead, they say ``trust us.'' Democrats keep saying they want an ethics bill, but the truth is they don't want earmark reform. They have called it a ``petty issue'' and a ``trifle.'' It is all a guise. We all know what this debate is about-- it is about earmarks and whether we are going to have business as usual in the Senate. The other side wants us to change the way people outside of Congress behave--such as the lobbyists who bring their issues to us--but they completely oppose changing anything on earmarks, because this limits their own ability and it forces them to be accountable. That is the real guise here. The majority leader appears to be so opposed to meaningful earmark reform that he is willing to cancel the August break in order to pressure me to allow them to gut these reforms in secret. From my perspective, cancelling the August break to debate earmark reform would not be a bad thing. We need to debate this, because there are many here in the Senate who still don't get it. They still don't understand that Americans are sick and tired of business as usual in Washington. The majority leader also said the other night that he may try to force this down our throats, as he tried to force the immigration bill down our throats by filing a number of cloture motions. The other side says what I am doing to force them to protect earmark reform has never been done before and would set a bad precedent. They actually think people will believe that nobody has ever objected to going to conference, that no one has ever objected to sending a bill to a back room where it can be changed at will. What I am doing is exactly what Senator Reid did for years when he was in the minority. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Senator who has blocked the most attempts to go to conference over the past three Congresses is Senator Harry Reid. On several occasions he has demanded specific guarantees or concessions in exchange for allowing a bill to go to conference. Senator Reid knew then what he seems to have forgotten now: that a conference committee is not an entitlement. A bill is not entitled to go to conference where it can be changed behind closed doors. It is a luxury the majority leadership has used, but he is not entitled to it. There are a number of ways we can reconcile the differences between the two bills. The Senator from Nevada knew this before, but now that he is the majority leader, he seems to have forgotten. All of this can be easily solved in a bipartisan way. All my friends on the other side need to do is accept these rules which were unanimously supported by the Senate back in January. And if for some reason they believe these rules need technical changes, then they should tell us what they are going to do to change them so we can work it out in the open instead of behind closed doors. I hope my friends on the other side will change their minds. These are Senate rules that I am talking about, and there is no reason why we need to be negotiating with the House on them. All my friends on the other side have to do is stop blocking earmark reform and stop trying to change the rules in secret, and we can move on. Americans have seen the ethical problems associated with earmarks. They have watched what happened to Duke Cunningham and they have seen a number of Members of Congress forfeit their seats on appropriations committees due to conflicts of interest. Americans understand that lobbying and ethics reform will not be complete if we don't do anything to shine the light on the process. Mr. President, could I ask how much time I have remaining?

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, before I begin my statement, I commend Senator Wyden on his vision for health care and his passion for helping to equalize our Tax Code in a way that would help every American buy private health insurance.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Senate earmark transparency rules that have not been implemented after so many months. As my colleagues know, we passed two new Senate rules back in January that would shine some light on the earmarking process. It would require us to be open and honest about how we spend American tax dollars. Unfortunately, these Senate rules, which have nothing to do with the House of Representatives, have been held hostage so they can be gutted in secret when no one is looking. That is right; there are some in this Chamber who don't want to disclose their earmarks, don't want to certify in writing that they will not benefit financially from their earmarks. There are some who want to be able to continue the practice of adding secret earmarks to our bills in closed-door conference committees. The earmark disclosure rule was originally offered this year as an amendment to S. 1, the lobbying and ethics reform bill. I offered this amendment because the disclosure requirements the majority leader included in his ethics reform bill only covered 5 percent of earmarks that we pass every year. I believed then, as I do now, that disclosure of only 5 percent of our earmarks is not reform and represents business as usual. As my colleagues know, the leadership on the other side of the aisle originally opposed my amendment and actually tried to kill it. They said it was too broad and that the language, which came directly from Speaker Pelosi in the House, was rushed and therefore flawed. The majority leader said on January 11: . . . the distinguished Senator from South Carolina has said this is exactly like the House provision. I say to my friend that is one of the problems I have with it because I, frankly, do not think they spent the time we have on this. The same day Senator Durbin said: But the DeMint language is actually unworkable because it is so broad. . . . Frankly, it would make this a very burdensome responsibility. Fortunately, the Senate refused to table the amendment and the Democratic leadership was forced to support full earmark disclosure. To save face, the other side came with a slightly modified version that they said was better than the House language because it required 48 hours of notice on the Internet of all earmarks. We all agreed to this language and passed the Durbin Amendment 98 to 0. The Democratic leadership immediately changed their tune once the bill was passed. The majority leader said on January 16: In effect, we have combined the best ideas from both sides of the aisle, Democrat and Republican, to establish the strongest possible disclosure rules in this regard. Senator Durbin said: I am pleased with this bipartisan solution. . . . I believe it reflects the intent of all on both sides of the aisle to make sure there is more disclosure. Later in the debate, the Senate unanimously accepted an amendment prohibiting the practice of what we call airdropping earmarks in conference; that is, adding earmarks that were not included in either the House or the Senate versions of the bill. Again, we all agreed to this language and accepted it unanimously. Unfortunately, that is when the public eye turned away from this issue and when the bipartisan support for earmark reform ended. I came to this floor on Thursday, March 29--70 days after we passed the Senate earmark transparency rules--and asked for consent to enact them. But a Senator on the other side objected. The reason for his objection, according to several news reports, was that the other side of the aisle was caught off guard and was not properly notified. Well, that sounded somewhat plausible, so I came back to this floor on Tuesday, April 17--89 days after we passed the Senate earmark transparency rules which, again, have yet to be enacted. A Senator on the other side still objected. But this time it was Senator Durbin who objected--the very Senator who worked with me to author the new earmark disclosure rule. He objected to his own amendment being enacted. He said he did so because he didn't believe we should enact ethics reform in a piecemeal way. But then the majority immediately announced it would self-enforce some of the new earmark transparency rules in a piecemeal way. They said they would allow each committee to decide if and how to disclose their earmarks. The Congressional Research Service recently provided me with a review of all earmark rules being used in the Senate committees. The analysis shows that the rules have not been applied in many committees, and even those that have been created informally cannot be enforced on the Senate floor. According to CRS, only 4 out of 18 committees have even created an informal rule. This shows what we all know to be true: The rules are being implemented in a piecemeal way, which is exactly what the other side said they wanted to avoid. It is clear we need a formal rule in place that applies to all committees. That is what we voted for at the beginning of the year when we wanted to show Americans we were going to address the culture of corruption in Washington, and that is what we need to do now. I came down to this floor shortly before the July 4 recess to talk with the majority leader about these earmark rules. He wanted to go to conference with the House bill, S. 1, the ethics and lobbying reform bill, and I wanted to get his personal assurances that these earmark rules would not be watered down or eliminated behind closed doors. Unfortunately, the majority leader told me he could not give me those assurances, which was a clear sign that the folks working on this bill had plans to weaken the earmark transparency rules we adopted in January. I tried again to get consent to enact these rules on Thursday, June 28, 161 days after they had passed, and again the other side objected. The reason this time, which was a complete departure from what they said before, was that the other side planned to work with the House to change the rules and that it was unreasonable for me to demand that they be protected. The majority leader said: There will be some things that will wind up being a Senate rule. Some things will wind up being a House rule. That is part of what the conference is going to work out. No one is trying to detract from anything that the distinguished Senator from South Carolina wants. But just because you want something doesn't mean that you are necessarily going to get it. Senator Schumer echoed their desire to change the rules by saying: . . . maybe there are things that other people might add; maybe there will be the kinds of legislative tradeoffs that will make a stronger ethics bill. We all have no way of knowing . . . To get 90 percent or 95 percent of what is a good package, most people would say yes. And Senator Durbin sought to belittle my effort to protect the earmark rules, saying: It would seem that the Senator from South Carolina is carping on a trifle here. And I was carping on his bill. There are three words to describe what is going on here, Mr. President: business as usual. This is one of the worst flip-flop reversals I have ever seen. Even the Senator from Illinois, the very person who had previously praised the new rules, minimized their importance and supported efforts to change them. I realize the other side never liked these rules to begin with. After all, they did try to kill them. But I thought they had come around and were now supportive. I thought we agreed that earmark transparency was a reasonable step to begin changing the way we spend American tax dollars and to end business as usual. It now appears I was mistaken. Mr. President, 172 days have now gone by since we passed the Senate earmark transparency rules, and yet a few in the Chamber still refuse to enact them. Instead, these objections offer more excuses--excuses that keep changing as time passes. First they said the rules were too broad and the House wrote them incorrectly. Then, after the Senate leadership revised the rules to their liking, they support them. But now, after 6 months have passed, they are saying the rules need to be fixed again, and this time by the House. I am sorry, I realize this may seem like a joke, but I am not making it up. What we have here is obstruction, pure and simple. It has been 172 days since we passed these earmark transparency rules, and the majority will still not allow them to be enacted. Several Senators on the other side are determined to block these rules and prevent them from ever being implemented. They have now publicly acknowledged that they intend to change the rules behind closed doors and, according to several media reports, the majority leader is even willing to cancel the entire August recess to force those of us who want earmark reform to capitulate. He wants us to stop fighting for the American taxpayers. That is not going to happen. So the quicker we end the obstruction of these earmark reform rules, the quicker we can get on to other business. I intend to fight for these rules even if it means staying here every day in August. In fact, that might mean the best outcome of all. We need to have a national dialog in this country about how Congress spends Americans' hard-earned tax dollars. I think it would be good for those in this Chamber to explain to the American people why they don't want to be transparent in how we spend their money. That is a discussion we need to have here. I am now going to seek consent one more time to enact these important disclosure rules. And I ask the majority, if they don't like the language they developed, then make suggestions of how they want to change it. But in the meantime, I think we should go to conference on this lobby and ethics reform bill. I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now to proceed to S. Res. 123 and S. Res. 206, the earmark disclosure resolutions, all en bloc; that the resolutions be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table. I further ask that the Senate then proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2316, the House-passed ethics and lobbying reform bill; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1, as passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill be read a third time, passed, and the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees at a ratio of 4 to 3.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DeMINT. Reserving the right to object, Madam President.

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, earlier this year, the Senate took a major step in being more transparent with the earmarking process. We worked together. We passed within the lobbying/ethics reform bill transparency and rules that would keep us from adding secret earmarks when we go to conference. I have asked repeatedly on the Senate floor that we accept that as a rule. I had asked the majority leader to amend his unanimous consent request to go to conference to include Senate acceptance of the rules we have already passed. That way we would have the comprehensive work we have all planned to have. I understand from the majority leader they are not willing to accept that, and they want to go to conference where it is our belief it will be significantly changed. In light of our inability to come up with agreement that would include earmark disclosure, I object.

Mr. DeMINT. Will the leader yield for a question?

Mr. DeMINT. Will the leader yield for a question?

Mr. DeMINT. I thank the leader, and I appreciate his perseverance. I would just like to ask why the part of this bill that applies only to the Senate--it does not need to be conferenced with the House because it is our rule about how we deal with earmarks, how we deal with the conference of out-of-scope earmarks. Why can't we just accept that part here and go to conference with all of these other provisions in which you know our Members are interested? I have no objection to going to conference, but there is no reason to conference with the House on rules that apply only to the Senate.

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, may I respond?

Mr. DeMINT. Will the Senator allow a response?

Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Chair. I am very surprised to hear earmark reform referred to as a trivial issue. More than anything else, the things that you were just talking about, the corruption, are all earmark related, where Congressmen have sold earmarks for bribes. A big part of the corruption here is earmarks. To respond in a more detailed way, the House has passed its own rules package. It didn't relate to us. They did not send it to conference. They didn't need the Senate to advise. They adopted their own rules. We know, if I could speak through the Chair to Senator Durbin, that if we send this to conference, nothing will be done this year. This conference will work for months. We will not have earmark reform during this year's appropriations process. That is exactly what this is intended to do. For that reason, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent, again, that the rules be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 123 and S. Res. 260; that the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. DeMINT. Yes, sir.