Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, this amendment is presented by myself and Senator Rockefeller, chairman of the Intelligence Committee. It aims to bring the same goals of accountability and transparency of earmark reform to the most opaque of earmarks, and those are classified ones. The amendment prohibits any bill authorization or appropriation from containing an earmark in the classified portion of that bill or accompanying a report, unless there is unclassified language that describes in general terms the nature of the earmark. The amount of the earmark is disclosed and the sponsor of the earmark is identified. We have cleared this with Senator Rockefeller and also, I believe, with Senator Bond, who requested a change that we have made. This amendment would provide the public with the assurance that the classified parts of the defense and intelligence budgets--which are indeed large--are subjected to the same scrutiny and openness as everything else. The need for the amendment was made clear by the actions of former Congressman Duke Cunningham. According to a report by the House Intelligence Committee, Cunningham was able to enact a staggering $70 million to $80 million in classified earmarks over a 5- year period. These earmarks benefited his business partners and were not known to most Members of the Congress or the public. The Washington Post, in a November 2006 editorial, pointed out: Until the last decade or so, earmarks weren't permitted to intelligence bills because of the absence of public scrutiny. The Post also notes that Cunningham's earmarks could be the tip of the iceberg in terms of classified pork and corruption. Under this amendment, the public can be assured that this cannot happen. In saying these words, I say them as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; I say them with the knowledge that these earmarks can be very large; I say them with the knowledge that this budget, which is known as a ``black budget'' and is considered by the Defense Subcommittee of Appropriations to be very difficult to get at, even by those of us who serve on both intelligence and defense appropriations. Senator Bond and I are in the process of suggesting a procedure to the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee, as well as the leadership, that might bring greater intelligence staff work to bear on the classified part that relates to intelligence of the defense bill. This amendment is a very simple amendment. It simply says make as clear as possible, without jeopardizing national security, what the earmark is and provide transparency as to who is requesting the earmark. I don't think that is too much to ask. I do not believe it is going to in any way, shape, or form disrupt or change anything other than bring the light of day to classified earmarks. I am prepared to ask for the yeas and nays. I ask the ranking member if he has looked at this amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I might respond to the ranking member's comment, I know there are no more second-degree amendments in order. However, I have looked at this modification. It is minor, and I would certainly agree to it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I indicate to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania that I strongly support his amendment. My hope is we will be able to accept it without a vote. I have spoken with the ranking member, and I believe he is vetting it and hopefully we will be able to do that shortly. I thank the Senator very much. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I urge--and I think this is my fourth urgent importuning of my colleagues--to please come to the floor with their amendments. The floor is open now. At 5:30 p.m. we will have a vote on two amendments and a cloture vote on a third amendment. I ask them to please come to the floor and press their cause now because the week is going on. It is Tuesday. We all heard the majority leader saying this morning that we could finish this bill as early as Wednesday evening or as late as Saturday. I know we would all want to see it done on the former date. Hopefully, Members will come to the floor. It is my understanding there are some 60 amendments in the line. If a Senator does not want his or her amendment to proceed further, please so advise us so we can eliminate it from the list. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, before the Senator does that----

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I have no problem with trust but verify. I am happy to cease and desist at this time and wait and see. I thank the ranking member. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member. I call up amendment No. 70.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 70.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after the bill is reported, Senator Cornyn be recognized to speak with respect to the bill for up to 10 minutes and that Senator Sanders then be recognized to call up amendment No. 57.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I know the time has come to speak on the bill, but I would like, since there is only one Senator on the floor, to ask the body's indulgence and ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``The Plight of Iraqi Refugees'' on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 2 p.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Witness List Panel I: The Honorable Ellen Sauerbrey, Assistant Secretary of State Population, Refugees and Migration, U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C. Panel II: Sam:**, Former Translator for the U.S. Military, PA; John**, Former Truck Driver, subcontractor, for the U.S. Military, CA; Captain Zachary J. Iscol, Foreign Military Training Unit, Marine Forces Special Operations Command, Camp Lejeune, NC, Lisa Ramaci-Vincent, Executive Director, Steven Vincent Foundation, New York City, NY, and Ken Bacon, President, Refugees International, Washington, DC. Panel III: Michel Gabaudan, Regional Representative for the U.S. and Caribbean, Office of the United National High Commissioner for Refugees, Washington, DC. **Name has been changed to protect witness identity.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 10 a.m. in SD-430.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Massachusetts. I think this is an excellent amendment. I think it is long overdue. I am very hopeful it will pass the Senate this morning. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is my understanding.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I misspoke. The way we have this drafted, it is at least 5--I think I said 10--it is at least 5 constituents. I hope that is not a problem for anyone. I thank the ranking member. It has been a pleasure to work with him. I think we both feel similarly about this. This issue of what you accept at a meal is a difficult issue, dependent upon where you are and where you are located. I think this is fair, in view of the nature of events covering all States, low cost of living, rural and urban States. So it is at least five bona fide constituents--that is a member of the State, not a professional lobbyist, although a professional lobbyist can also be a constituent. For the purpose of this bill, they are excluded. I hope this will be agreed to. I know there are some Members who want to look at this. It is at the desk. I urge them to come down right away and look at it because we would like to voice vote it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.