Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I would like to thank my friend and colleague from Nebraska for bringing this amendment and important issue forward. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has jurisdiction over these issues which impact the executive branch. As chairman of that committee, I can appreciate that this amendment warrants more thorough evaluation and deliberation. Later this year, the committee will consider the reauthorization of the Office of Government Ethics--the executive branch's ethics arm. I look forward to working with my friend from Nebraska on the issue throughout the year and as we consider this reauthorization and other matters.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, utilizing a moment in opposition to the amendment of my friend from Utah, Mr. Bennett, if the section on grassroots lobbying in the bill were as Senator Bennett described it and as other groups on the outside have described it, I would oppose it. This provision was in the overall lobbying bill that passed the Senate 90 to 8 last year. It is a natural extension of what the entire bill is doing, which is asking for disclosure from professional lobbying. Billions of dollars are spent on so-called grassroots lobbying. It is totally legal, but let's get it out into the sunshine. The individual groups writing to Members to lobby us do not have to disclose anything. This only requires disclosure if a group retains a professional lobbyist and only if they pay that lobbyist more than $25,000 a quarter. This is not amateur citizen lobbying. This is to find out who is getting how much money to influence us. It is not, in any sense, a limitation on the revered first amendment right to petition Congress for a redress of grievances. It is an attempt for disclosure consistent with the entire bill. So I ask my colleagues respectfully to leave this critical provision in this progressive reform bill. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, there is not much to add to my colleague from Maine. I thank her for her statement. Basically, we have a very strong reform of the rules by which we govern our ethics and that of those who lobby before us. What is missing is an equal reform of the process which would do that. Nothing in this amendment alters the superior role of the Senate Ethics Committee pursuant to the Constitution to make final decisions on claims before it. This amendment simply sets up an independent investigative office. Incidentally, it is merely responding to what my friend from California, Senator Feinstein, said. There is actually more protection against abuse of this process with frivolous complaints than there is in the current system. I have a feeling this will not pass tonight, but our committee is going to take it up and hopefully report out a bill independently later this session. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, today I honor Richard H. Shapiro, who retired as executive director of the Congressional Management Foundation, CMF, in December after 18 years of service with the foundation and 17 years as its executive director. During those 18 years, Mr. Shapiro has worked tirelessly to help all member and committee offices operate more productively and efficiently. Mr. Shapiro is a talented business consultant who has adapted many of the best practice methods of the business world to the unique institution that is the congressional office, and taken the time to train thousands of congressional staffers in these methods. In addition, Mr. Shapiro and his staff at CMF have conducted organizational assessments for member, committee and leadership offices. Some years ago, he was kind enough to conduct a structure evaluation for my Senate office, and he made several useful suggestions regarding my office's mail operation, web site and internal communications. My office implemented them all, and both my office and constituents are all better off for it. He has also helped many new Members of Congress set up both their Washington and district offices, a task that can be very daunting for anyone new to Congress. He has also conducted individual assessments and coaching for senior managers and Members. Under his leadership, the CMF began offering management guidance to congressional officers responsible for managing the House or Senate as a whole. Furthermore, Mr. Shapiro has helped to coordinate bipartisan events for all the Chiefs of Staff, which helps them get to know each other and work together better. Mr. Shapiro was also a leader in promoting the use of the World Wide Web and other digital forms of communications in Congress. Under his leadership, the CMF pushed for Members of Congress to establish Web sites that constituents could use to e-mail their representatives and get information on Congress. The CMF continues to encourage congressional offices to improve their Web sites by giving out the annual Golden Mouse award to the office with the best and most innovative Web site. Considering all that CMF has done under Mr. Shapiro's leadership, one is very surprised to find out that CMF has a very small staff and budget. But those who know Mr. Shapiro would tell you that, given his talent and dedication, it is no big surprise that CMF was able to provide so many quality services under his helm. Madam President, it my sincerest pleasure to thank Richard Shapiro for sharing his talent and dedication with us for so many years. Congress is a better place for it.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I know we are in an unfortunate gridlock at the moment, but earlier in the afternoon my friend from Utah, Senator Bennett, rose to indicate that he intended, at some point in the debate, to move to strike a section of the bill regarding so- called grassroots lobbying. It requires disclosure of people doing paid grassroots lobbying exceeding a certain threshold of spending every year. And this provision is part of the title of the bill before us that came out of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, of which I am privileged to chair and of which I am privileged to have the distinguished Presiding Officer as a new member of. I wish to respond to several statements that Senator Bennett made. We will have a fuller debate, I am sure, before he asks for a vote on his amendment. But for the record, for the information of my colleagues, I wish to speak in favor of what I believe is one of the most important elements of this lobbying reform legislation. The original provision, sponsored in committee by my friend from Michigan, Senator Levin, and myself, requires, for the first time, disclosure of so-called paid grassroots lobbying. Much has been said--I fear, too much of it not on point--about this provision and its purported impact on free speech. I wish to reassure my colleagues that those claims about this provision are not true. This grassroots lobbying provision would do nothing to stop, deter or interfere with individuals exercising their constitutional rights to petition our Government for redress. We are talking about disclosure, not censorship, not limits in any way on lobbying. We are talking about disclosure of large sums of money spent by professional organizations. We are not talking about barring any organization from conducting a grassroots lobbying campaign. And we are not talking about small grassroots lobbying efforts. We are talking about major media campaigns, mass mailings, large phone banks, designed for the purpose of influencing Members of Congress or the executive branch on specific issues. There is nothing wrong with that. But it has become, as I will discuss in a moment, an ever-increasing, evermore expensive part of the way in which people use their constitutional right to petition their Government, and it has, unfortunately, been abused, particularly in the Abramoff case. This provision would shine the disinfecting, the edifying, the illuminating, the educating sunshine of public disclosure, but would impose no limitation on constitutional rights. Our former colleague, the late Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas--a wonderful man and a great Senator--once referred to this kind of paid grassroots lobbying as ``astroturf lobbying'' because it was not real grassroots lobbying. It was generated, manufactured, and not self- grown. It, to me, defies logic to require a company to disclose--as we do in law now, and would even more according to the underlying bill, S. 1--to require a company to disclose its direct lobbying of Members of Congress, while giving that same company a pass by not requiring it to disclose anything with regard to its efforts to manufacture and generate thousands of pieces of mail and calls for the same purpose. To avoid confusion, I want my colleagues to understand what this provision does and what it does not do. It does not ban or restrict grassroots lobbying of any kind in any way. That would be wrong. Grassroots lobbying is an important way for people to get involved and contact their Members of Congress or the executive branch. There is nothing wrong with astroturf lobbying, as Senator Bentsen described it, either. It is not self-generated grass, but it is appropriate, constitutional and legal and nothing in this provision of S. 1 would stop it. This legislation simply requires disclosure of the amount of money spent on grassroots lobbying when it is conducted by professional organizations. The opponents of this measure would have us believe we are trying to amend the first amendment. That is not true. Our Senate phones are often jammed with callers expressing their points of view and all giving the exact same message. That comes from somewhere, is paid for by somebody and is part of an organized effort, and the public and the Members have a right to know who is paying and how much. I wish to note this provision responds directly to one element of the Abramoff scandal. Mr. Abramoff funneled money from one of his clients, the Mississippi Choctaw Indians, to a grassroots lobbying firm run by Ralph Reed to oppose pro-gambling measures. The Choctaws were particularly interested in stifling competition to their gambling activities. Well, it seems to me in that case the public had a right to know the anti-gambling campaign was funded by those trying to protect-- which is their right--their own position in the gambling industry from further competition. Mr. Abramoff also directed his clients--and here is where we get into big problems--to pay millions of dollars to grassroots lobbying firms controlled by himself and his associate Michael Scanlon, fees that were in part directed back to Mr. Abramoff personally but never known by the public as direct fees. If the disclosure requirements that we are proposing here had been in place, Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Scanlon would have had to have disclosed these multimillion dollar fees they passed through this grassroots lobbying operation and, therefore, I believe they probably would not have been able to pull that particular scam off so easily. In crafting this provision, Senator Levin and I have been careful to listen to grassroots organizations and have incorporated several safeguards to make sure we do nothing to inhibit their exercise of free speech. We make clear, for example, that the grassroots lobbying effort must be in support of a direct lobbying effort. Grassroots activities without connection to lobbying do not trigger a reporting requirement in and of themselves. So no matter what is being said here, I assure my colleagues that if this bill passes with this provision in it, anyone picking up their phone of their own free will to tell their Member of Congress how they feel about an issue is not going to face any requirements under our amendment. Here is another threshold the amendment requires. Some people say: What if an organizational leader writes to his Members or a clergyman writes to his church to urge them to express an opinion on a particular matter to Members of Congress? It wouldn't be covered by this. We exclude efforts that are not professional, that are not paid for, and we exclude all efforts that cost less than $25,000 per quarter. That is a significant exemption, and it means that an organization can spend up to $100,000 a year on paid grassroots lobbying without triggering the disclosure requirement. Again, we also exclude communication made by organizations to their own members. And we exclude any communication directed at less than 500 members of the general public. So what we are asking for is disclosure of spending over $25,000 per quarter to get others to engage in grassroots lobbying, and we are asking them to report just one number rounded to the nearest $20,000. Eleven years ago, Senator Levin unsuccessfully fought for a grassroots lobbying disclosure provision when Congress originally passed the Lobbying Disclosure Act. At the time he said, to the best of his knowledge, grassroots lobbying campaigns spent about $700 million a year. To the best of my knowledge, though obviously we don't know because there is no disclosure, that figure has multiplied probably into the billions per year, and the public has no accurate picture of who is spending what to influence others to lobby Congress. That is what this provision would do. My friend from Utah, Senator Bennett, pointed out that the first amendment protects the right of every American to petition Government for redress of grievances. Of course, that is true, and lobbying is part of that. As I said in my opening statement on this bill, it is a constitutionally protected right. The Senator further pointed out that the Supreme Court has said this right is not diminished if performed for others for a fee. That is also correct. I agree. Nothing about disclosure, however, is inconsistent with that first amendment right. Requiring disclosure under certain narrow circumstances is all our grassroots provision would try to do. The fact is, the Supreme Court has upheld disclosure requirements for direct lobbying. I am confident that the Court's reasoning applies equally to the disclosure we are proposing for paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying. In the leading case on lobbyist disclosure, which is U.S. v. Harriss, decided in 1954, the Supreme Court considered the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act which at that time required every person ``receiving any contributions or expending any money for the purpose of influencing the passage or defeat of any legislation by Congress'' to report information about their clients, their contributions, and their expenditures. The Supreme Court upheld in that case disclosure requirements for the Court's narrow definition of lobbying, which included not only direct communications with legislators but also their artificially stimulated public letter campaigns to Congress. Two courts of appeals have also upheld grassroots lobbying disclosure requirements. In Minnesota State Ethical Practices Board v. the National Rifle Association, decided by the Eighth Circuit Court in 1985, that circuit upheld the State statute requiring disclosure of grassroots lobbying, even when the activity at issue was correspondence from a national organization to its members. In other words, the Eighth Circuit upheld a statute that goes even farther than we are going because we are exempting communications made by organizations to their own members. In the other case, the 11th Circuit, in a case known as Florida League of Professional Lobbyists, Inc. v. Meggs, decided about 10 years ago in 1996, upheld a Florida law which required disclosure of expenditures both for direct lobbying and indirect lobbying activities. Astroturf lobbyists who don't like this legislative provision may well challenge it in court. That could be said of most pieces of legislation that Congress considers. But I believe the weight of precedent of both the Supreme Court and the two explicit circuit court cases on grassroots lobbying should give us confidence that extending the essential disclosure requirements of lobbying to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying would be upheld as constitutional. I hope more broadly that we can proceed with this bill. It is an important reaction to the voices of the people that we have all heard who are offended by the ethical scandals here in Congress over the last few years, as we all, each Member of Congress, are embarrassed by those scandals. This underlying bill, S. 1, is a very strong response to them. I hope it does not fall by the wayside in what may appear to observers to be the first partisan gridlock of this session of Congress. Surely we can figure out a way to proceed to consider the issue that is the subject of the gridlock at some point in the Senate and then proceed rapidly to consider the other amendments pending on S. 1, adopt the bill, and go forward. I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would like to particularly thank the Senator from Maine, the previous chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, under whose leadership this bill was fashioned, along with myself, Senator McCain, and Senator Obama, who has now joined us as an original cosponsor. We have continued this battle. We lost last year, but we think this is an important provision, and sometimes you have to fight for something you think is right until you can convince a majority to join with you. Senator Collins has stated the case very well. The underlying bill here, S. 1, and some of the amendments that have been filed to it represent a significant step forward in the way we in Congress will regulate our own ethics and provide for disclosure and oversight of the behavior of those who lobby us. This underlying bill is not a perfect bill, but it is a very strong bill. Ultimately the test of it will be its credibility. This is comparable to other laws that we pass--for example Federal criminal law. We pass some good laws, but ultimately we depend on the independence of the investigative and prosecutorial system and the independence of the judges who adjudicate the cases brought before them not only so justice is done, but also that the system of justice we have created enjoys the respect and trust of the people of this country. Here is the situation in this case. We have a tough, underlying bill with substantial reforms to congressional ethics and lobbying, but there is no change in the enforcement mechanism for implementing the broader reforms that would be adopted under the underlying bill. That is what we propose to do with this amendment number 30, establish an Office of Public Integrity. I will get to it in a moment, but I would also like to echo an appeal that the Senator from Maine made. Unfortunately, I saw respectfully, in the wisdom of the Parliamentarian, the ruling has come down that this amendment would not be germane post-cloture. We have tried to convince the Parliamentarian otherwise. We have not succeeded. That is a given. We respect it. There is a process that sometimes reaches a conclusion in judgment with which we don't agree, but the process is so independent and reliable that we accept it nonetheless. What that means, obviously, is that unless we are able to bring this amendment, to create an Office of Public Integrity, to a vote prior to a cloture vote on the overall bill--which we presume will be tomorrow--we will not have a chance to bring it to a vote. We have been told that unanimous consent--which is necessary to set aside the pending amendment and bring this up--will not be granted to this amendment. I urge our leaders and others to please reconsider that. We know--Senator Collins, Senator Obama, Senator McCain, and I,-- that we are still fighting upstream to get the necessary votes we need to agree to this. But I think it is important that we have the debate, that we have the vote, that we build support. There are many new Members, and I don't presume to know how they would vote, and I know the new Members have gone through the process at home and they know the extent to which our constituents--Democratic, Republican, Independent--are unhappy with a lot of the way we do business. They believe there is too much partisanship and, of course, their views were affected by the scandals of the last few years. When you think about it, it has been a difficult time for Congress. Of course, obviously, almost all Members of Congress conduct themselves in an ethical way, but we all suffer, and the institution suffers, when some Members do not conduct themselves in an ethical way. Look back over the last 4 or 5 years. In 2002, the majority leader in the House was indicted for conspiring to illegally funnel corporate money into State campaigns, a violation of State campaign laws. Another Member of Congress went to jail for exchanging earmarks for bribes. The FBI raided the office of a third Member in a probe of possible illicit activity. Lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty and went to jail for wire fraud and conspiracy, and the investigations into his activities revealed what can only be characterized as the most sleazy, unethical, ultimately illegal behavior by Mr. Abramoff, his associates, and individuals in both the legislative and executive branches of Government. One Member pleaded guilty to conspiracy and making false statements regarding political favors given to Abramoff in exchange for gifts. A former Deputy Chief of Staff for a Congressman pleaded guilty to conspiracy and corruption charges. A former official at the General Services Administration in the Office of Management and Budget was convicted of lying to various officials at GSA in an attempt to cover up favorable treatment he gave to Mr. Abramoff. And just as the news of many of these scandals was winding down, the Nation was shaken again last fall by the news of Congressman Foley's improper behavior. So who can blame the American people for having lost a lot of their confidence in Congress? As we left town last October for the election break, Congress's public approval ratings were hovering in the teens. To put any doubts to rest, I think the American people sent a message on election day that they wanted a change in Washington. Some of the exit polls were stunning because they showed that more voters identified corruption in Washington as influencing their votes in last fall's election than any other issue, including, much to my surprise, the war in Iraq. America voted for us to clean up our act. That is what the underlying bill, S. 1, will do. But it will not do it as well as it should if we do not also reform the system by which these rules and laws are enforced. That is exactly what this bill does. The legislation before us pledges to the American people that we are going to put the public interest above our own self-interest. We are saying no to gifts and travel from lobbyists. We are demanding greater disclosure from lobbyists about their activities. We are going to slow the revolving door between Congress and the lobbying firms of K Street. The bill before us is one of the strongest reform measures I have seen in the Senate. I am proud to support it. But, again, it needs an equally strong enforcement mechanism. Last month, before the ink was dry on the House Ethics Committee report on the allegations of a coverup of Congressman Foley's behavior, the press and a lot of the people dismissed it as a half-hearted job, a kind of ``inside the Congress'' going-easy report. I do not accept that conclusion, but the fact is, when you have Members judging Members along the whole way of the process, that is where a lot of the people are going to inevitably end up. I know many of my colleagues in the Senate will say the House has a problem, not the Senate. I would say a couple of things to that. First, we all suffer when any Member of Congress acts unethically and Congress seems not to be responding independently and aggressively. Who is to say the process we have for judging our own ethical problems will not someday soon also be seen by the public as having a problem. The public does not care whether the scandal occurred in the House or the Senate. To the public, Congress is Congress. We all swim together or we all sink together. The fact is, under the status quo of enforcement in the Senate, the Ethics Committee, composed of Members of the Senate, investigate, recommend, and decide on judgment. We need to break that and create an independent part of the process, which is exactly what our amendment would do, to conduct the investigation and recommend an action. There has been a lot of concern among Members about this amendment. I urge them to take a look at the details. I spoke with one Member earlier today who said he was concerned that an irresponsible ethical complaint would be filed with the independent Office of Public Integrity in the middle of a campaign or before--but particularly during the middle of a campaign--would be used in a 30-second commercial against an incumbent. Of course, that can happen now if somebody files a complaint with the Ethics Committee. But, in fact, I think the proposal we have made is aimed at an independent investigation but protecting against exactly that kind of abuse. Let me go through the process, briefly, to reassure Members. A complaint may be filed with the Public Integrity Office by a Member of Congress, an outside complainant or the Office itself at its own initiative. No complaint may be accepted against a Member within 60 days of an election involving that Member. So we are trying to separate this from a campaign caper. Within 30 days of filing, the director must make an initial determination as to whether to dismiss the case or whether there are sufficient grounds for conducting an investigation. During that time, the Member who is the subject of the complaint may challenge the complaint. The director may dismiss a complaint that fails to state a violation, lacks credible evidence of a violation or relates to a violation that is inadvertent, technical or otherwise of a de minimis nature. I urge my colleagues to particularly listen to this. The Director may refer a case that has been dismissed to the Ethics Committee for the Ethics Committee to determine if the complaint is frivolous. If the Ethics Committee determines that a complaint is frivolous, the committee may notify the Director not to accept any future complaint filed by that same person and the complainant may be required to pay for the costs of the office resulting from the complaint. This is meant to be independent, but it is also meant to be fair and to protect Members from the political abuse of the process we are creating. There is not publicity on this until some judgment is made, so that the prospects for misuse in a political context, in my opinion, are actually less under this proposal of ours than they are in the current system. This Office of Public Integrity assures the American people that each ethics case is examined by this independent entity. But the Ethics Committee would in no way lose its authority to be the ultimate judge of whether a violation has occurred because that is the authority it has, pursuant to the Constitutional provision that Members of each Chamber shall regulate their own behavior. It is an interesting fact that the Ethics Committee itself has occasionally retained independent counsel to investigate ethics complaints that come before it. This, in part, I know, is a reflection of the committee's concern that it doesn't have sufficient staff to handle all the investigations that come before it. But I think it is also a reflection of a judgment that motivates this amendment--that there are times when a charge is made against a Senator before a committee of his peers or her peers, Senators, and to establish real credibility for the investigation the Ethics Committee itself has brought in an independent investigator. We are saying that makes good sense, and that is exactly what our amendment would do on an ongoing basis. Finally, I wish to note that at the suggestion of our friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, we are assigning, under this amendment, to this Office of Public Integrity, the role of recommending to the Ethics Committee the approval or disapproval of privately funded travel by Members and staff. The underlying bill restricts privately funded travel that may be accepted by Members of Congress and contains a new pre-approval process for privately funded travel. Giving this responsibility to this Office of Public Integrity, independent as it is, I think will help assure the American people that travel requests by Members of the Senate will be scrutinized independently by this independent office. I will conclude, noting that the time is coming to go to the discussion of the three pending amendments. This proposal for an Office of Public Integrity is entirely consistent with the Constitution's mandate that each House of Congress determines its own rules and sanctions its own members. It is a proposal consistent with the practice of the Ethics Committee of bringing in outside counsel on occasion to assist in its work. It is 100 percent consistent with the message the American people sent in November: for Congress to conduct itself with honor and dignity, in a fashion that earns their trust. This is a sensible, strong effort to assure the people who are good enough to send us to Washington that we are not only adopting reforms in our lobbying regulations and laws and our ethics regulations and laws, but we are taking strong action to make sure those reforms are well enforced, as they should and must be if we are to restore the public's confidence in our work. This is an important amendment. It deserves a vote. I appeal to my colleagues and leaders to give it that. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, on October 4 of last year, the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, which houses Great Britain's leading climate scientists, projected that in the absence of prompt action to curb global warming, extreme drought will spread across one third of the Earth's land surface by the end of this century. On October 30, the head of the United Kingdom's Government Economic Service forecasted that unchecked global warming will cost the world between five and twenty percent of gross domestic product each year. On December 4, the director of the U.S. Center for Disease Control's National Center for Environmental Health cited global warming as ``the largest looming public health challenge we face.'' Insect-borne diseases such as malaria are expected to spike as tropical ecosystems expand; hotter air will exacerbate the air pollutants that send our children to the hospital with asthma attacks; food insecurity from shifting agricultural zones will spark border wars; and storms and coastal flooding from sea-level rise will cause mortality and dislocation. On December 14, in fact, the journal Science published a peer- reviewed study projecting that unchecked global warming could cause sea levels to rise between a half meter and one-and-a-half meters above 1990 levels by the end of this century. A sealevel rise in the middle of that range would submerge every city on the East Coast of the United States, from Miami to Boston. And on December 27, the Interior Department proposed to list the polar bear as threatened with extinction due to Arctic ice melt from global warming. When even erstwhile skeptics cite melting habitat as the reason polar bears are now threatened, I say the global warming debate is over. The American people want action, and they want it now. As you know, Senator McCain and I have brought our legislation to solve global warming to a vote in this chamber twice already, first in 2003 and then again in 2005. On the same day that the Senate failed for a second time to pass our bill, in June 2005, this body fortunately did pass Senator Bingaman's resolution that the Congress should enact ``a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such emissions.'' Today I am reintroducing an improved version of my and Senator McCain's Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act. As the last version of the Act did, the version I introduce today carries the co-sponsorship of Senators Obama and Snowe. I am proud to say that improvements to the bill have now attracted the additional co-sponsorship of Senators Lincoln and Collins. Very shortly, I understand, Representatives Olver and Gilchrest will reintroduce this bill's companion in the House. The 2005 version of the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act would have capped U.S. greenhouse gas emissions at year 2000 levels without mandating further reductions. The new bill will gradually lower the emissions cap, such that it reaches approximately one third of 2000 levels by 2050. Those long-term reductions will forestall catastrophic, manmade climate change, provided the world's other major economies follow suit within the next decade. Like the 2005 version, the reintroduced bill will control compliance costs by allowing companies to trade, save, and borrow emissions credits, and by allowing them to generate ``offset'' credits by inducing noncovered businesses, farms, and others to reduce their emissions or capture and store greenhouse gases. The reintroduced bill, however, will increase the availability of borrowing and offsets in order to control costs further. This bill will be referred to the Environment and Public Works Committee, where I will chair a subcommittee on climate change. Colleagues of mine on that committee, including our esteemed chairwoman and my good friend, Senator Boxer, will have their own strong proposals for curbing global warming. I look forward to working with them to get comprehensive legislation reported favorably to the floor in a bipartisan manner. Senator Bingaman, the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has invested a great deal of work and expertise in a comprehensive climate bill of his own. I believe Senator Bingaman will be highly influential in this process, and I look forward to working with him closely to solve this problem. With American know-how we can and will solve this problem. We will use the power of the free market to promote the rapid and widespread deployment of advanced technologies and practices for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And we will do so without weakening the economic position of the United States or otherwise imposing hardship on its citizens. I would like to close by extending my heartfelt thanks to the distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, for placing legislation to curb global warming among his top ten priorities for this Congress, and for memorializing that commitment with the introduction, as S. 6, of the National Energy and Environmental Security Act, a bill that I was proud to co-sponsor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, on October 4 of last year, the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, which houses Great Britain's leading climate scientists, projected that in the absence of prompt action to curb global warming, extreme drought will spread across one third of the Earth's land surface by the end of this century. On October 30, the head of the United Kingdom's Government Economic Service forecasted that unchecked global warming will cost the world between five and twenty percent of gross domestic product each year. On December 4, the director of the U.S. Center for Disease Control's National Center for Environmental Health cited global warming as ``the largest looming public health challenge we face.'' Insect-borne diseases such as malaria are expected to spike as tropical ecosystems expand; hotter air will exacerbate the air pollutants that send our children to the hospital with asthma attacks; food insecurity from shifting agricultural zones will spark border wars; and storms and coastal flooding from sea-level rise will cause mortality and dislocation. On December 14, in fact, the journal Science published a peer- reviewed study projecting that unchecked global warming could cause sea levels to rise between a half meter and one-and-a-half meters above 1990 levels by the end of this century. A sealevel rise in the middle of that range would submerge every city on the East Coast of the United States, from Miami to Boston. And on December 27, the Interior Department proposed to list the polar bear as threatened with extinction due to Arctic ice melt from global warming. When even erstwhile skeptics cite melting habitat as the reason polar bears are now threatened, I say the global warming debate is over. The American people want action, and they want it now. As you know, Senator McCain and I have brought our legislation to solve global warming to a vote in this chamber twice already, first in 2003 and then again in 2005. On the same day that the Senate failed for a second time to pass our bill, in June 2005, this body fortunately did pass Senator Bingaman's resolution that the Congress should enact ``a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such emissions.'' Today I am reintroducing an improved version of my and Senator McCain's Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act. As the last version of the Act did, the version I introduce today carries the co-sponsorship of Senators Obama and Snowe. I am proud to say that improvements to the bill have now attracted the additional co-sponsorship of Senators Lincoln and Collins. Very shortly, I understand, Representatives Olver and Gilchrest will reintroduce this bill's companion in the House. The 2005 version of the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act would have capped U.S. greenhouse gas emissions at year 2000 levels without mandating further reductions. The new bill will gradually lower the emissions cap, such that it reaches approximately one third of 2000 levels by 2050. Those long-term reductions will forestall catastrophic, manmade climate change, provided the world's other major economies follow suit within the next decade. Like the 2005 version, the reintroduced bill will control compliance costs by allowing companies to trade, save, and borrow emissions credits, and by allowing them to generate ``offset'' credits by inducing noncovered businesses, farms, and others to reduce their emissions or capture and store greenhouse gases. The reintroduced bill, however, will increase the availability of borrowing and offsets in order to control costs further. This bill will be referred to the Environment and Public Works Committee, where I will chair a subcommittee on climate change. Colleagues of mine on that committee, including our esteemed chairwoman and my good friend, Senator Boxer, will have their own strong proposals for curbing global warming. I look forward to working with them to get comprehensive legislation reported favorably to the floor in a bipartisan manner. Senator Bingaman, the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has invested a great deal of work and expertise in a comprehensive climate bill of his own. I believe Senator Bingaman will be highly influential in this process, and I look forward to working with him closely to solve this problem. With American know-how we can and will solve this problem. We will use the power of the free market to promote the rapid and widespread deployment of advanced technologies and practices for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And we will do so without weakening the economic position of the United States or otherwise imposing hardship on its citizens. I would like to close by extending my heartfelt thanks to the distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, for placing legislation to curb global warming among his top ten priorities for this Congress, and for memorializing that commitment with the introduction, as S. 6, of the National Energy and Environmental Security Act, a bill that I was proud to co-sponsor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I now ask that amendment No. 30 be called up.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to offer this amendment, along with Senators Collins, Obama, McCain, and the occupant of the Chair, the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper. This amendment would create a Senate Office of Public Integrity. The matter before the Chamber now is to reform the rules by which Senate ethics and the conduct of lobbyists are governed. It is the contention of those of us who sponsor this amendment that reform of the rules is critically necessary and important following the scandals of recent years. But it is also important to reform the enforcement process by which those rules are applied. If we are about the business of restoring the public's trust in this institution and its Members and the willingness of this great institution to independently and aggressively investigate allegations of misconduct among Members and then to hold those Members accountable, it seems to me we can no longer be comfortable or content with a process that allows us to investigate charges against us and then reach a judgment about what the response should be to us. The office that would be created by this amendment would investigate allegations of Member or staff violations of Senate rules or other standards of conduct. It would present cases of probable ethics violations to the Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate which would retain the final authority, consistent with tradition and law. This office of public integrity would make recommendations to the Ethics Committee that it report to appropriate Federal or State authorities any substantial evidence of a violation by a Member or staff of any law applicable to the performance of his or her duties or responsibility. Finally, the Senate office of public integrity, a new office that would be created by this amendment, would approve or deny approval of privately funded trips for Members or staff, subject to the review of the Ethics Committee. I called up this amendment to inform our colleagues that this group of cosponsors was going to go forward with the amendment and to urge that our colleagues take a look at it, consider it, ask us questions about it, and that we look forward to a full debate on it next week. Earlier, I failed to say that Senators Feingold and Kerry are also cosponsors of the amendment. Having introduced it, called it up, I now ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set aside.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Utah. I was thinking, there is much more that could be said and much that has been said. Undoubtedly next week much more will be said. The vote was 67 to 30 last time. Those of us who support this remain undaunted in our belief that we can improve the process. The process of ethics and ethical adjudications has been, with all respect, more problematic in the other body of the Congress, but we have an opportunity here, as we consider and I believe pass what will be landmark legislation with regard to the attempt of this great legislative body to set the highest standards of conduct for itself and those who interact with us, to also complete the mission while we are doing so by raising the independence of the enforcement process, still leaving the Senate Ethics Committee, composed of Senators, with the final judgment on what should happen in every case. First, about the vote last year, I suppose the most general response I would offer is that hope springs eternal and the power of reason of our arguments will touch some of our colleagues. Secondly, we do have some new Members who are very focused on this legislation and upgrading the rules by which we govern ourselves and the process by which those rules are enforced. Finally, a lot of things have been said here about Iraq and the message the people were sending last year about Iraq. It seems to me they were sending at least as strong a message about the way we in Congress do our business. I saw one public opinion survey or exit poll that showed more people said they voted based on what were ethical wrongdoings here in Congress than on any other issue. I begin this debate to indicate to our colleagues that my cosponsors and I intend to go forward with this amendment next week. I thank my friend from Utah for beginning what I know will be a serious and elevating discussion. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Terry Blankenship, a legislative fellow in my office, be granted privileges of the floor during consideration of S. 1, the ethics reform bill.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am privileged to be able to manage the bill for part of today. Senator Feinstein and I--she is the chair of the Rules Committee, and I, in my capacity as chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, will be alternating on our side. I am honored to do that. I would say that after a day, we are off to a good start in our consideration of S. 1, the bill before us. The majority and minority leaders, Senators Reid and McConnell, laid down yesterday a bipartisan substitute amendment that improves what was already a strong bill, S. 1, and I know a number of other Senators have come to the floor to file or offer amendments. It is good to proceed in that way. We have a bill before us which fortunately has strong bipartisan support, and it is certainly my hope, and I know the hope of managers on both sides, and the leaders, that we can move along with the consideration of these amendments so that we will complete this bill in the timeframe laid out by the majority leader, which is the end of next week. This will be not just auspicious but a meaningful, bipartisan way to begin this 110th Congress. I wish to speak in strong support of the comprehensive substitute that was laid down and offered by the majority and minority leaders yesterday. I am pleased to join as a sponsor of that amendment. The underlying text of S. 1 is already a sweeping reform of ethics rules and lobbying regulations, and the substitute takes us even further in strengthening those reforms. I would like to focus on a few of the additional improvements made by the substitute. The substitute will clarify and strengthen the provisions in the underlying bill that require, for the first time, lobbyists to report on campaign contributions and travel they arrange for Members of Congress--for the first time. We also will require lobbyists to disclose contributions to Presidential libraries and inaugural committees. This is an extension of one of the basic building blocks of this reform, which is disclosure, transparency, shining the sunshine on what is happening here so the public, the media, and Congress itself will be better informed and can take appropriate action. These disclosures will provide a fuller picture of the relationships between those who lobby and those who are lobbied in the Congress and in the executive branch. The substitute also creates a new criminal penalty for violations of the Lobbying Disclosure Act. While the underlying bill, S. 1, already doubles the amount of civil penalties that may be imposed, a criminal penalty will strengthen the hand of the Department of Justice in pursuing and punishing the most egregious violations. The substitute will also tighten the revolving door rules by prohibiting Senators from negotiating for jobs as lobbyists while they are still in office. We will also require senior Senate staff to report to the Ethics Committee when they are negotiating for employment so that the Ethics Committee can identify any conflicts of interest and require staff to recuse themselves while they are still employed by the Senate from working on issues that may present conflicts of interest with those with whom they are negotiating. The substitute will also provide new rules on evaluation of tickets to sporting and entertainment events. Why, one may ask, would we need that provision if the underlying bill already bans gifts from lobbyists to Members? The reason is there has been a concern that there could be an end run around this ban, and this provision will prevent any lobbyist who might think of doing so from selling tickets to Members or staff at a steeply discounted price, which would effectively be a gift because the discount itself would be a benefit in and of itself. The substitute also improves the provisions in S. 1 that provide transparency for the earmark process. The substitute will strengthen and clarify the definition of an earmark, to make sure that it includes targeted tax benefits and targeted tariff benefits. These are obviously matters of great importance and of value. A targeted tax benefit, which is to say a tax cut or a credit, or a tariff benefit often has as much value, and many times has more value, than a specific earmarked appropriation. So the substitute now strengthens and clarifies the definition of ``earmark'' to include those benefits. The improved definition makes clear that earmarks, as in the bill, include earmarks to non-Federal entities when the money is first funneled through a Federal entity. That provision addresses what some perceive and have said is a weakness in the earmark provisions in the underlying bill. All of this is an attempt by this body to take hold of the earmark process that was abused by some in the ethical scandals that have occurred here in Congress, and more generally is blamed by others for an escalation in the cost of Government without covering those costs. I have always believed you have to be direct and forthright about this issue. It is not that all earmarks are evil. There are good earmarks and bad earmarks, and there are limits to the earmarks we want to provide simply because we can't afford to provide beyond that. The attempt of S. 1 and the substitute laid down by Senators Reid and McConnell is not to stop earmarks but to create transparency, disclosure, and a process by which the full body will be both aware of the earmarks and able to challenge them if an individual Senator or Senators desire. The substitute also contains a sense of the Senate on fair and open procedures for conference committees, and this also relates to how earmarks are handled. The substitute also amends the Senate rules to make clear that no changes may be made to conference reports after the reports have been signed by the conferees. This is obviously the concern, unfortunately based in fact, that, after a conference report, including one signed by the conferees, either staff or Members in high positions have been able to insert items, earmarks, into those conference reports, which obviously suppresses not only the public's right to know but the Members' right to know. This substitute will now make clear that no changes of that kind can be made. I am disappointed that the substitute does not include some additional gift and travel rules. I believe there is strong bipartisan support for some of the measures I have in mind. That is why I intend to support the majority leader when he offers an amendment to pass the gift and travel provisions to which I am referring in a separate amendment. The House already has passed strict gift and travel rules, and I personally hope the Senate will follow suit. I am also very pleased that the majority leader has included in this amendment that I referred to an additional amendment, a strong provision on the use of corporate jets. This is a controversial, difficult matter. It is an issue that Senators McCain, Feingold, Obama, and I wanted to pursue last year when we took this up essentially in its predecessor form, but we were unable to do so once cloture was reached on the bill because the amendment was determined to be nongermane. Under current law this is the reality. When a Member of Congress or a candidate for Federal office uses a private plane instead of flying on a commercial airline, the ethics rules, as well as the Federal Election Commission rules, require a payment to the owner of the plane equivalent to a first-class commercial ticket. The current rules undervalue flights on noncommercial jets and provide, in effect, a way for corporations and individuals to give benefits to Members beyond the limits provided for in our campaign finance laws. The Reid amendment would eliminate that loophole by requiring that the reimbursement be based on the comparable charter rate for a plane. I know there are strong feelings on both sides of that. I appreciate that Senator Reid will put that before the Senate. I look forward to supporting him in it. We have some very strong reform proposals before the Senate. We are off to a good beginning. We have a lot more work to do, and I hope my colleagues will come to the floor and offer their amendments so we can get this all done by the end of next week. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I note the presence of the Senator from South Carolina on the floor of the Senate, and I will yield to him at this time. I withdraw my request for a quorum call.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 11:45 a.m. this morning, the Senate resume consideration of the Vitter amendment No. 7 and that there be 15 minutes of debate, controlled 5 minutes each for the majority and minority managers and 5 minutes for Senator Vitter; that at 12 noon, without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to Vitter amendment No. 7.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, in about 5 minutes the Senate will vote on the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter. First, I thank him for offering this amendment, which concerns the Ethics in Government Act, a law that falls within the jurisdiction of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which I am privileged to chair in this session. The penalty provisions for disclosure violations under that act, the Ethics in Government Act, have not been addressed in some time. Senator Vitter's amendment begins to do that. I think it does it in an appropriate way. I intend to support the Senator's amendment. As has been said, and I will repeat it, the amendment will increase the civil penalties that already exist under the act and will create a new penalty for knowing and willful falsification or failure to report, and that is a criminal penalty. I note for my colleagues' benefit that the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee intends to take up reauthorization of the Office of Government Ethics this year. I know that some of my colleagues are interested in offering amendments to this bill, S. 1, related to executive branch ethics. Obviously, I am happy to work with them on these amendments to see if any of those might appropriately be attached to this bill, such as the one we are voting on now. But I also want to say on behalf of the committee that there may be some other proposed amendments that the committee believes need further deliberate consideration by the committee. I will be happy to work with my colleagues on those, urging them not to go forward on this bill, but with the promise that as we address the Office of Government Ethics reauthorization and other matters, that we will be glad to consider those proposals. As the hour approaches, I urge my colleagues to support this progressive amendment by the Senator from Louisiana. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I now yield back all of the remaining time and suggest that we go forward with the vote.