Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I understand there will be about 5 minutes allotted each manager now. Is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. Do I have any time remaining?

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, very shortly we will be voting on a cloture petition with respect to this legislation, S. 2673. I urge my colleagues to vote for the cloture motion. I know there are a lot of amendments pending, but we have now been on this legislation a full week. Even with the voting of cloture today, this matter will carry over into next week. There have been a range of amendments, some that are pending that are germane under cloture to the bill. In other words, they have been drawn in a way and the subject matter is focused and limited enough that they remain germane even after cloture. There are a number of amendments that are relevant to the bill but not germane. Once cloture is invoked, they will fall. I know that is a matter of some concern to those who are proposing those amendments, but I do not know how we can handle this differently and move along towards a resolution. In addition to those relevant amendments--and I have sympathy there because while they may not meet the very narrow definition of germaneness, they do touch the subject matter of the legislation--there are also amendments that are not even relevant to the bill that are sort of--I was going to say floating around, but it would be more accurate to say they are sort of present. They touch matters that have nothing to do with this legislation. I am frank to say to my colleagues, I do not see how we can progress and move towards a final vote and resolution on this issue without invoking cloture this morning. We tried not to precipitate that early on, although I know people were then blocked from getting votes, and I regret that. I was concerned, as anyone, to get the votes and give people a chance to have their amendments considered. Nevertheless, we are now where we are, and I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture. We have to move forward on this legislation. This is important legislation. I think the committee and my colleagues have fashioned legislation which will make a very important contribution toward addressing the serious economic challenge now confronting the country and this loss of confidence in the workings of our economic system. The fact that people cannot have any trust in or reliance on the basic financial information upon which they make important economic decisions is having a major impact on the workings of the economy and carries with it the very real potential of having an even more significant impact. This is serious business, and the potential for an economic downturn, triggered in part by the difficulties we are trying to address in this legislation, I think is not insignificant. So I think it is important that we move forward and pass this legislation. This is but one step along the way, and there are many steps left yet to be done. I am hopeful at some point the administration will come to see the necessity of putting into place a statutory framework to provide for an independent oversight board with respect to the accounting industry, to address the conflict that exists on the part of auditors when they are the auditor of a company and at the same time are providing certain consulting services to the company which carry with them an inherent conflict of interest with their responsibilities as an auditor. There are extensive provisions in this bill with respect to corporate responsibility and accountability with respect to corporate disclosure and, of course, with respect to the conflict of interest we have seen manifest with respect to stock analysts who are often in the position of giving buy recommendations on the stock of a company with which the analyst's company is also having investment banking deals which, of course, raises the question: Is the recommendation on the stock being done in order to gain the investment banking business? So we try to provide some, as they call them, Chinese walls between those two sides of the company in order to reduce the degree of that conflict. Furthermore, this has a very significant authorization of additional monies for the SEC in order to be able to meet its responsibilities, which I think is very important. The President asked the other day in his address for another $100 million. That is not sufficient. We have to do better than that so the SEC can do its job. So we can move forward, I urge my colleagues to support the cloture motion which will be before us for a vote at 9:30. I presume I have used my time, and I yield the floor so my colleague, the ranking Republican Member, may use his time.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. Is this the amendment that deals with the offshore companies?

Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator describe the amendment?

Mr. SARBANES. We are hoping to get to the Senator from New York. I make a unanimous consent request that following the disposition of the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota, we turn to the amendments referred to by the Senator from New York.

Mr. SARBANES. I ask unanimous consent no second-degree amendment to the Schumer amendment, when it is sent to the desk, be in order.

Mr. SARBANES. Let us withdraw the unanimous consent request and make it only that Senator Schumer be recognized after the disposition of the Dorgan amendment and we can address those questions.

Mr. SARBANES. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SARBANES. I ask unanimous consent no second-degree amendment be in order to the Schumer amendment being sent to the desk.

Mr. SARBANES. Furthermore, upon conclusion of the consideration of the Schumer amendments, we return to the regular order, which I take it would be the Edwards-Carnahan amendment.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, on the energy analysis, I simply point out that the Energy Committee held extended hearings over a long period of time on the energy issue. Then, they did not actually evolve a bill, but they had a very full set of hearings and a lot of recommendations available to be included in an energy package. On the other, I say to my colleague, I forbore from discussing the substance because I did not want to prejudice the Senator on some future occasion by having to go substantively into the weaknesses and deficiencies of the proposal that is before us. Since the time is limited and that would take quite a while to do, I intend to continue to do that out of a sense of consideration to my colleague because presumably, if this amendment is tabled, he will be back visiting with us on another day, perhaps on an appropriate vehicle. I do not know. One would have to wait and see whether that would be realized. Out of some deference of respect for my friend from Kentucky, I simply thought I would not undertake to go into this point by point on the substance because it is really not appropriate. We ought to recognize that and go ahead and table the amendment, and maybe when it finally comes up in an appropriate context, we can then address its substantive weaknesses or strengths. Perhaps at that time it would have evolved into a different animal. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. Actually, I will use my own time, and the Senator may reserve his time. We must table this amendment. Otherwise, it becomes an invitation for others to come in and offer second-degree amendments that are not relevant to the bill. This amendment is not relevant to the bill-- nowhere close. If we start this process now, opening up the bill to these nonrelevant amendments, what will happen to the relevant amendments, some of which are germane under cloture and others of which might miss the tight test of germaneness but are relevant material, which are pending, which other colleagues have offered, if they want to get to those amendments? We could have done the Edwards amendment yesterday and moved on to something else, but we came in with a second-degree amendment, not relevant--not only not relevant to the Edwards amendment, not relevant to the bill. Frankly, we are well beyond the point where we at least ought to set aside amendments that have no relevance to the underlying legislation.

Mr. SARBANES. Certainly, I yield.

Mr. SARBANES. Why would I support a request like that? Surely the Senator from Kentucky is just making a joke on the floor of the Senate by making that inquiry. That must be apparent to all. I appreciate the Senator's sense of humor in that regard. I also appreciate his indication, just a moment or two ago, he intends to support the underlying bill. Of course, we are gratified to hear that. I yield the floor and reserve whatever time I may have left. What is the time situation?

Mr. SARBANES. No, I would not support that.

Mr. SARBANES. It seems to me there are complicated issues that are raised by Senator McConnell's proposal, and they certainly should have been preceded by hearings in which the pros and cons could have been carefully examined. Madam President, I reiterate my point, this amendment is not relevant to the issue before us. It does not come to us on the basis of any hearings that back up or buttress the proposal. It has not worked through any committee. It certainly has not been recommended by any committee, and there have not even been any hearings, as I understand it, by any committee. At the appropriate time, I will be very strongly supportive of the motion to table that will be offered by the able Senator from Wyoming. This is, of course, the second McConnell second-degree amendment we have had to deal with on this legislation. I hope the Senator from Kentucky does not view this as a kind of fair hunting game to bring forth at each step along the way, whenever there is an opening for a second-degree amendment, whatever sort of pet project he has been harboring in his office for whatever period of time. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SARBANES. I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time between now and quarter of 1 be divided equally to the manager of the bill, to Senator Enzi, and to Senator McConnell. That will give us about 10 minutes each, I think.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield? The answer was no. I didn't smile. I said no and smiled along with it.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, what is the time situation? I have 2 minutes?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to table this amendment. I do not know what amendment the Senator from Kentucky will come with next out of his grab bag, but he has obviously got a whole set of pet projects that he has been husbanding there in his committee and that he will seek to offer. They are not relevant to this legislation. Here we are again trying to deal with an issue that is relevant. I suggest to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky that he allow the second-degree amendment staffer to take the weekend off so we do not have to continue to go through this exercise of being confronted with these second-degree amendments not relevant to the legislation. We have important legislation to deal with here. We have some good amendments pending out there. This repeated effort to just gum up the works is difficult to understand. In any event, I urge my colleagues on the vote that is shortly to come to vote to table the McConnell amendment.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I move to reconsider the vote.