News
The Senate cleared an overhaul of lobbying law and ethics rules Thursday, even as advocates on all sides talked about possible changes and debated how well the new standards would work.
“You know what the No. 1 buzz is among the senators in both parties?” said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. “Now when do we fix it, when do we take the pressure off of us.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., lauded the bill (S 1) as the most significant institutional overhaul effort in more than a generation. But she also promised to consider changes.
“It may not be every person’s wish, and as chairman of the Rules Committee, I’d like to commit right now to keep these items on the front burner, and should changes be necessitated, I will be very happy to entertain them,” she said.
The Senate passed the bill Thursday on an 83-14 vote, after the House passed it July 31 on a 411-8 vote.
If the bill becomes law, senators will have to live with a range of changes to how they do business and interact with lobbyists. Many Republicans said the bill did not go far enough in exposing the authors of earmarks and allowing the easy removal of individual projects from larger bills.
“This bill isn’t nearly as tough as it would have been on earmarks if Republicans had been involved in writing it,” said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “But weighing the good and the bad, many provisions are stronger than current law.”
Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, said he was unhappy to see that a provision designed to bring secret “holds” out into the open was not as restrictive as in an earlier version.
Under the bill cleared for President Bush’s signature, senators can still anonymously demand that a bill or nomination not be brought to the floor, but the cloak of anonymity could dissolve after six days with the unanimous consent of the Senate.
“That’s what’s so irritating,” Grassley said. “There are still people around here that don’t want the public’s business to be public.”
Advocacy groups praised the passage of the bill, but said they will watch how changes are enforced.
“Congress deserves credit for finally changing the rules of the game,” said Mary G. Wilson, president of the League of Women Voters. “Now starts the hard part: actually playing by the rules they’ve created.”
The Path to Overhaul
Motivation to change lobbying laws and ethics rules came from a sweeping corruption scandal centered on former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
During the 109th Congress, two House members were convicted of corruption charges and sent to prison: Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif. (1991-2005), and Bob Ney, R-Ohio (1995-2006).
Cunningham admitted to taking bribes in exchange for steering millions in government contracts to two defense firms from his perch on the Appropriations Committee. Ney pleaded guilty to conspiracy and making false statements.
Those and other Washington scandals helped Democrats reclaim control of Congress in the 2006 campaign after assailing the “culture of corruption” under Republican leadership.
When Democrats came into power, they designated the bill as their top priority in the Senate.
Under the bill, earmark sponsors would have to be identified, and the earmark information would have to be posted in a publicly available database at least 48 hours before any Senate votes on the provisions.
Senators and presidential candidates would have to start paying the equivalent of charter fares for rides on private planes, and senators and Senate staff members would be barred from accepting gifts from lobbyists.
Congressional and presidential candidates would be required to report when lobbyists arranged donations and delivered them as bundled contributions. The reports would be required when the bundles reached $15,000 during a six-month period.
The earmark provisions would require committee chairmen to identify any “congressionally directed spending item,” limited tax benefit or limited trade benefit. The majority leader or parliamentarian would identify “dead of night” provisions added to conference reports that hadn’t been passed in either the House or Senate version of legislation.
“If you allow the majority leader and committee chairmen to certify, you are just going to see a reduction initially, and you’ll see it creep back up,” predicted Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a vocal champion of an earmark overhaul who opposed the bill as too weak. “There is no real restraint in this legislation.”
“You know what the No. 1 buzz is among the senators in both parties?” said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. “Now when do we fix it, when do we take the pressure off of us.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., lauded the bill (S 1) as the most significant institutional overhaul effort in more than a generation. But she also promised to consider changes.
“It may not be every person’s wish, and as chairman of the Rules Committee, I’d like to commit right now to keep these items on the front burner, and should changes be necessitated, I will be very happy to entertain them,” she said.
The Senate passed the bill Thursday on an 83-14 vote, after the House passed it July 31 on a 411-8 vote.
If the bill becomes law, senators will have to live with a range of changes to how they do business and interact with lobbyists. Many Republicans said the bill did not go far enough in exposing the authors of earmarks and allowing the easy removal of individual projects from larger bills.
“This bill isn’t nearly as tough as it would have been on earmarks if Republicans had been involved in writing it,” said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “But weighing the good and the bad, many provisions are stronger than current law.”
Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, said he was unhappy to see that a provision designed to bring secret “holds” out into the open was not as restrictive as in an earlier version.
Under the bill cleared for President Bush’s signature, senators can still anonymously demand that a bill or nomination not be brought to the floor, but the cloak of anonymity could dissolve after six days with the unanimous consent of the Senate.
“That’s what’s so irritating,” Grassley said. “There are still people around here that don’t want the public’s business to be public.”
Advocacy groups praised the passage of the bill, but said they will watch how changes are enforced.
“Congress deserves credit for finally changing the rules of the game,” said Mary G. Wilson, president of the League of Women Voters. “Now starts the hard part: actually playing by the rules they’ve created.”
The Path to Overhaul
Motivation to change lobbying laws and ethics rules came from a sweeping corruption scandal centered on former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
During the 109th Congress, two House members were convicted of corruption charges and sent to prison: Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif. (1991-2005), and Bob Ney, R-Ohio (1995-2006).
Cunningham admitted to taking bribes in exchange for steering millions in government contracts to two defense firms from his perch on the Appropriations Committee. Ney pleaded guilty to conspiracy and making false statements.
Those and other Washington scandals helped Democrats reclaim control of Congress in the 2006 campaign after assailing the “culture of corruption” under Republican leadership.
When Democrats came into power, they designated the bill as their top priority in the Senate.
Under the bill, earmark sponsors would have to be identified, and the earmark information would have to be posted in a publicly available database at least 48 hours before any Senate votes on the provisions.
Senators and presidential candidates would have to start paying the equivalent of charter fares for rides on private planes, and senators and Senate staff members would be barred from accepting gifts from lobbyists.
Congressional and presidential candidates would be required to report when lobbyists arranged donations and delivered them as bundled contributions. The reports would be required when the bundles reached $15,000 during a six-month period.
The earmark provisions would require committee chairmen to identify any “congressionally directed spending item,” limited tax benefit or limited trade benefit. The majority leader or parliamentarian would identify “dead of night” provisions added to conference reports that hadn’t been passed in either the House or Senate version of legislation.
“If you allow the majority leader and committee chairmen to certify, you are just going to see a reduction initially, and you’ll see it creep back up,” predicted Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a vocal champion of an earmark overhaul who opposed the bill as too weak. “There is no real restraint in this legislation.”
