I've spent a lot of time on this blog deriding the Senate Ethics Committee - and the frivolous complaints leveled by Sen. John Ensign against the current ethics process - for failing to investigate Senators who have allegedly violated the trust of their office (or the law, in the case of Sen. Ted Stevens). Thanks to the recently passed ethics bill, S.1, we finally get some transparency in the Ethics Committee and some statistical information about the committee's activities. The Committee is now required to issue an annual report of activity. Here are some highlights:

Number of alleged violations received in 2007 (from any source): 95 (not including the 16 carried over from 2006)

Number of alleged violations dismissed in 2007 (including 7 cases carried over from 2006): 86 (71 for lack of jurisdiction; 15 for failure to provide sufficient facts)

Number of alleged violations which resulted in a preliminary hearing: 16 (includes 9 matters carried over from 2006 and 5 matters that have carried into 2008)

Number of alleged violations that resulted in adjudicatory review: 0

Number of alleged violations dismissed for lack of substantial merit: 11 (includes 7 matters carried over from 2006)

Number of matters resulting in disciplinary action: 0

During debate on the recently enacted lobbying and ethics reforms (see S. 1 for details) one of the most contentious points was the imposition of a two-year lobbying ban on former lawmakers and staff. Many observers declared that this extension of the "cooling off" period would cause some lawmakers and staff to depart before the new law came into effect and now there is evidence that some politicians aren't willing to wait to cash out. Sen. Trent Lott, a long time member of Congress, announced his surprise retirement today declaring that he would resign by year's end. CNN reported:

A senior Republican source close to Lott said one reason for the decision is the new lobbying restrictions on former lawmakers.

A law kicks in on January 1 that forbids lawmakers from lobbying for two years after leaving office. Those who leave by the end of 2007 are covered by the previous law, which demands a wait of only one year.

Lott was a constant critic during the lobbying reform debate, particularly offended by the banning of most gifts, including meals, to lawmakers. He complained that members would be forced to eat at McDonald's if such a rule would be implemented. It's unfortunate that members of Congress need to leave public service to make big bucks in the influence game, but that seems to be the nature of things when you can make ten times as much money by spinning out the door to K Street.

It's officially signed. See this post below about what goes into effect and when. You can read the President's statement and concerns below:

Barring a bizarre turn of events President Bush will sign S.1, the lobbying and ethics reform bill, today. That means that many of the changes will go into effect as of Saturday while other changes will come into effect later this year or by next year. By the beginning of next year there will be a much greater level of transparency in Congress as this bill requires online posting of congressional materials and the creation of numerous online databases. Let’s do a little run-down.

Fearing a pocket veto of the recently passed lobbying and ethics bill Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid are holding off on sending the bill to the President during the August recess. According to Roll Call, "Democrats are worried that Bush could decline to sign the bill in the constitutionally specified 10-day period, leaving lawmakers with no opportunity to overturn the pocket veto." The White House has voiced concerns over three aspects of the bill: the Senate earmark reforms do not go far enough, the requirement of candidates to pay charter rates rather than first-class rates when they travel is unfair, especially considering that it will apply to incumbent Presidential use of Air Force One, and that the revolving door provision is tougher on executive branch officials and Senators than it is on members of the House. Holding the bill is probably the best plan for Democratic leaders as the President does not have the votes to sustain a veto should he choose to veto come September.

In case you were wondering what a pocket veto is and wanted to know how it is used I pulled some useful CRS reports on the subject. The first is titled "Regular Vetoes and Pocket Vetoes: An Overview" and it provides a quick run-down on the difference between the two and the frequency of use by each President. For a more detailed examination about the history, use, and legal rulings on the pocket veto read "The Pocket Veto: Its Current Status". The pocket veto, historically, was only used at the end of the second session of a Congress. President Reagan broke with this tradition by issuing intersession pocket vetoes in 1981 and 1983. President Clinton issued three intrasession pocket vetoes during his time in office. If the current President Bush were to pocket veto the lobbying and ethics bill it would be considered an intrasession pocket veto.

The Senate just passed S.1, a bill that provides unprecedented online disclosure in both the House and the Senate. The vote was 83-14 and now goes to the White House for President Bush's signature. Once the bill becomes law it will mark the first time that the word "Internet" has appeared in the Senate Rules. I'll have more to say about this bill next week.

Update: 80-17 in the affirmative, the bill has cleared the 66 vote threshold needed for cloture. Republican dissenters could only muster 17 votes against cloture. Those voting against cloture, I'm missing two names here, were Sens. Allard, Bennett, Brownback, Bunning, Burr, Coburn, Cochran, Cornyn, Craig, Crapo, DeMint, Graham, Inhofe, Lott, and McCain. The full Senate will vote at 1:50 pm to pass the bill. (The two names I missed were Sens. Ensign and Kyl.)

The Senate is debating S.1 now as some Republicans have declared their outright opposition to the bill and their intent to stop it. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) is leading the charge against the bill, along with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), claiming that the bill has gutted earmark reforms and is "business as usual." The bill, which changes Senate rules, requires 66 votes to pass cloture (the 2/3s majority requirement is based on the number of present Senators and thus is 66 and not 67 because of the absence of Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD)). So far, Sens. DeMint, Coburn, Trent Lott (R-MS), and Ted Stevens (R-AK) have voiced opposition to the bill. Other Senators who have publicly criticized the bill or who have been involved in strategy sessions with DeMint and Coburn include Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Richard Burr (R-NC). The cloture vote is happening now, I'll update soon.

What happens when you combine the last two posts by Bill and myself? You get a story like this one from John Bresnahan at the Politico:

"Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, whose home back in Alaska was raided by federal investigators Monday in a wide-ranging corruption investigation, has threatened to place a hold on the Democratic-drafted ethics legislation just passed by the House and expected on the Senate floor by week’s end.

The senator told a closed session of fellow Republicans today, including Vice President Dick Cheney, that he was upset that the measure would interfere with his travel to and from Alaska – and vowed to block it."

Sen. Stevens' is apparently upset that lobbyists will no longer be able to freely ferrett him from Washington to Alaska. He is concerned that he may have to use some of those millions of dollars which he obtained with Bob Penney and Bill Allen to actually - gasp - pay for his own travel.

Sen. Stevens could always just stay in Alaska.

Members of Congress are about to head back to their districts for two weeks of townhall meetings, meet-and-greets, and Easter egg hunts (or if they're like me they'll be eating a lot of hillel sandwiches) but they have yet to pass a complete lobbying reform bill. The problem is that S. 1, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, has been in stuck in the House of Representatives as the parties fight over Iraq funding. Once that issue is resolved the House is likely to discuss reforms, including, we hope, our transparency agenda. So far the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties has held one hearing on S. 1. The points of contention in the legislation were the disclosure of lobbyist bundling and the increase in the "cooling off" period from one to two years. Republican members of the subcommittee also raised concerns that the Democrats would try to include grassroots lobbying disclosure provisions in the bill. So far, this has been the only action in the House although there are a number of bills that have been introduced.