[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 10 (Wednesday, February 1, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H29-H37]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ELIMINATING FLOOR PRIVILEGES OF FORMER MEMBERS AND OFFICERS
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
resolution (H.Res. 648) to eliminate floor privileges and access to
Member exercise facilities for registered lobbyists who are former
Members or officers of the House.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 648
Resolved,
SECTION 1. FLOOR PRIVILEGES OF FORMER MEMBERS AND OFFICERS.
Clause 4 of rule IV of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is amended to read as follows:
``4. (a) A former Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner; a former Parliamentarian of the House; or a
former elected officer of the House or former minority
employee nominated as an elected officer of the House shall
not be entitled to the privilege of admission to the Hall of
the House and rooms leading thereto if he or she--
``(1) is a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign
principal as those terms are defined in clause 5 of rule XXV;
``(2) has any direct personal or pecuniary interest in any
legislative measure pending before the House or reported by a
committee; or
``(3) is in the employ of or represents any party or
organization for the purpose of influencing, directly or
indirectly, the passage, defeat, or amendment of any
legislative proposal.
``(b) The Speaker may promulgate regulations that exempt
ceremonial or educational functions from the restrictions of
this clause.''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITING ACCESS TO MEMBER EXERCISE FACILITIES FOR
LOBBYISTS WHO ARE FORMER MEMBERS OR OFFICERS.
(a) In General.--The House of Representatives may not
provide access to any exercise facility which is made
available exclusively to Members and former Members, officers
and former officers of the House of Representatives, and
their spouses to any former Member, former officer, or spouse
who is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure
Act of 1995 or any successor statute or agent of a foreign
principal as defined in clause 5 of rule XXV. For purposes of
this section, the term ``Member of the House of
Representatives'' includes a Delegate or Resident
Commissioner to the Congress.
(b) Regulations.--The Committee on House Administration
shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry, if I might. Because
of the State of the Union last night, and we always have the tradition
of lots of former Members, I have two or three parliamentary inquiries
that I would like to ask about the rules of the House governing this
debate today.
Under rule IV, clause 4, if I might read it, because I think most
Members may not have looked at this in a while: ``former Members,
Delegates and Resident Commissioners; former Parliamentarians of the
House; and former elected officers and minority employees nominated and
elected as officers of the House shall be entitled to the privileges of
admission to the Hall of the House and rooms leading thereto only if,
``(1) they do not have any direct personal or pecuniary interest in
any legislative measure pending before the House or reported by a
committee; and,
``(2) they are not in the employ of or do not represent any party or
organization for the purpose of influencing, directly or indirectly,
the passage, defeat or amendment of any legislative measure pending
before the House reported by a committee or under consideration in any
of its committees or subcommittees.''
In Mr. Dreier's proposal today, it specifically includes all
registered lobbyists, any former Members that are registered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. What is the gentleman's inquiry?
Mr. SNYDER. My inquiry is this: Under the current rules that we are
operating under today, do the rules prohibit any registered lobbyist
who is a former Member from being on the floor of the House today or in
the rooms adjoining thereto?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under certain circumstances, yes.
Does the gentleman have another inquiry?
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like a further amplification on
that. Clearly, a registered lobbyist, since Mr. Dreier's legislation
specifically refers to registered lobbyists, who are former Members,
have a direct personal interest in this legislation pending today. I am
not sure how that application, perhaps I have not been clear in my
question, how a registered lobbyist who is a former Member could be on
the House floor today when Mr. Dreier's legislation specifically
involves registered lobbyists who are former Members.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. What is the gentleman's inquiry?
Mr. SNYDER. My inquiry is: Are those Members, former Members, who are
registered lobbyists, are they not under current rules prohibited from
being on the floor today because they would have, obviously, a personal
interest in this, the intent of Mr. Dreier's bill?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Would the gentleman restate his question.
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, my question is: If a former Member, who is
currently a registered lobbyist, may that former Member, who is
currently a former lobbyist, be on the floor today during the
consideration of this bill?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Such a former Member should not be on the
floor given the pendency of this motion.
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, that is what my understanding was.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman have another inquiry?
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I do. Under the rules that I just read, it
refers to the Hall of the House and rooms leading thereto. I assume
that means the Speaker's Lobby and the two cloakrooms. Is that the
Speaker's interpretation of that rule?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct. It also includes
the Rayburn Room, just off the House floor.
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, my third parliamentary inquiry, under
current rules, I see no exemption, under the current rule, for any kind
of an educational function to occur during the consideration of this
measure; is that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, my fourth parliamentary inquiry, this bill
is now under our suspension calendar. Is it the Speaker's ruling that
no amendments are allowed to broaden the application of this rule?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) may proceed.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking my friend from Arkansas for
pointing to some of the important aspects of this legislation.
We are committed to bold, strong, dynamic reform for this
institution. The Republican Party, Mr. Speaker, has stood for reform
ever since I can remember. When I was in the minority, we had the
privilege of working on the Joint Committee on the Organization of
Congress, and that committee made a wide range of recommendations that
would have focused on improving the deliberative nature of this
institution, the transparency that is necessary, and the
accountability. Unfortunately, when we Republicans were in the
minority, they were not implemented. When we won the majority in 1994,
we proceeded with very sweeping reforms which focused on lobbying and a
wide range of other areas.
I have always argued, Mr. Speaker, that when we are completed with
reforms, what we should do is proceed with more reform; and it needs to
be done in a way in which we recognize the deliberative nature of this
institution. I love this institution, Mr. Speaker. I proudly describe
myself as an institutionalist. But we have a problem that needs to be
addressed.
We have just begun this process of beginning the reforms for the
Second Session of the 109th Congress. We have been working on reforms
in the past session of Congress and in Congresses before that, but
today we begin the work following the President's great State of the
Union message on the issue of reform; and that is why this measure that
we are moving forward with is one that we believe is very important,
very transparent and gets at a problem that does exist.
[[Page H30]]
The fact of the matter is, every single American has the
constitutional right to petition their government. It is a precious
right that we need to protect, and we need to do everything possible to
ensure that every American can in fact come to their elected
representative and state their opinion.
Concern has come forward from a number of Members, and this has
existed really since the beginning of time, or since the beginning of
this institution, where we have now seen former Members who are
registered lobbyists come to the House floor and engage in lobbying
activity. It is against the rules, it is not supposed to happen, but in
fact it has happened. That is why this resolution is designed to
ensure, Mr. Speaker, that former Members of Congress who are registered
lobbyists do not have any kind of advantage over the average American
when it comes to access to Members of the United States House of
Representatives.
This resolution is clear. It says for the House of Representatives,
the House floor and the gym, that former Members of Congress are not
able, if they are registered lobbyists, to have access there. We
believe that this is a concern that needs to be addressed; and I hope
very much that we will be able to, as I have been very pleased in the
past several weeks to work in a bipartisan way on the passage of this
measure.
Let me state, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first step in our process
of greater reform. My friend from Arkansas has come forward with some
very interesting ideas. He testified before the Rules Committee. I will
say to him right now that I am very happy and pleased to look at the
proposals that he has offered and consider them legislatively.
This is the first day of the Second Session of the 109th Congress,
but there are a wide range of reforms that Speaker Hastert and I and
others have proposed. There are a wide range of reforms that have been
proposed by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
So I am convinced we can, in a bipartisan way, work to increase the
level of transparency and make sure that there is a greater degree of
accountability to this institution. This step is one that we can begin
with; and it is one that should enjoy, as I said, strong bipartisan
support.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1315
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, just over a year ago, on the very first
day of the last session of Congress, I stood on the floor and watched
the Republican majority force through a new set of House rules, rules
designed to destroy the House Ethics Committee and to protect the
leadership and their Members from any measure of real accountability.
And ironically they called it an ethics reform package. As a result
of that package we still do not have a working ethics committee today.
On that day the word ``corruption'' became synonymous with Congress
in the minds of many of the American people. 2005 went on to be a year
defined by corruption in a way never before seen. The magnitude of the
Republican culture of corruption overwhelming this House has only been
exceeded by the high cost of that corruption for every man, woman and
child in this country.
From the Medicare legislation affecting the health of our seniors, to
the safety of our troops in Iraq, to the energy bills that determine if
families can afford to heat their homes during the winter and drive
their cars, nothing has proved too precious to avoid being sold for a
price.
But despite this shameful record today, the Republican majority asks
us to believe they have now seen the light and they are suddenly
committed to producing an ethical Congress. And so we are opening this
year with another ethics rules change.
It is a reform that I support, because the stranglehold lobbyists
have over our process is indeed a tremendous problem facing our Nation.
The fact that there are 34,000 registered lobbyists in Washington
today, 63 for each Member of Congress, demonstrates just how much power
special interests wield in this Congress. And clearly, former Members
of this body who lobby should not have special access to lawmakers on
the floor or the gym.
But let me be clear, that this rules change is so minor in relation
to the magnitude of the problem that it does not amount to a drop in
the ocean. In fact, I suspect it is illegal already.
First, we know that they should not be here, but we have ignored that
rule and done nothing to enforce it. But more importantly, shifting the
blame for the rampant corruption in Washington only to lobbyists is
part of an effort to avoid the central issue.
Corrupt lobbyists like Jack Abramoff have done much harm to this
country, but they can only be as corrupt as those in power allow them
to be. Let me say that again. They have done a lot to harm the country,
but they can only be as corrupt as those in power allow them to be.
A true responsibility for corruption begins and ends here in this
Chamber with those who pull the strings. Lobbyists are simply the
symptom. The disease is here. Because after all, lobbyists are writing
the bills that come out of this House because the Republican leadership
wanted it that way. House rules are being ignored and our ethics
process destroyed because the Republican leadership wants it that way.
We now have a government that is too corrupt to sustain itself any
longer, too undemocratic to even pretend to be a democracy. We simply
cannot allow Band-aid packages like the one presented today to take the
place of real reform. It is self-evident now that those who put America
up for sale have neither the ability nor the credibility to lead us in
a new direction.
It is going to take a lot more than preventing former Members from
going to the House gym to produce an ethical Congress. If we ever hope
to restore true democracy to our government, it is going to take a
fundamental change in the culture of this institution, one devoutly to
be wished and felt and certainly a thing that we will work hard for on
this side.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend and
classmate, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Financial Services.
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no particular problem with dealing
with former Member/lobbyists on the floor of the House. This is where
we do our business. The rule frankly has always been that there is no
lobbying on the floor of the House. And, frankly, in 24 plus years
here, I have never had that experience, even since I have been
committee chairman. So to some extent we are somewhat tilting at
windmills.
My big concern really is what the message is in terms of Members,
former Members who are lobbyists in the wellness center, as we call it.
I happen to chair that, and I have been for a number of years, one of
the last vestiges of bipartisanship and camaraderie in this institution
that many of us share, many times with former Members who have
continually been members of the wellness center and have come down and
enjoyed the camaraderie, the exercise.
Not once in that time have I been lobbied, nor have I heard any
complaints since I have been chairman of the wellness center about
lobbying taking place. I think it is a perhaps unwritten rule. Maybe it
ought to be a written rule, but to ban these distinguished former
Members that we all served with on both sides of the aisle, whether it
is Lee Hamilton or whether it is Jack Fields or Jack Quinn or Bill
Archer, former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, I think really
does a disservice to this institution, and I am really concerned about
it.
Let us take a look at the language of this proposal. It basically
says if you are a former Member/lobbyist, a Bill Archer or a Jack
Fields, you are no longer welcome in the wellness center, you can just
go ahead and clean out your locker. But if you are a convicted felon,
and not a former Member/lobbyist, you can participate in the wellness
center. It seems to me rather incongruous and rather upside down
towards trying to come to grips with some of these alleged problems
that are out there.
[[Page H31]]
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, I thank my friend
for yielding, this is the first step in the beginning of the 109th
Congress second session in dealing with this issue of reform, and we
are open to making any kind of modification. I will tell you the notion
of having convicted felons having access to the House floor obviously
we find that abhorrent, and so I will just assure my friend that that
is an issue that we are more than happy to address.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I do suggest a possible compromise,
because there is a certain self-interest. Let us be honest among the
Members. Perhaps the modification could be that any former Member using
any piece of equipment would have to yield to a current Member.
Mr. OXLEY. Well, I think the gentleman from Massachusetts makes a
good point. I think once we start down this slippery slope it is really
not in the best interests of this institution. And I think, talking to
Members privately on both sides of the aisle, I think that we have
clearly overreached here. I have no problem with the floor privileges,
but the wellness center is a different animal.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support
comprehensive lobbying reform. Over the past few years special
interests have had a larger and larger say over who gets what in
America, and the voices of average citizens are being shut out.
The worst excesses of the Congress of the 1980s pale in comparison
with what is going on in Washington today. K Street has become
Congress' back office. That is where the bills are written and the
deals are made. Lobbyists from the energy companies wrote the energy
bill to increase their already excessive profits, and lobbyists from
the pharmaceutical industry wrote the prescription drug bill that
actually makes it illegal for the Federal Government to buy drugs in
bulk for the 40 million Americans who are on Medicare.
Sadly, today's proposal does nothing to address the abuses of power
that have allowed lobbyists unfettered access to government. Something
barring former lawmakers, current lobbyists form the gym or the floor
of the House and calling it lobbying reform is sort of like putting a
Band-aid on a broken leg. It does not even begin to address the real
problems that have allowed the system to get so out of control.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MEEHAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to yield the gentleman
additional time if it is necessary. The gentleman was not here on the
floor when I gave my opening statement, and from the private
conversation that you and I have had, I would like to again state for
the record, Mr. Speaker, that this is simply a first step in dealing
with the issue of comprehensive reform of the lobbying and ethics
process to which my friend referred.
I would like to for the record say that. I thank my friend for
yielding.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working on bipartisan
lobbying reform, but it is seems to me pretty clear that we need real
lobbying reform. There is no reason why, given the discussions we have
been having across the Capitol over a period of 6 or 8 months now, why
we cannot come in with a comprehensive proposal and have an opportunity
to debate it.
We need to make the process more transparent, through disclosure. We
need to have tougher restrictions on gifts. We need a tougher
enforcement program and, most importantly, we need to fix the badly
broken ethics system. So it seems to me if we are really committed to
reforming the House, then putting this Band-aid really does not get at
the crux of the issue.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
enter into a colloquy with the gentleman.
I want to simply say once again, Mr. Speaker, that all of the items
that he has outlined, whether it is dealing with the issue of a gift
ban, greater transparency and accountability, looking at the issue of
privately funded travel, all of these are issues, as the gentleman
knows and as others know, that Speaker Hastert is committed to
addressing in a comprehensive way.
And it is our intention, I hope very much that as we craft
legislation, that we will be able to do so in a bipartisan way. We felt
strongly, Mr. Speaker, that at the outset here, as we begin the second
session of the 109th Congress, that this issue which falls within the
jurisdiction of the Rules Committee, which I am privileged to chair,
could be addressed on the opening day to make it clear that we are
committed to comprehensive reform.
And so anyone who would lead someone to believe otherwise is just
plain wrong. So I would simply say to my colleague that I do look
forward to working. He has very, very creative, good, interesting and
important ideas in the legislative package that he has put forward, and
I am committed to looking at every single one of those as we craft our
legislation.
I am happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear all of that, but the crux
of the issue here is that there is no way that not allowing former
Members, for example, to be in the gym and to be on the floor would
have undone what was done in the energy bill, for example. There is no
way that that would stop the $8 billion of tax credits for the oil
industry. There is no way that we would not have passed a Medicare
prescription drug bill that actually makes it illegal to buy
prescriptions in bulk if somehow former Members were not allowed to
come to the floor.
All I am saying is, while I recognize the fact that this is one of
the ideas that is out there, we really need to, and I am willing to sit
down, I would love to work with the majority on this, but we need to
have comprehensive reform.
Mr. Speaker, I am worried that by taking little pieces here that
sound like could be, might be some kind of reform, we miss the crux of
the issue, which is changing that system that allows legislation at 3
o'clock in the morning and a vote is left open.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that the Republican Party has been
and continues to be the party of reform. We are committed with this
first step that we are taking today, with this package, that addresses
something that is just not right.
Former Members of Congress, who are registered lobbyists should not
have access to the floor of the House of Representatives, and that is
something that we are going to do. It is not a Band-aid. No one is
arguing that this is comprehensive reform. This is a first step towards
the large process which will allow us to address the concerns that have
come forward.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the problem that we are
dealing with is exemplified by what we are dealing with today, a bill
that comes to the floor under suspension of the rules. I do not think
the party of reform distinguishes itself by bringing up this issue in a
way that does not allow amendment. Why not bring this to the floor in
an open rule?
The fact is that we have had in this House for years now, under
Republican rule, a suppression of democracy, a failure to throw things
open. Why was there a necessity to have this under a suspension? Why
should not this be open?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, let me just state that the process of suspension of
rules is a time honored structure that has existed here which requires
a super majority. This measure will not pass unless two-thirds of the
Members, a bipartisan coalition of Members, vote in support of it.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the
gentleman misses the point entirely. The
[[Page H32]]
question is not whether we pass something, which frankly seems to me
rather trivial. I am going to vote for it, I think it is better than
not. It is interesting it took the party of reform, what, 11 years to
stumble across it.
But what is important is what is not here. The gentleman
misunderstands the legislative process if he thinks that he satisfies
it by saying, okay, we will take one piece of this and we will bring it
up and we will decide what is up and what is not, and we will open it
up to debate.
It is the lack of debate that has been a problem. It is also the
case, of course, that the corruption we are dealing with goes very
deep. And I have to say that the suggestion that the Republican Party,
the assertion, is a party of reform simply does not square with the
facts.
Let us talk about some of the legislation. The problem frankly has
not been former Members. When you came to prescription drugs and
dealing with the pharmaceutical industry in general, it has been future
former Members.
{time} 1330
That is current Members who plan to be former Members in the arms of
the industry that they were voting to regulate.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, we have got a serious systemic problem of
corruption that I am prepared at this point to correct myself. I am one
of those who talks about in Washington a vast right-wing conspiracy. It
now seems clear to me that we instead have had a vast right-wing
kleptocracy, and putting people out of the gym is not a beginning of
dealing seriously with that problem.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), the distinguished
vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, my friend from Miami.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
distinguished chairman for the time. I was walking by here and then
stumbled here on this interesting debate.
I think our friends have to decide which of two arguments that have
been propounded is really the argument they have to come down upon in
support of.
One is, we have heard, that we offer lack of democracy. We just heard
that. I guess that means insufficient input, ability for Members, et
cetera. Another debate we just heard is that the legislation that we
brought forth should do more.
We have presented this resolution the first day that we are back to
do what we are able to do on the first day we are back, having done it
through regular order. In other words, the Rules Committee had a
hearing on this resolution and brought it forth yesterday for the
consideration of the floor today.
With regard to the other aspects that have been mentioned here, it is
precisely because of our offer of full democracy, regular order, the
committee process that the Speaker has instructed that this legislation
go through, the ethics reform go through, that it is not before us in
its completion today. In other words, with regard to all these other
ideas that have been mentioned, precisely they are going to be
considered, not only under regular order by the appropriate committees,
but the Speaker has asked that all of those committees act with great
promptness; in other words, that they report back within 4 to 6 weeks.
So we are offering what we are offering today, which is important,
which I am glad as my friend from Massachusetts says he is going to
vote for and I will join with him in voting for. In addition, we are
offering so much democracy that we are submitting to the regular order
the consideration of all of these ideas that have been mentioned by the
distinguished Member from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and others.
So substantive ideas of importance, the first day we are back we have
brought forth to the floor, due to the leadership and instruction of
the Speaker, who has demanded that we act immediately, and with regard
to input ability, ability for discussion, for thought, et cetera; in
other words, plenty of democracy, we are also offering that, Mr.
Speaker, with regard to all of these other important ideas which our
friends on the other side of the aisle have mentioned. They have
mentioned some of them.
So in summary, Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation
that I am glad we are bringing forth today. It shows the seriousness of
the Speaker of the House, of the chairman of the Rules Committee, of
the Committee of Rules generally and the leadership to consider this
important issue. So I am glad we are considering it the first day we
are back.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is
remaining on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier) has 6 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter) has 12 minutes remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I first want to commend my
colleague from California, Mr. Dreier, for introducing what he rightly
says is a first step toward reining in the culture of abuse and
corruption that has been laid bare by the various scandals currently
surrounding this institution.
I know that broader lobbying reform is on the way, but I want to
suggest that lobbying abuses are only part of a more comprehensive
problem that is going to require a more comprehensive solution.
Congressional scholars Norman Ornstein and Tom Mann put it this way
in a recent article: ``This is not simply a problem of a rogue lobbyist
or a pack of them. Nor is it a matter of a handful of disconnected,
corrupt lawmakers taking favors in return for official actions.
``The problem starts not with lobbyists but inside Congress. Over the
past 5 years, the rules and norms that govern congressional
deliberation, debate and voting have routinely been violated,
especially in the House of Representatives, in ways that mark a
dramatic break from custom.''
Lobbying reform alone is not going to right this ship. We need a
comprehensive plan that gets to the root of the problem, the
deterioration and mismanagement of our institutions of governance,
particularly this institution.
Congressional Democrats have offered such a plan in the Honest
Leadership and Open Government Act, introduced today. Yesterday I
joined my colleagues Mr. Obey, Mr. Frank and Mr. Allen, along with 127
other original cosponsors, in introducing H. Res. 659, a 14-point plan
that would address many of the abuses of power that we have witnessed
in recent years. Among many other things, our plan would reform the
earmarking process, end protracted rollcalls, require House-Senate
conference committees to actually meet and vote, and ensure Members
that they have time to read and understand what they are voting on.
I will gladly support the first step that we are taking today, but
unless we enact meaningful and comprehensive reforms of the way this
Chamber conducts its business, Jack Abramoff will be the least of our
concerns.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has more
speakers.
Mr. DREIER. I do not have any more speakers on this side. We are
expecting no requests.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) for the time. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier) for his courtesy yesterday in letting me testify before his
committee and then this discussion today.
Unfortunately, this has been a rushed process. Our first day back in
the new session and we start out with a bill being presented without
amendment, with very little understanding of it. As the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier) pointed out, it already is against the rules of
lobbying that we have been hearing about on the House floor, as he
indicated in his floor comments just a short time ago, is already
[[Page H33]]
against the rules. The problem on the House floor is enforcement, and
so any changes we are making about lobbying on the House floor is
essentially just a repeat of what is already the rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SNYDER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I will just clarify again. If former Members
of Congress, who are registered lobbyists, being paid to represent
interests, are not allowed to even enter the Chamber when we are doing
our work here on the House floor, it is very clear there will not be a
problem. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, as you pointed out, you indicated, under the
current rules the activities you have heard about are already not
allowed under our current rules.
Mr. DREIER. Right, but the best way to enforce this, of course, is
just to ensure that those who are paid lobbyists do not even get to
come on to the House floor.
Mr. SNYDER. Well, that is what the current rule is. It is not just
about lobbying on the floor. It is privilege. This is the current rule,
the privilege of admission to the hall of the House. That is the
current rule.
Let me continue with my comments.
To me I agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Meehan)
comment. This is probably not the greatest place to start but it is a
place to start, but our goal ought to be this. Our goal ought to be for
Joe Q. Arkansas back home, that wants to come to the Nation's capital
and lobby, how can he be treated fairly and equally alongside everyone
else. We have a situation now where former Members, who are well sought
after when they leave this body or the Senate to be lobbyists, they
have privileges that Joe Q. and Jane Q. Arkansas do not have.
What are some of those? First of all, when they pull their car into
one of the House parking lots, they show their former Member's ID, they
are waved right in. They get a parking place. They do not have to stand
in the security lines. They can just walk. They are bypassed on around.
They can roam all through the halls of the Capitol or any of the office
buildings in the House or the Senate side. They have access to the
Members' dining room where only Members, and I have been lobbied at the
Members' dining room. They have access to memorial services. I have
been actually lobbied at the memorial service for a former Member that
had passed away. They can roam the halls at all hours, day or night.
They can go to the rooms behind the committees that Joe Q. Arkansas
cannot do.
So our goal ought to be to provide equality with people from back
home.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SNYDER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, just a quick comment. I will say that every
single one of those items that my friend from Arkansas has mentioned,
Mr. Speaker, we are more than willing to look at and consider as we
work on this issue of comprehensive reform. I thank my friend for
yielding.
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, based on that comment, I am going to vote
for the gentleman's bill today. I am very disappointed if we come to
the end of this year and I do not have an opportunity to present these
ideas on the floor of the House for debate.
I have an alternative I filed yesterday, and I encourage Members to
take a look at, H. Res. 663, and it says if you register as a former
Member to be a registered lobbyist, you do not get the former Members'
privileges. Once you no longer are a registered lobbyist you get them
back. It seems to be very, very clear, and we do not have to get into
this mumbo-jumbo about the gym versus not the gym and all those kinds
of things.
There is also a section of the bill being proposed today that I think
may be a weakening of current law. Under current law, this is what it
says currently: The Speaker shall promulgate such regulations as may be
necessary to implement this rule and to ensure its enforcement. That
language is being changed under the proposal by Mr. Dreier, and it
says, ``The Speaker may promulgate regulations that exempt ceremonial
or educational functions from the restrictions of this clause.''
First of all, we will not have the opportunity, I do not believe, to
vote on whatever regulation the Speaker puts out. Educational function
can be all kinds of things in this body. For example, my fear is that
it could be interpreted to be, during the heat of a close vote on a
Medicare prescription drug bill, that very well respected former Member
Billy Tauzin could be brought over here to meet with 12 undecided
Members, not to lobby, but to educate these undecided Members on what
this bill means. Somebody is going to have to explain to me, it is very
clear from the way of the language of this bill is written, that the
intent is that former Members who are registered lobbyists who have a
personal or pecuniary interest or are lobbying on behalf of whatever is
on the floor of the House would be allowed, under the Speaker's
exemption to come and perform an educational function in one of these
rooms back here.
I do not think that Joe Q. Arkansas is going to have that
opportunity. Jane Q. Arkansas is not going to have that opportunity.
That is the problem when we pick on one little portion about this. We
do not have hearings, we do not have discussion, we do not get people
like Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein and the Heritage Foundation to
really thrash this stuff through and have the Members thrash it
through.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, I am
just reading from the committee report here, Mr. Speaker, and it is
very specific in saying that you referred to ``educational functions
from the restrictions of this clause, such as a joint meeting to
receive a message from a foreign head of state,'' and last night the
State of the Union message would have obviously been an exemption; ``a
tour when the House is not in session'' when no Members of Congress are
on the House floor. I suppose they could be conceivably when the House
is not in session but I do not know when they have ever been. Or for
Former Member's Day, when there is a conclave of former Members of the
House and Senate who come here to the House floor for the former
Members' meeting.
So we are very specific and I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the language of the bill
says educational functions. There are already exemptions for ceremonial
events, but you are still going to have to explain to me when we have a
vote on whatever regulation the Speaker comes out on this, and why
Billy Tauzin, coming over here during the heat of a close vote on
Medicare, would not be able to have scheduled for him in the cloakroom
an educational function to educate undecided Members at 2 a.m. on what
a bill means, not to lobby.
So I think that is one of the things that people have not talked
about, are not aware it is in the bill. I am going to support this
bill, but I think this is a very, very poor way, in a rushed manner, in
a nontransparent manner to begin this discussion of reform of this
body.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself such time as I may
consume to respond to the gentleman by simply saying we all know what
it is that we are trying to do here, and I believe that we are in a
position where we will address those things.
The prospect of the kind of gathering taking place in the cloakroom,
which my friend just outlined, is obviously outrageous, and I will say
that I am determined to make sure that it does not happen. I will say
that, again, all of the issues that my friend has brought forward we
look forward to addressing in comprehensive legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1345
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, this bill is the fox adjusting the lock
on the hen house door. I intend to submit for the record before the end
of the day an article from 1995 when the then Speaker of the House set
up the K Street Project. K stands for kleptomania or kleptocracy. I'm
not sure exactly what the K stands for, but this project was set up in
1995; and what is going on today is an absolutely predictable result of
what was done in 1995 when the
[[Page H34]]
lobbyists were told, Don't hire any Democrats. You only hire
Republicans. You only give to Republicans. You don't give to Democrats.
For us to come out here today and put a bill up here as though it
were going to do anything, when it is proposed by the people who put
the K Street Project together in the first place, is absolutely
unbelievable. This House is in a delusional state that anything is
changing on behalf of the people.
The fact is that this is what you get when you have a K Street
Project in place. And they are not fixing it this way, and they want to
wrap us all around it and say, well, you'll help us fix it this way by
keeping some old Member out of the gym from playing basketball with me.
Come on, they have all got my phone number. They have got everybody's
phone number in this whole building. And for you to think that this
silly little piece of legislation is going to do one thing about
cleaning up this town is simply nonsense.
We ought to be talking about public funding of elections. Then we
would be talking about reform. But you are not going to reform it by
keeping a couple of guys off the floor or a couple of guys out of the
gym or whatever. That is simply not going to work, and it is foolish.
Everyone should vote ``no'' on this rule.
[From the Washington Post, Nov. 27, 1995]
Speaker and His Directors Make the Cash Flow Right
(By David Maraniss and Michael Weisskopf)
In the annals of the House Republican revolution, a pivotal
moment came last April when an unsuspecting corporate
lobbyist entered the inner chamber of Majority Whip Tom
DeLay, whose aggressive style has earned him the nickname
``the Hammer.'' The Texas congressman was standing at his
desk that afternoon, examining a document that listed the
amounts and percentages of money that the 400 largest
political action committees had contributed to Republicans
and Democrats over the last two years. Those who gave heavily
to the GOP were labeled ``Friendly,'' the others
``Unfriendly.''
``See, you're in the book,'' DeLay said to his visitor,
leafing through the list. At first the lobbyist was not sure
where his group stood, but DeLay helped clear up his
confusion. By the time the lobbyist left the congressman's
office, he knew that to be a friend of the Republican
leadership his group would have to give the party a lot more
money.
It didn't take long for the word to spread around town
about the Hammer and his book. By some accounts--apocryphal
as it turns out--DeLay even made lobbyists turn to their
contribution totals and initial them, like a report card.
Such stories actually make DeLay's job easier. When an aide
once asked whether efforts should be made to quell the
legend, DeLay leaned back in his chair and said, ``No, let it
get bigger.''
Inside the House Republican leadership, the former pest
exterminator from Houston is the enforcer. His mission is to
ensure that money flows along the same stream as policy, that
the probusiness deregulatory agenda of the House Republicans
receives the undivided financial support of the corporate
interests that benefit from it. His motto is an unabashedly
blunt interpretation of the dictums of Speaker Newt Gingrich:
``If you want to play in our revolution, you have to live by
our rules.''
The role of money in the revolution has been obscured by
the titanic clash with President Clinton and the Democrats
over balanced budgets and the reshaping of the federal
government, but it is part of that larger struggle. Money is
at the center of Gingrich's transformation of the House. With
the new alignment of ideological allies in the business and
political worlds, there are unparalleled opportunities for
both the people who give the money and the people who receive
it.
It is such an obvious quid pro quo that it goes almost
unnoticed. From House Republicans come measures that gratify
industry: weakening environmental standards, loosening
workplace safety rules, limiting the legal liability of
corporations, defunding nonprofit groups that present an
opposing view. From the beneficiaries of that legislation
come millions of dollars in campaign contributions.
``The Republicans have a wonderful situation,'' said one
trade association president, a longtime Democrat. ``They
don't have to prostitute themselves. They are ideologically
in sync'' with the corporate PACs. ``Every politician dreams
of being able to meet your conscience and raise money at the
same time.''
Yet money is also the source of increasing tension among
House Republicans that could ultimately weaken them, if not
tear them apart. The conflict, in essence, is between
ideology and populist reform. One wing wants to collect as
much corporate money as possible to sustain and expand the
revolution. Another wing fears that this will disillusion
voters who brought the Republicans to power to change the
traditional ways of doing business in Washington. Gingrich
stands in the middle aware, people around him say, that his
tenure could depend in part on his ability to resolve the
conflict.
Gingrich, DeLay and their comrades have set in motion a
historic shift in campaign giving. As recently as 1993 the
National Republican Congressional Committee, the main vehicle
for fundraising for House GOP candidates, was millions of
dollars in debt. But by soliciting contributions from the
corporate world through a combination of tenacity,
cheerleading and intimidation--``playing offense'' all the
time, as DeLay describes it--the revolution has established a
formidable money machine. The turnaround has been dramatic.
House Republicans received 58 percent of the money from the
top 400 PACs during the first six months this year and their
numbers are rising every month. Last year two of every three
PAC dollars went to the ruling Democrats. The trend is
evident in all industries, including those with traditional
Democratic ties.
The Transportation Political Education League, for example,
gave only 3 percent to the Republicans last year but 42
percent this year. The No. 1 corporate contributor to the GOP
in 1995, United Parcel Service, which worked closely with
DeLay and the leadership in fighting federal workplace safety
regulations, also made a decisive partisan transformation,
its contributions going from 53 percent Democratic to 71
percent Republican in one year.
The once-threadbare NRCC raised a record $18.7 million from
January through June, four times as much as its Democratic
counterpart. Its two elite organizations, which offer private
sessions with House leaders at the Capitol Hill Club, are
suddenly fat and happy: 225 corporations and political action
committees have joined the House Council at $5,000 apiece,
and 150 are enrolled in the Congressional Forum for $15,000
to $20,000 each. Rep. Bill Paxon of New York, the NRCC's
chairman, estimates that he has met privately with ``200 to
300'' chief executive officers of Fortune 500 companies to
make his pitch.
``If you believe in the revolution and what's happening,
then it's time to follow common sense,'' Paxon tells them.
``Why do you support the enemy? Why do you give money to
people who are out there consciously every day trying to
undermine what's good for you?'' He often leaves, Paxon says,
with a financial pledge.
Another $20 million, double the Democratic number, has come
to the party in unrestricted contributions known as soft
money, used for party rebuilding efforts, voter drives and
policy initiatives. Leading the way in the soft money realm
this year have been tobacco companies that, concerned about
regulation by the Food and Drug Administration, gave a record
$1.5 million to the Republicans during the first six months,
tenfold what they gave two years ago.
Gingrich, DeLay, Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas and
Republican Conference Chairman John Boehner of Ohio all have
established separate PACs this year with goals of raising
millions of dollars more. Gingrich's new PAC, dubbed ``Monday
Morning'' in honor of a refrain from his swearing-in speech,
has already raised more than $330,000, with pledges of an
additional $60,000 since its inception a few months ago.
Advised by kitchen cabinets of industry lobbyists, these
leadership fund-raising operations will distribute money to
Republican congressional candidates, strengthening the bond
between the revolution and industry while reinforcing the
loyalty of House colleagues to Gingrich and his lieutenants.
The freshman class, 73 Republican newcomers who consider
themselves the vanguard of the revolution, has proved as
ambitious in the fund-raising realm as elsewhere. They have
bumped up the average price of a fund-raising ticket fourfold
from the previous term to $1,000, hired professional
consultants to run their events and solicit contributions,
and formed steering committees of lobbyists to advise them.
Almost all have liquidated their campaign debts in the first
10 months of their first term, and more than half belong to
the NRCC's $100,000 Club, having at least that much cash
ready for next year. The average Republican freshman raised
$123,000 in the first six months, nearly double the amount of
their Democratic colleagues.
Even reform-minded freshmen who oppose PACs have pursued
them aggressively. Sam Brownback of Kansas solicited
Washington lobbyists to contribute to a fund-raising event
for him soon after he had returned from Ross Perot's United
We Stand convention in August. There he had given a speech
denouncing the Washington lobbying scene as ``a domestication
process where you bring in new, fresh legislators and then
you start to try to tame them and assist them with gifts and
meals and trips almost like you would a horse with a sugar
cube.'' Several lobbyists who received Brownback's fund-
raising invitation angrily turned him down.
A few days after the House Republicans took power last
January, DeLay turned to one of his most trusted allies in
the lobbying community, David Rehr of the National Beer
Wholesalers Association, and said, ``I want you to do
something with the freshmen just to get them on the right
course.'' Rehr was a member of a small group of Washington
lobbyists who had remained loyal to the Republicans
throughout the long period of Democratic control. His
informal duties now included serving as a PAC adviser to both
DeLay and the NRCC.
[[Page H35]]
Rehr set up a seminar at NRCC headquarters entitled ``Seven
Steps in Liquidating Your Debt and Building for the Future,''
and more than a quarter of the freshman class attended. Rehr
instructed them to set up steering committees of PAC
supporters to be their ``eyes and ears'' in the Washington
community. He suggested that they contact the NRCC and House
committee chairmen for a list of PACs relevant to their
committee assignments.
Make contacts personally, Rehr, whose own PAC contributed
$144,492 to the House Republicans in the first six months
this year, advised the freshmen. If a PAC opposed them during
the campaign, they should not take it personally. Those PACs,
he said, should now be considered ``additional prospects.''
Rehr is among a new breed of Capitol Hill operators on the
rise, fortyish, ideological and fervently committed to the
House revolution and its two primary bankers, DeLay and
Paxon. The lobbyists span the corporate world, commanding
networks of business allies along with large PACs of their
own organizations. Dan Mattoon of BellSouth, another lecturer
at the NRCC seminar, is the leadership's main link to local
telephone companies. Bob Rusbuldt, a top insurance lobbyist,
taps the financial resources of the related fields of
mortgage banking and real estate. Jim Boland of Philip Morris
draws from the tobacco industry and its food subsidiaries.
Freelance lobbyists such as former Bush White House aide
Gary Andres bring lists of diverse clients and the ability
to penetrate new fund-raising channels.
The Republican takeover has been a time for ``cashing in,''
as a PAC director close to Gingrich put it, and also a time
for ``getting right.'' Lobbyists whose PACs or clients once
gave heavily to Democrats have been eager to show they found
religion, leading to such scenes as the one late one recent
night at one of the steak and cigar restaurants fashionable
along Pennsylvania Avenue.
``Man,'' said a lobbyist approaching a GOP leadership aide
and pleading to be restored to good graces, ``just want to
tell you, we've given like 70 percent to you guys now.''
DeLay, for his part, has launched what has come to be known
as the ``K Street Strategy,'' named for the downtown
Washington avenue lined with lobbying headquarters, law firms
and trade associations. The strategy is to pressure those
firms to remove Democrats from top jobs and replace them with
Republicans.
Headhunters now call DeLay's office in search of
recommendations. When one corporation lobbyist sought a
meeting with the whip, DeLay telephoned the firm's CEO and
complained that his agent in Washington was ``a hard-core
libera1.'' If the company wanted to get in to see him, DeLay
added, ``you need to hire a Republican.'' The hard-core
liberal lobbyist was soon transferred to London.
One drug company hired a Democrat to head its office, but
after he was unmasked at a DeLay fund-raiser, he called the
whip's office the next day to plead that his firm not be
scorned by the House Republicans. His position was only
temporary, he said, and he would soon be replaced by someone
more aligned with the revolution.
``There are just a lot of people down on K Street who
gained their prominence by being Democrat and supporting the
Democrat cause, and they can't regain their prominence unless
they get us out of here,'' said DeLay. ``We're just following
the old adage of punish your enemies and reward your friends.
We don't like to deal with people who are trying to kill the
revolution. We know who they are. The word is out.''
At times, Republican leaders have had to choose between
friends, and money may have been a factor. When the Commerce
Committee voted on a sweeping telecommunications deregulation
bill in May, for example, its legislation appeared to favor
AT&T and other long-distance firms over the regional Bell
companies. A last-minute amendment by Chairman Thomas Bliley
would have complicated entry of the seven regional Bells into
the long-distance market. AT&T has a plant in Bliley's
Richmond district and a new PAC profile: reversing a past
preference for Democrats, it has given 58 percent to GOP
lawmakers this year.
But the baby Bells, with combined PAC donations double
those of AT&T and with influential lobbyists such as Mattoon,
appealed the decision. Help came from Paxon and deputy whip
Denny Hastert of Illinois, both Commerce Committee members
who had voted for the Bliley provision as part of the May
bill. But after hearing from Bell lobbyists, they argued for
change at a Speaker's Advisory Group meeting in early July,
contending that the Bells would be prevented from competing,
a participant said. Gingrich directed Bliley to ``rescrub''
the bill, and by mid-July the Bliley provision was deleted.
Two weeks before the new bill passed the House, Pacific
Telesis Group's chief executive hosted a fund-raiser for
Gingrich at his San Francisco home, raising $20,000.
Paxon said he was guided by his ``driving passion'' for
deregulation, not fund-raising calculations, in siding with
the Bells. ``I haven't sat down with a legislative
calendar,'' he said, ``and said this is the time to go after
this industry group.''
But some fund-raising efforts have been less than subtle.
Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer lectured
corporate leaders not to give to Democrats. In an Oct. 23
letter, signed by the Oklahoma GOP delegation, corporate
lobbyists were told that they were expected to support
freshman Tom Coburn in his tough reelection race.
``As you are courted by others to get involved in this
race, we want to make our position clear,'' the letter read.
``We strongly support our good friend and colleague, Tom
Coburn, and we will be unified as we work on his behalf. We
trust you will join us in our effort and certainly not oppose
us.''
That letter was mild compared with a similar dispatch
earlier in the year from DeLay, a no-nonsense missive that
helped establish his reputation as ``the Hammer.'' Days
before freshman Randy Tate of Washington state was to hold a
fund-raiser in Washington, DeLay sent out a letter listing
the exact sum each PAC had given to the losing cause of
Tate's Democratic opponent in 1994, Mike Kreidler.
While he was ``surprised to see you opposed Randy Tate,''
DeLay wrote, ``you now have the opportunity to work toward a
positive future relationship.'' The note got more demanding--
``your immediate support for Randy Tate is personally
important to me and the House Republican leadership team''--
before closing with an offer of redemption: ``I hope I can
count on you being on the winning team. ``
The aftermath of that letter captures DeLay's unapologetic
mode of operation. A reporter received a copy of it and
called DeLay's PAC director, Karl Gallant. Gallant asked
the reporter how he obtained the letter. When he was told
it came from a lobbyist, Gallant responded, ``That tells
me it's effective. They want you to write a negative story
so we'll back off. You just made my day.''
DeLay agreed, distributing the article to his colleagues.
``It had great impact,'' DeLay said later. ``It raised him
(Tate) a bunch of money. We know who we sent the letters to
and who we got checks from.''
One other result: Kreidler recently decided not to
challenge Tate in 1996, citing as one factor his difficulty
in raising PAC money.
For Gingrich, learning the value of fund-raising has been a
gradual process. Staffers at the NRCC in the 1970s and early
1980s would roll their eyes when the small-college history
professor with mutton-chop sideburns strolled through the
door, knowing they were in for a long day of lectures on the
Ming dynasty and a barrage of expensive ideas for promoting
his conservative opportunity society. ``In those early days
Newt was very naive about money,'' said Steve Stockmeyer,
then the executive director of the NRCC. ``He was always
coming up with ideas on how to spend it, not raise it.''
But despite his early naivete about the ways of money,
Gingrich, more than DeLay or any other figure, was most
responsible for turning the revolution into a money machine.
Two years ago the financial situation for the Republicans
seemed bleak. They were ``walking in the valley of the shadow
of death,'' as Paxon, installed by Gingrich as chairman of
the NRCC, put it.
They were the minority party in the House and Senate and
without the White House. Their fund-raising relied largely on
a direct-mail list that had become utterly obsolete. Of the
more than 1 million names on it, only one in 10 had given to
the party in recent years. Many were in nursing homes or
dead. But by April 1994 Gingrich had become convinced that
the Republicans would seize control of the House that year.
He went over to the NRCC and wrote personal appeals for funds
claiming that the Republicans would soon be in the majority.
``Gingrich was for my purposes the whole ballgame when we
wanted to raise money,'' said Grace Wiegers, then director of
fund-raising for the NRCC and now the head of Gingrich's
leadership PAC, Monday Morning.
In August and September he met individually with more than
150 Republican members, assigning fund-raising tasks and
goals to each. Incumbents from safe seats were asked to raise
$50,000 for Republican challengers or vulnerable colleagues.
Ranking minority members of House committees made pledges to
Gingrich to raise even larger amounts traveling for other
candidates on the road.
When the revolution arrived, Gingrich had a system already
in place for maintaining and expanding the money operation.
DeLay would be his hammer. Paxon would serve as cheerleader.
Majority Leader Armey would position himself as ideological
arbiter, attacking corporations for funding nonprofit
agencies that opposed the revolution. Conference Chairman
Boehner would nourish business coalitions, bringing them in
for regular Thursday sessions to plan how the corporate world
could advance conservative policy. Committee chairmen Bliley
of Commerce, Archer of Ways and Means and Bud Shuster of
Transportation would cultivate industries in their turfs.
The lines between elected revolutionaries and their
business cohorts occasionally blurred. Lobbyists helped DeLay
write his regulatory moratorium bill. Shuster raised money
for the revolution with the assistance of his former
political aide, Ann Eppard, a lobbyist whose clients included
Amtrak, Conrail, Federal Express and the Pennsylvania
Turnpike Authority, all of whom had issues pending before
Shuster's committee.
Eppard maintains a close relationship with her old boss. At
the same time that she was soliciting money from industry for
the ``Bud Shuster Portrait Committee'' which commissioned a
painting of the chairman in his committee room, she was also
sending out fundraising letters for Republican candidates.
One to industry colleagues on behalf of a Virginia candidate
ended with the boldfaced assertion: ``This dinner is of
personal importance to Chairman Shuster.''
[[Page H36]]
Given the place Gingrich assigned to fund-raising, his
handshake agreement with President Clinton in June to form a
bipartisan commission on campaign finance reform took his
allies by surprise. More than any other act, it revealed the
tensions within his revolution.
At the next meeting of the House leadership, the tone, said
one participant, was, ``Why the hell did you go and do
that?''
Armey, responsible for scheduling the revolution's
legislative agenda, worried about how he would be able to fit
the issue into an already packed calendar. DeLay, and to a
lesser degree Paxon, questioned whether the timing was right
and whether the Republicans should cede anything to Clinton
and the Democrats now that the revolution's money machine was
operating so effectively. Gingrich's response was that the
handshake ``buys us time.'' He needed to think the issue
through, he said.
Another wing of Gingrich's House, represented by populist
freshmen Brownback and Linda Smith of Washington, along with
veteran moderate Christopher Shays of Connecticut, was
pushing Gingrich from the other side. If the Republicans did
not clean up Washington and prove that they were not
continuing business as usual, they said, the revolution would
collapse from a fatal flaw of political hubris. If reform did
not happen on the Republican watch, said Shays, it would
become ``our Achilles'' heel'' While Shays and Brownback took
Gingrich's handshake with Clinton as a sign that he supported
reform, Smith was skeptical. She said she thought he was just
stalling.
Gingrich found himself in a familiar position: on both
sides of a debate and looking for another way entirely. He
understood the call for reform and had a lingering resentment
toward PACs for funding the Democrats when they controlled
Congress. But he also, he and his aides say, felt equally
strongly that the revolutionaries should not unilaterally
disarm themselves while they were engaged in a more profound
struggle of what he called the ``Information Age.''
The real fight, Gingrich told his aides, was not over money
but information and how it is disseminated. Money was one
weapon in that struggle and important to the movement as a
way to counter the American mass media, which the speaker
considered largely hostile to the revolution.
Gingrich said as little as possible about the issue after
the handshake, promising that at some point he would deliver
a white paper on the subject. As months went by, the
reformers grew increasingly agitated. At Shays's request,
Gingrich met with the reformers in his office late on the
afternoon of Sept. 29 just before the Columbus Day break.
While Shays hoped to discuss another reform issue involving a
gift ban, the meeting devolved into a tense confrontation
over campaign finance reform between Gingrich and Smith, who
had just planted a story with conservative columnist Robert
Novak in which she said that the leadership was not telling
the truth about their intentions on reform.
``He got so mad. He kicked the staff out and yelled at
them, he was so unhappy,'' Smith recalled. The session was
``testy and pointed,'' according to Brownback. Gingrich was
overwhelmed by other concerns that day, including Medicare
and Bosnia. He was late for a meeting at the White House, and
freshman Smith kept jabbing at him.
Noting that Smith was working with Common Cause and United
We Stand in pushing campaign reform, Gingrich told her that
she had to decide whether she wanted to be an outsider or
work with the House leadership. ``Whatever you decide is okay
with me,'' he said. ``We just have to know.''
Smith wanted to know why Gingrich needed a time-consuming
commission, why he could not just support legislation
eliminating PACs, as he had when he was in the minority. She
told the speaker that he tried to carry too much of the
burden himself and that he should let others take the load on
this issue.
Then, according to Smith's recollection of the scene,
corroborated by others in the room, ``Newt looked at me and
said, Nobody can do it but me! I have the most experience.
I'm the only one who can do this. I'll just have to take some
time this week and write a paper on it.' ``
Shortly after that meeting the leadership announced that
the Oversight Committee would hold hearings on campaign
finance reform starting Nov. 2 and that Gingrich would be the
first to testify. One aide took memos from a group of
informal advisers, including Stockmeyer, the former NRCC
director who now ran the National Association of Business
PACs. PACs were invented as a reform in the 1970s, he noted,
and another round of reforms doing away with them would
probably create a system that was worse.
Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky sent a letter over to the
House noting that the Republicans had killed campaign finance
reform before the 1994 elections--``proof positive that this
issue is not a hindrance to us at the polls.'' In a
handwritten P.S., McConnell added: ``We'd be foolish to
throwaway our ability to compete.''
Another Gingrich aide began piecing together his speech. He
plunged into a long assigned reading list and followed up on
the speaker's request to compare the amount of money spent in
political campaigns with what is spent in advertising
products. Companies spent $100 million selling two stomach
acid pills recently, he discovered, one-sixth of the total
amount spent on all congressional campaigns last year. One of
the great myths of American politics, Gingrich concluded, was
that campaigns are too expensive. He believed that most of
the criticism of the campaign system came from ``nonsensical
socialist analysis based on hatred of the free enterprise
system.''
Smith was sitting one row behind Gingrich and off to his
right when he delivered those conclusions at the hearing. She
wanted to watch his eyes and his facial expressions as a
means of gauging his earnestness, she said, but as he
continued to attack the reformers, including some of the
groups she had been working with, she became increasingly
distraught.
``His anger at the media drove what he said,'' she
concluded. She retreated to her office, where she reached a
final decision on Gingrich's earlier ultimatum to her. She
would work from the outside.
Gingrich's lieutenants expressed satisfaction with his
speech. If reform is inevitable, they say, it will not
involve the elimination of PACs and it will not diminish the
role of money in the revolution. DeLay said he would work the
system until PACs gave an appropriate amount to the
Republicans. ``Ninety percent would be about right,'' he
declared. DeLay has a running competition with Gingrich over
who can raise more money. There are scores of revolutionaries
doing the same thing, but he is not worried that they might
trip over each other.
``It's a big country,'' said the Hammer.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, this is a
proposal to change the rules, when a provision says the Speaker may
promulgate regulations, under the rules of the House, will there or
will there not be a vote of approval of those promulgated regulations
by the Speaker on the definition of educational functions?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair will read this.
Mr. SNYDER. You're a great reader, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The degree to which the pending proposal
changes the status quo is a matter for the House to debate. It is not
the function of the Chair to interpret a legislative proposal while it
is under debate.
Mr. SNYDER. I am sorry, when the Speaker promulgates regulations,
regardless of a minor change or a major change, my inquiry is: Does
that or does that not require a vote of the body?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. I will stand by what I said. The terms of
the resolution must speak for themselves.
Mr. SNYDER. I will stand with you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to close this debate by saying again that we do
have a problem that exists, and we are committed to bringing about
major institutional reform. Increasing the level of transparency and
disclosure is a high priority. We have seen guilty pleas from lobbyists
who have done things that are absolutely reprehensible, and we want to
do everything that we can, in a bipartisan way, to ensure that those
things never happen again.
Every American has the right to petition their government. Every
single American has the right to petition their government. We do not
believe that anyone should have an unfair advantage over any other
American when it comes to that. That is why what we are doing here
today is the right thing to do. Former Members of Congress who are
registered lobbyists should not be on the House floor when the House of
Representatives is doing its business.
Today, we begin the work of the Second Session of the 109th Congress,
and it is very apparent that we will be able to enjoy strong bipartisan
support for this first step on the road to reform. There are many other
things that need to be addressed. The Speaker of the House has been
working on this. I have been working with him on this issue, and he is
committed to getting input from Members on both sides of the aisle and
to work in a bicameral way with our colleagues who serve in the other
body.
I have had countless meetings with Democrats and Republicans. I have
been listening to proposals, and I believe that we are going to have an
opportunity to address those understandable concerns so that the
American people will once again be able to hold this institution in
high regard. It is a challenge. This is the greatest deliberative body
known to man, but I believe that it is our responsibility to do what it
is that we are going to do here today.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.
Res. 648, Mr.
[[Page H37]]
Dreier's provision to eliminate floor privileges and access to Member
exercise facilities for registered lobbyists who are former Members or
officers of the House.
Since the founding of our country, interest groups, or ``factions,''
as Madison called them in 1787, were seen as both a boon and a bane to
giving the American people fair representation. Fully 90 years before
votes were finally given to African Americans and former slaves, and
150 years before universal suffrage, our Founding Fathers understood
the dangers of interest groups and the biased effect they can have on
policy and law.
Unfortunately, in 2006, the interest groups now have the higher hand
at the expense of our citizens and constituents. The pockets of
powerful Members of Congress, and the unequal access former Members of
Congress have, supercede their responsibility to their constituents.
This is unequal access to democracy.
Reforms are desperately needed, and for once, we have bipartisan
agreement. The difficulty now, is determining where reform is needed
urgently and unequivocally, and seeing it through to established law.
As a co-sponsor for the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of
2006, which we will all be considering soon enough, I can say that
today's bill should be the beginning of many reforms.
The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006:
Limits gifts and travel: Bans gifts, including meals, tickets,
entertainment and travel, from lobbyists and non-governmental
organizations that retain or employ lobbyists, prohibits lobbyists from
funding, arranging, planning or participating in congressional travel.
Regulates Member travel on private jets: Requires Members to pay full
charter costs when using corporate jets for official travel and to
disclose relevant information in the Congressional Record, including
the owner or lessee of the aircraft and the other passengers on the
flight.
Shuts down the K Street Project: Makes it a criminal offense and a
violation of the House Rules for Members to take or withhold official
action, or threaten to do so, with the intent to influence private
employment decisions.
Slows the revolving door: Prohibits former Members, executive branch
officials and senior staff from lobbying their former colleagues for 2
years; eliminates floor and gym privileges for former Members and
officers who are lobbyists; and requires Members and senior staff to
disclose outside job negotiations.
Ends the practice of adding special interest provisions in the dead
of the night: Prohibits consideration of conference reports and other
legislation not available in printed form and on the Internet for at
least 24 hours; requires full and open debate in conference and a vote
by the conferees on the final version of the legislation; prohibits
consideration of a conference report that contains matters different
from what the conferees voted on.
Toughens public disclosure of lobbying activities: Requires lobbyists
to file quarterly reports with more information, including campaign
contributions, fundraisers and other events that honor Members, and the
name of each Member contacted. Report must be in electronic format,
searchable on the Internet; increases civil and criminal penalties for
lobbyists who violate the rules.
The most obvious place to begin these reforms is here, where we
conduct business every day. It is unconscionable that we would allow
this access to special interest groups in a place where citizens of
this country are not allowed to step. The House has played favorites,
against the people we took an oath to protect and serve.
Lobbyists should not be allowed on the floor, or in exercise rooms
maintained for the well-being and personal use of congressional
Members, staff, and employees.
I am ashamed that we have to urge my Republican colleagues to adopt
more effective measures. It should be a no-brainer. Let's start with
this simple reform and keep it going until we succeed in delivering the
government ``of the people, by the people, and for the people,'' back
to the people.
It is for these reasons that I vigorously support drawing a clear
ethical line at that door and preventing unjust and unethical influence
in our place of business. I urge my colleagues to also extend their
support for H. Res. 648 and renew our dedication to our constituencies
and ethical principles.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, anyone who doubts that symbols often take
priority over substance in Washington only needs to consider that among
our first items of business the House of Representatives is considering
this year is a measure banning from the House gym former members of
Congress who are now lobbyists. This bill is being rushed to the floor
in order to assure the American people that Congress is ``cracking
down'' on lobbying practices in response to recent scandals.
This measure does nothing to address the root cause of the scandals--
the ever-growing size and power of the Federal Government. As long the
Federal Government continues to regulate, tax, and subsidize the
American people, there will be attempts to influence those who write
the laws and regulations under which the people must live. Human nature
being what it is, there will also be those lobbyists and policymakers
who will manipulate the power of the regulatory state to enrich
themselves. As I have said before, and I fear I will have plenty of
opportunity to say again, the only way to get special interest money
and influence out of politics is to get the money and power out of
Washington. Instead of passing new regulations and laws regulating the
people's right to petition their government, my colleagues should
refuse to vote for any legislation that violates the constitutional
limits on Federal power or enriches a special interest at the expense
of American taxpayers. Returning to constitutional government is the
only way to ensure that our republican institutions will not be
corrupted by powerful interests seeking special privileges.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 648.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will
be postponed.
____________________