[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 48 (Thursday, April 27, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H1874-H1877]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4975, LOBBYING ACCOUNTABILITY AND 
                        TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2006

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 783 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 783

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4975) to provide greater transparency with 
     respect to lobbying activities, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     amendments recommended by the Committees on the Judiciary, 
     Rules, and Government Reform now printed in the bill, the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of the Rules Committee Print dated April 21, 2006, 
     modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be 
     considered as adopted in the House and the Committee of the 
     Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the 
     original bill for the purpose of further amendment and shall 
     be considered as read. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 
     XVIII, no further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be 
     in order except those printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules. Each further amendment may be offered 
     only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only 
     by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as 
     read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against 
     such further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such 
     further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2. In the engrossment of H.R. 4975, the Clerk shall--
       (1) add the text of H.R. 513, as passed by the House, as 
     new matter at the end of H.R. 4975;
       (2) conform the title of H.R. 4975 to reflect the addition 
     of the text of H.R. 513 to the engrossment;
       (3) assign appropriate designations to provisions within 
     the engrossment; and
       (4) conform provisions for short titles within the 
     engrossment.
       Sec. 3. After passage of H.R. 4975, it shall be in order to 
     take from the Speaker's table S. 2349 and to consider the 
     Senate bill in the House. All points of order against 
     consideration of the Senate bill are waived. It shall be in 
     order to move to strike all after the enacting clause of the 
     Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof the provisions of 
     H.R. 4975 (as

[[Page H1875]]

     engrossed pursuant to section 2 of this resolution). All 
     points of order against that motion are waived. If the motion 
     is adopted and the Senate bill, as amended, is passed, then 
     it shall be in order to move that the House insist on its 
     amendment to the Senate bill and request a conference with 
     the Senate thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, as we all know very well, a few recent disgraceful 
scandals involving members of both political parties have cast a pall 
over the American people's faith in their Congress. The actions of a 
few have undermined our effectiveness and shaken the trust of our 
constituents.
  Bold, responsible, commonsense reform of our current lobbying and 
ethics laws is clearly needed. We owe it to our constituents. We owe it 
to ourselves. We owe it to this institution. This is not a partisan 
issue. Let me say once again, Mr. Speaker, this is not a partisan 
issue. It is an issue that goes to the integrity of the United States 
Congress, and every single Member has a stake in it.
  When Speaker Hastert and I kicked off the effort for lobbying and 
ethics reforms in January, we promised an exhaustive and bipartisan 
process. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what has happened. Members were 
asked for their suggestions. All ideas were thrown on the table. And, 
Mr. Speaker, every idea was considered. In fact, we had hoped to have 
this bill on the floor earlier, but we were determined not to short-
circuit debate and this process. We wanted every idea and every 
provision to be fully and carefully deliberated.
  At the Rules Committee we conducted three original jurisdiction 
hearings. We heard from 12 outside expert witnesses, and we took 
testimony from many Members. The bill moved through regular order, and 
five different committees held markups.
  Mr. Speaker, this entire process has been thorough, deliberate, and 
bipartisan. It has included a tremendous amount of input from Members 
on both sides of the aisle, from our constituents, and from experts on 
this institution and from a number of outside organizations. We have 
followed a legislative path that is fitting for our goal of enhancing 
the integrity of this great institution. And, Mr. Speaker, I want to 
express my appreciation to my Democratic colleagues and to my 
Republican colleagues for their involvement and their input that they 
have had in this process.
  Today we will consider the result of this nearly 4-month-long, 
bipartisan reform effort, H.R. 4975, the Lobbying Accountability and 
Transparency Act of 2006. This legislation aims to uphold the highest 
standards of integrity when it comes to Congress's interaction with 
outside groups. This legislation focuses on transparency and 
accountability.

                              {time}  1115

  It makes it harder to abuse the rules and easier to enforce them. It 
focuses, Mr. Speaker, on bright lines of right and wrong and tough 
consequences for crossing those lines.
  With every single provision, we are erring on the side of integrity. 
We are focusing on the need for the highest level of integrity. And 
with every single provision, we take an approach of the more 
information the better.
  Specifically, lobbyists will be required to file their disclosure 
forms more often, with more detail and online.
  This bill fulfills the public's right to know who is seeking to 
influence Congress. Putting lobbyist disclosure reports on the Internet 
will empower voters and improve oversight much more effectively than 
adding pages to the already thick book of rules. Unlike today, when 
lobbyist reports are hard to find and hard to follow, this bill will 
make the information easy to access, easy to search and easy to sort on 
the Web.
  We have also added tough consequences for not playing by the rules. 
The penalties for lobbyists who fail to disclose have been doubled from 
$50,000 to $100,000, and a criminal penalty provision has been added. 
Knowingly and willfully failing to comply with the provisions of the 
act could result in up to 3 years in prison.
  And because these reports are only meaningful if they contain 
accurate information, we have increased oversight. The House Inspector 
General will perform random audits of reports and is empowered to refer 
violations by lobbyists to the Department of Justice for prosecution.
  H.R. 4975 also reforms the earmark process by building on the 
procedural reforms being implemented by the Appropriations Committee, 
reforms, Mr. Speaker, that under the leadership of Chairman Jerry Lewis 
have seen a reduction of earmarks by 37 percent.
  As it stands now, earmarks can be added to bills anonymously and 
without debate. This fuels public mistrust and encourages inflated 
spending in Congress. This bill requires sponsors of earmarks to be 
listed in appropriations bills. It also allows a point of order to be 
brought against appropriation bills and conference reports that do not 
include a list of earmarks and their sponsors. Mr. Speaker, if a Member 
feels strongly enough about a proposed earmark, they need to be willing 
to attach their name to it.
  I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I feel very strongly about this, and 
I will not be supportive of a conference report that comes back on this 
issue that does not include broad earmark reform, including not only 
appropriations, but the authorizing process as well.
  H.R. 4975 enhances disclosure with regard to Members who seek jobs in 
the private sector. The bill requires more transparency during 
employment compensation negotiations to avoid the perception and 
possibility of unethical behavior.
  This legislation takes a tough line on privately funded travel by 
banning it for the remainder of the 109th Congress. Many privately 
funded trips are serious, educational, and valuable. Some are not. We 
need to arrive at reform that allows Members to get out from under the 
Capitol dome, while at the same time draw the line on trivial junkets.
  There are strong opinions on this provision. Many Democrats, 
including those with whom I serve on the Rules Committee, do not want a 
travel ban. But there is widespread agreement that the current system 
is ripe for abuse and needs to be tightened. In fact, there is a strong 
bipartisan amendment to address this issue, and again we will have a 
very rigorous debate and a number of amendments that will be considered 
that will address concerns like the issue of travel.
  Another important piece of this reform package concerns pensions of 
former Members convicted of specific crimes committed while serving in 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, under this bill, if Members commit crimes, such as 
bribery or fraud, they lose the government's contributions to their 
congressional pension. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize the 
retirement of former Members who are convicted of crimes.
  Finally, because one of the primary aims of this legislation is to 
increase accountability, we have greatly enhanced ethics training for 
staff and Members. Our aim is for everyone to know and understand the 
rules and the guidelines. Member and staff familiarity with ethics 
requirements will go a long way toward making sure rules are not broken 
in the first place.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is the product of intensive study and 
deliberation. It is bold; it covers a lot of ground; and it restores 
balance to a system that has and was being abused.
  We have done all of this while making sure that we protect the first 
amendment right of every American to petition their government. Input 
from constituents and advocates is essential for effective governing, 
and I am confident that as we seek to level the playing field and 
facilitate open government, we have not undermined the constitutionally 
protected right for the public to interact with their elected leaders.
  Mr. Speaker, as with all legislation that reaches the floor, 
compromises have been made along the way that reflect the will of both 
Democrats and Republicans. Every attempt to address Members' concerns 
has been made over the past 4 months. I should also note that this rule 
will provide the opportunity for, as I said, further debate on

[[Page H1876]]

amendments that deal with some of the larger issues that have been 
brought forward.
  Now, despite this outreach and attempt to find consensus, I am fully 
aware that some misgivings about specific provisions remain. I would 
simply ask each Member to look at the bill as a whole and answer these 
questions: Does this bill increase transparency? Does it increase 
accountability? Does it put more information in the hands of the 
American people? Does it protect the first amendment right of citizens 
to petition their government? And does it strengthen the integrity of 
the United States Congress?
  I am absolutely convinced that the answer to every single one of 
those questions is an overwhelming ``yes.'' This bill is a vast 
improvement over the status quo.
  Mr. Speaker, today, Members of the House can show that our desires 
for meaningful reform and for upholding the integrity of Congress are 
stronger than partisan divisions and political calculations. We have 
the opportunity and we have the duty to turn our voices for reform into 
votes for reform.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for an ethical and effective Congress 
that is worthy of the public trust. I urge support for the rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, after an interminable era of scandal, this Congress was 
given the greatest opportunity in a generation to change the way 
business is done in Washington. We were given a chance to truly make a 
difference and to do something lasting. We were given the chance to 
help the citizens of this Nation believe in their government once 
again.
  But that chance has been squandered, because this Congress has 
failed. And in so doing, the hypocrisy and cynicism displayed today by 
the majority of the House will be neither missed nor forgotten by the 
American people.
  We have before us the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 
2006. It is supposed to be a reform bill. But you can't be bold enough 
to reform if you don't muster the courage to address the problems.
  The corruption of this Republican-led Congress is beyond debate. The 
American people don't trust it anymore. Fewer than 30 percent approve 
the job it is doing. The only remaining question was how the members of 
the leadership were going to respond, how committed were they going to 
be to reforming their bankrupt philosophy of government?
  This rule and this bill give us the all-too predictable answer to 
this burning question: This leadership doesn't want reform, and they 
just aren't going to allow it.
  As virtually every outside observer has noted in recent days, this 
legislation is a sham. It won't do anything to reduce influence 
peddling in Washington or to purge this body of the corruption that has 
infected it so deeply.
  I know we are going to hear much more on this later, but what I 
really want my fellow Americans to focus on right now is something just 
as telling as the contents of this bill, and that is the process by 
which it was created.
  As I and my Democratic colleagues have said again and again 
throughout the entire Congress, a corrupt legislative process produces 
corrupt legislation. If bills are written and changed behind closed 
doors, then there will be no way to know what is hidden in them. If 
amendments to bills are rejected, not because of their contents, but 
because of the party they come from, then democracy will have been 
denied.
  If the Members of the body are committed to undermining the two-
centuries-old rules of the House, they are also intent on undermining 
the will and the needs of the citizens of this country. And so it has 
been with this rule, and with this bill.
  When the bill faced an original jurisdiction markup on April 5, 
Democrats presented numerous amendments to it in an attempt to actually 
give it some substance, and all of these amendments were defeated on a 
party-line vote.
  During its markup, the Judiciary Committee was the only body that 
adopted any bipartisan amendments on this legislation. Democrats 
successfully introduced amendments in the Judiciary Committee requiring 
lobbyists to disclose more of their activities, such as fund-raisers 
for candidates and parties that they fund honoring Members of Congress.
  But the bill we thought we had when we left for recess 2 weeks ago is 
not the one we saw when we came back. Most of the amendments accepted 
by the Judiciary Committee had mysteriously disappeared while we were 
away. The one that survived was done away with last night, a self-
executing rule. The majority decided to do this on their own, without 
telling anyone and while nobody was looking. It was an indefensible 
abuse of power.
  My Democrat colleagues and I also offered a substitute to this bill 
that addressed the many errors it is silent on. Among its many 
components, our legislation would establish a new Office of Public 
Integrity to audit and to investigate compliance with lobbying 
disclosure rules, because it doesn't matter if you have transparency if 
no one is enforcing the rules and making sure that they comply.
  It would have prevented special interest provisions from being added 
into bills in the dead of night by requiring all legislation to be made 
public 24 hours before it is voted on.
  Last night in the Rules Committee, my Republican friends had one last 
chance to open up the process and allow some real debate on the bill. 
But in typical fashion, they blocked a host of significant amendments, 
including 20 of the 21 amendments submitted by Democrats. They wouldn't 
allow our tougher substitute on the bill to even be considered, which 
means, frankly, that half of the country is disenfranchised in this 
debate today and we are only able to debate this hollow sham of a 
reform bill.
  So I ask my friends in the majority, what kind of reform is that? 
What conclusions are you asking the American people to draw from this 
kind of behavior? When you don't even allow the body to consider and 
debate alternative approaches to reforming Congress, what are you 
hiding from? When you subvert our democratic process and at the same 
time pretend to be the party of reform, how can you possibly expect us 
to trust you any longer? When your leadership doesn't even have faith 
in the legislative process, how can the American people have faith in 
them?
  Lobbyists are not the reason our Congress no longer works for working 
Americans. Congress is the problem. No lobbyist can get into the room 
unless a Member allows it.
  We heard so much in January about reform that was coming. But here we 
are, 4 months later, doing exactly the same thing and producing exactly 
the same result: bad bills passed through a broken House; bills just 
like this one, that have a catchy name but don't deliver what they 
promise; bills that aren't written for the people of the Nation, but 
rather for special interests.
  No wonder the American people are so angry. Their congressional 
leadership is so clearly out of touch. Every member of the majority 
should be ashamed of this bill today. At least then you will have 
something in common with the American people that you profess to serve.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my 
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. This legislation, while 
not perfect, is a step in the right direction. What it does is begin to 
draw brighter lines for Members and for staff and for lobbyists and the 
public. It increases oversight, and it increases accountability.
  The bill also addresses earmarks. Too often earmarks are placed in 
legislation at the behest of lobbyists, many times at the last minute 
to avoid scrutiny. This bill would require that lists of earmarks in 
legislation be made public before votes on bills or conference reports, 
and that any Member could bring a point of order against the list of 
earmarks and subject it to a 30-minute debate.

                              {time}  1130

  Reform would be meaningless without changes in the way earmarks are

[[Page H1877]]

handled. We need fiscal restraint. We need common sense when it comes 
to the budget.
  The future of all Americans depends on an economy free of crippling 
deficits, free of crippling tax hikes, and free of a skyrocketing 
national debt. The extent of which earmarks unnecessarily burden the 
American taxpayers is unprecedented. Last year's earmarks amounted to 
nearly $100 for every man, woman and child in America.
  While lobbying reform is necessary to preserve the integrity of our 
government, earmark reform is vital to our long-term fiscal well-being. 
Bringing earmarks to the light of day will promote fiscal 
responsibility, and it is going to promote more effective government as 
well.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for lobbying reform.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for the United States 
House of Representatives. This rule, quite frankly, is an insult to 
every single Member of this body. This rule should be open, and instead 
this rule is typically restrictive. This rule should be defeated.
  The underlying bill, contrary to what you have heard here today, is 
not a reflection of bipartisan deliberation, because the truth is that 
deliberation is all but dead in this House. What everyone knows, and 
this leadership does not want to acknowledge, is that there is a direct 
connection between the corruption that has become so commonplace and 
the breakdown of the deliberative process.
  The sweetheart deals for special interests, liability protection for 
big drug companies, tax breaks for big oil companies at a time when 
these companies are gouging Americans at the pump, they get slipped 
into bills without the knowledge of the majority in this House, 
Democrat and Republican. Why? Because the Rules Committee regularly 
waives the rules that requires that Members have at least 3 days to 
review the legislation.
  They waive the rules that allow us to read the bill before it comes 
to the floor. Conference committees meet in secret. Big-ticket items 
are even put into bills after conference committees are closed. You can 
pass all the rules you want, but if you don't follow them, what good 
are they?
  The Rules Committee did hold a series of hearings on this bill, and 
speaker after speaker expressed their concerns with the way this House 
is being run. And yet the underlying bill does nothing to open up the 
process. The underlying bill does nothing to shine some light on this 
corrupt process. Nothing will change as a result of this bill. Norm 
Ornstein, the congressional scholar, testified before the Rules 
Committee and he said, the problem goes beyond corrupt lobbyists or the 
relationship between lobbyists and lawmakers. It gets to a legislative 
process that has lost the transparency, accountability and deliberation 
that are at the core of the American system.
  The failure to abide by basic rules and norms has contributed, I 
believe, to a loss of sensitivity among many Members and leaders about 
what is and what is not appropriate. Three-hour votes, 1,000-page-plus 
bills sprung on the floor with no notice, conference reports changed in 
the dead of night, self-executing rules that suppress debate along with 
an explosion of closed rules are just a few of the practices that have 
become common and are a distortion of regular order, and yet this bill 
does not even address any of those issues.
  I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you 
want to show some bipartisanship, if you want to promote a process that 
has some integrity, this should be an open rule. All Members should 
have an opportunity to come here and offer amendments to this bill to 
improve the quality of deliberations on this House floor. They should 
be able to come and to offer amendments to clean this place up.
  This rule is an outrage. Of all of the bills that we have considered 
here, if any one of them deserves an open rule, it is this. This is 
about the rules that govern this House. Vote ``no'' on this rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the pending resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonner). The resolution is withdrawn.

                          ____________________