[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 48 (Thursday, April 27, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H1877-H1886]
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
[[Page H1878]]
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 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.
{time} 1545
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 Rochester, 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. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it was 11:00 this morning that I first
called up the rule for consideration of this extraordinarily important
lobbying and ethics reform measure. As I began my remarks, I talked
about the fact that over the past 4 months, we have been meeting with
outside organizations. We have been meeting with Democrats and
Republicans in this House. We have been meeting with congressional
experts to glean as much information as we possibly can from a wide
range of sources.
The point I want to make is we began at about 11:00 this morning. I
felt at that point we had a great deal of input over the past 4 months
since we began dealing with this critically important issue which has
to do with the credibility of this institution. As we began that
debate, I thought why don't we get a little more input; and so for that
reason, I moved to withdraw the resolution, and that is exactly what we
did. We decided to proceed with more input from Members on this issue.
And having gained more information, more input from our colleagues, we
are now reconvening and further considering this important measure.
You know, the issue of reform is something of which I have been very,
very proud over the years I have been privileged to serve here. The
Republican Party is the party of reform. We have led reform initiatives
for Congress after Congress, and what we are doing here today is
another indication of our strong commitment to the issue of reform.
We know that there is a problem of corruption. We also know that it
is not a one-party issue. It is a problem that has existed on both
sides of the aisle. I remember a quote from our very distinguished
former colleague who served as chairman of the Ways and Means
Committee, Dan Rostenkowski, who one time said, You know, if everybody
is unhappy with a piece of legislation, it is probably a pretty good
bill.
And that is exactly what is the case right here. I do not know of
anyone who is ecstatic with this piece of legislation. I have read the
editorials out there from some of the people who have provided me with
input on this issue.
I have listened to Democrats, and I will tell you, since January, I
could not come to the House floor without a Democrat coming up to me
and saying, You cannot ban privately funded travel. We must continue to
maintain privately funded travel. It is critical. And yes, I have heard
similar statements from our side of the aisle.
I mention the fact that there was input from outside organizations.
Some have been very critical of this legislation, Mr. Speaker. But I am
pleased that some of the harshest critics of this legislation have been
able to have a great deal of input in this legislation. I have been
very proud to have had meetings with the leadership of Common Cause,
Democracy 21 and other organizations.
One of the recommendations that came to us from Mr. Wertheimer was
that we prevent registered lobbyists who are former Members of Congress
from having access to the House floor and the gym. We, I am very happy
to say, with a strong bipartisan vote, were able to make sure that we
prevented former Members of Congress who are registered lobbyists from
having access to the floor and to the gym.
One of the concerns out there has been the lack of transparency when
it comes to the campaign contributions that lobbyists make and the
lobbying activity that they engage in. That was another recommendation
that was put forward by the leadership of Democracy 21 and Common
Cause. I am very pleased that in this legislation we include that
issue, and we address it to make sure that transparency and
accountability is addressed, and we do bring this forward.
Could we do more? Of course we could do more. I hope in conference we
will be able to address these issues when we move ahead with this. I
also want to say that the issue of reporting from lobbyists, and it is
done right now under current law on a semiannual basis, it was the
recommendation of the leadership of Democracy 21 and of Common Cause
that we go from semiannual reporting to quarterly reporting.
I know there were a wide range of other recommendations that those
and other organizations made that have not been incorporated, but I get
back to the argument that we have been able to take a number of very
important issues that have been put forward by Democrats and
Republicans and include them in this legislation.
Would I like to do more? Sure, I would like to do more. I hope very
much that as we take this bill, passing it out of this House and go to
a conference with our colleagues in the Senate, that we will be able to
do more.
I see the distinguished former chairman of the ethics committee Mr.
Hefley here, and I know he has a number of concerns. I have already
told him that as we take this first step in addressing the issue of
moving ahead to a conference, I want to address the concerns that
Members have that have not heretofore been addressed in this first
process in the legislation and do that.
Now, over the past 4 months we have seen five committees of
jurisdiction hold hearings and markups on this issue. The Rules
Committee, with which I am the most familiar, held three original
jurisdiction hearings, and we held a markup on this legislation. We had
13 outside witnesses who came and provided their recommendations to us,
and we had input from a wide range of Members as we went through this
process.
I know that our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, on the
Government Reform Committee, Mr. Hastings, who is chairman of the
ethics committee and also has been very involved working with the Rules
Committee on this,
[[Page H1879]]
and also Mr. Ehlers, chairman of the Administration Committee, have all
worked diligently so we can put together a piece of legislation which
will allow the American people to have a greater opportunity to see
what it is that takes place here, to ensure that the tragic problems of
corruption that we have witnessed will never happen again. That is our
goal. I believe this legislation provides bold, strong, dynamic reforms
which will move us in the direction towards doing just that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would love to ask my good friend from California what great insight
he did gain in these last 5 hours, and if it led him to want us to be
able to be part of this input and that you would reconsider turning
down a Democrat substitute?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say again, as we know very well
in this institution, listening to Members talking about a wide range of
issues is a very important thing. We have been talking about, over the
past few hours, some of the concerns that were raised by a number of
our Members.
The issue of increasing transparency and accountability is very
important, and I will say that I believe this package with this
excellent rule that we are coming forward with to allow us to debate a
wide range of issues is the right thing to do and will provide the best
structure for our first step as we prepare to move to a conference with
our colleagues in the Senate.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry it did not lead to input from
our side.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I
would say that input from her side has been very important. And, yes, I
have over the past few hours been talking to a number of Democrats who
have been providing recommendations to me as well, and I thank my
friend.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Appropriations
Committee, who does have some input.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from
California for being able to give that speech with a straight face. I
really admire him for it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I was smiling as I presented it.
Mr. OBEY. Well, I thought you were gritting your teeth; but,
nonetheless, that is fine.
Mr. Speaker, let me simply say I really regret days like this in the
House because I love this institution, and I love what this institution
is supposed to represent to the American people.
The public wants us to pass significant House reform. Instead, this
legislation before us, in my humble view, constitutes consumer fraud
masquerading as lobbying reform, and there are two spectacular examples
of that.
The most egregious example of the corruption of the process in this
House is the way in which conference committees have been substantially
corrupted by some of the most powerful people in this body. When you
have a package that does not prevent powerful people in this body from
adding 30 and 40 pages of new legislation to a conference report
without ever having a vote on the conference report, as happened last
year on the defense appropriation bill, when you have a reform bill
that still allows that to occur, I do not think that is much of a
reform bill.
This bill ought to require that any time any item is inserted in a
conference report, that that cannot be considered by the House unless
there is an open public vote of the conferees beforehand. That is the
way you prevent the pharmaceutical industry from being shielded from
suit, as happened on the defense bill last year at the behest of the
majority leader of the other body.
Let me also say that with respect to earmarks, this bill purports to
deal with the problem of earmarks by only going after appropriations
earmarks; and yet last year on the authorization bill on highways,
there were some 5,000 earmarks, seven times as many as were contained
in the comparable appropriation bill. To not do something about
authorizing committee earmarks in the process is a joke, in my view.
And then I would point out, to not lay a glove on the special goodies
that are tucked into tax bills is even more outrageous. The 1986 tax
bill, for instance, included 340 separate transition rules each
benefiting a small set of individuals and small, ``little'' businesses
like General Motors, Chrysler, Phillips Petroleum and Commonwealth
Edison. It provided special deals for sports stadiums in Tampa, San
Francisco, Denver, Cleveland, and Los Angeles. It provided a special
rule for a millionaire stockbroker who had the largest private
collection of Rodin sculpture in the Chicago area, and a family listed
by Forbes Magazine as one of the 400 richest in America.
Any bill that allows those kinds of earmarks to continue is a bill
that is not worthy of the name. It is a joke. It is an embarrassment,
and I would urge that this House get serious and pass real reform.
{time} 1600
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that we are, with this
package, going to implement real reform.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart), the very distinguished vice chairman of the Rules Committee
who has long been a champion of institutional reform.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman
for the time and for his hard work in bringing forth this piece of
legislation today.
The Speaker of the House announced last January that this difficult
subject, difficult but important, and it is difficult, Mr. Speaker,
because any time that you deal with institutional reform, you deal with
reform of the practices of Congress, obviously there is much tension
and controversy and difficulty. And we are seeing it in the debate
today, and we are going to continue to see it in the debate today. So
it is not an easy task.
But the Speaker in January announced that he was going to deal, and
we were going to, pursuant to his instruction and his leadership, deal
with this issue of further creating transparency in this process and in
this House, this respectable, this House that needs to be respected
because it merits it. And yet, obviously, it can be improved.
And Chairman Dreier, pursuant to the instruction of the Speaker, has
done tremendous work in listening time and again to the concerns of
Members on both sides of the aisle and formulating this piece of
legislation that is before us today that seeks to be before us based on
this rule with which we bring it to the floor today.
So I urge all colleagues, first, to realize that their vote on the
rule is going to be a vote on whether they are serious about
considering lobbying reform. This is the vote on the record of whether
or not one is serious about considering, about dealing with the issue
of lobbying reform, and we will have an opportunity to go on the
record.
We can always talk about how we would prefer to do other things. But
perfection is sometimes, Mr. Speaker, the enemy of progress. This is
the real thing, the real vote. If you are for lobbying reform, you will
vote for the rule. If you are not, even if you have all sorts of
excuses, then you vote ``no.''
I am confident that the majority of this body will vote for this rule
so we can further consider and further improve this important piece of
legislation that we bring to the floor today.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this oppressive,
undemocratic rule, a rule inconsistent with the great traditions of the
people's House. So many amendments that were proposed by good Members
of this body were not allowed to be considered today. And let me give
you three examples. Number 1, no amendment was allowed to deal with the
issue of Members getting rides on corporate jets. Let me put this in
perspective for you
[[Page H1880]]
with real numbers. Today my wife is 35 weeks pregnant. A few weeks ago,
I priced what does it cost if this happens in the middle of the night
and I need to try to get home quickly to be with her when she goes into
labor: $12,000 on a charter service for me to get home to Little Rock
to be with my pregnant wife. Do you know what the first class ticket
costs with Northwest Airlines? $680. So an alternative for me is to
call up one of my good corporate friends and say, can I catch a ride on
your plane? I will give you $680, and neither one of us will say, oh,
by the way, that means you gave me an $11,300 gift. I think that people
should be able to ride on planes. But they should pay the fair market
value. That amendment should have been allowed to be discussed and
brought on the floor.
Second, the chairman and I had a discussion at the beginning of this
session about my feelings. I had an amendment proposed in the Rules
Committee yesterday to greatly restrict the ability of former Members
who are registered lobbyists to be on the floor and participate in some
of these activities that we know as the Members dining room and the
parking garage and the gym and all these kinds of things. Because here
is the issue: when my constituents come from Arkansas, they have to go
through the security. Members who are registered lobbyists do not. When
my constituents come from Arkansas, they don't get to go to the
Members' dining room. When my constituents come from Arkansas they
don't get to roam through the halls and go in the back rooms of the
committee rooms. Former Members who are registered lobbyists do.
My amendment was not allowed on the floor to be considered. If you
don't like it, vote against it; but let me have this discussion.
Third, an amendment that deals with lobbyist-funded meals was not
allowed. An amendment to deal with the ban on lobbyists-paid meals was
not allowed. Are we so dependent on lobbyist-funded meals for our lunch
money that we won't even let an amendment come on the floor of the
House? Well, I have got a solution. I have got $5. I will leave it over
here on this podium. If any Member is so dependent on not having lunch
money, so dependent on lobbyist-funded meals, take the $5. But let us
have a vote on these very important amendments.
Vote against this rule. It is a bad rule, undemocratic.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
first congratulate my friend. And I know that he is going to have a
wonderful baby boy or girl before too terribly long.
And I will say in response to the issue of corporate aircraft, that
is an issue that is addressed by the Federal Election Commission, and
those are regulations which are promulgated by them. And that is the
reason that we have not addressed this issue there in light of the fact
that those regs come forward there.
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. SNYDER. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, me going back to Little Rock,
Arkansas, to be with my wife as she goes into labor is not a campaign
event. That is not the issue. We are talking about people catching
rides for all kinds of reasons.
Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, what I am
talking about is the use of corporate aircraft for campaign events that
is handled by the Federal Election Commission. The Federal Election
Commission is the one that promulgates those regulations, because those
corporate aircraft are used for campaign events for the political
process.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished former
chairman of the House Committee on Ethics, my good friend from Ft.
Collins, Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I don't know who left me the $5 up here to
buy my vote. I am not sure here.
Mr. DREIER. My recommendation is that you not touch it.
Mr. HEFLEY. I will keep my hands up here where you can see them.
Mr. Chairman, I have enormous respect for you and the committee, and
you know that I do. But I am not happy with this rule. And I am not
happy with this rule because I think it doesn't allow the House to
consider real and meaningful ethics reform.
Now, you do lobbyist reform. But in terms of the ethics process
reform, I don't think we really have much of that here. The rule does
not allow the House to consider many of the provisions that would
strengthen the integrity of the House and help restore public
confidence. And I think actually we are missing an opportunity here.
I introduced a bill, along with Representative Hulshof, who was my
colleague on the Ethics Committee, to strengthen the Ethics Committee
in ways not allowed under this rule. Our bill is cosponsored by many
Democrats and Republicans, and not just Democrats and Republicans, but
the left and right wing of both parties. So philosophically it crossed
lines too. And yet our amendment will not be considered in this rule.
Our amendment had broad and sweeping disclosure across the board. All
gifts over $20 disclosed, all privately funded travel disclosed, all
lobbyist registrations, all passengers on corporate jets, all Members'
financial disclosure statements, all disclosed on the Internet in real-
time. Most of this is not in the bill. And yet it would allow Members
to, our bill that we wanted as an amendment, would allow Members to
continue privately funded travel, which I think is important.
Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding, and I would simply say to
my friend that he has brought forward a wide range of very, very
important issues, many of which he addressed as chairman of the Ethics
Committee himself. And I will, again, as I said in my opening remarks,
I am very happy to make the commitment that we recognize that this
process is the first step on our road towards dealing with this, and it
is our goal that as we move beyond this rule to consider the
legislation that we get into a House-Senate conference.
I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. HEFLEY. I won't belabor the point any more, except to just simply
say there was a lot of good opportunity here, I think, to really
strengthen the ethics process. And I know there are some who would like
to do a commission to that again. The ethics process works. It did work
and it worked very well for a long time. It needs to be tweaked a
little bit, and that is what this bill would do.
I see the majority leader on the floor. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the majority leader.
Mr. BOEHNER. I thank my colleague for yielding, and suggest to my
colleague from California, I am as concerned as you and many other
Members on both sides of the aisle that the Ethics Committee process is
not running the way it should. For the benefit of this institution, for
the responsibility of this institution, the Ethics Committee should be
functioning and should be enforcing the rules of the House.
Unfortunately, one side of the aisle has decided that they don't want
the process to continue.
Now, the gentleman from Colorado and I, yesterday, had a conversation
about the ethics process. I am interested in seeing it up and running.
I am interested in working in a bipartisan way to fix the problems that
are there so that it will run for the benefit of Members and the
institution; and the gentleman has my commitment to work with him and
Members on the other side of the aisle to make sure that the ethics
process works, because it is important for the integrity of this
institution.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HEFLEY. You said one side of the aisle is not interested in the
Ethics Committee proceeding and working. There is enough blame to go
around, I have to say. Both sides of the aisles have fouled this
process up now. And we need to work together to get it back together.
The Ethics Committee needs to work, and anything we do in the Ethics
Committee reform process has to be bipartisan, or nonpartisan. You
can't have an Ethics Committee that is partisan, and it has to be
nonpartisan. So I would like to work with the majority leader, and I
would like to ask
[[Page H1881]]
that if we are not going to have this as an amendment to this bill,
that we have the opportunity to have a freestanding bill on the floor
in the foreseeable future, in the near future, which would encompass
much of what I have described here.
Mr. BOEHNER. In responding to my colleague from Colorado, I am
interested in working in a bipartisan way to come to an agreement on
those issues that are necessary for the Ethics Committee to do its job
on behalf of Members and this institution. And whatever I can do to
help foster those changes and to initiate real action at the Ethics
Committee, I will do everything I can to work with you to do that.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Hefley would like more time, I can
yield him another minute.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I just lost my $5 here.
I don't want to take any more time because I know this is going to,
we need to go ahead and get on with this thing. But I think we do have
a serious opportunity here to do some really good things. And there are
some really good things in this bill. I just don't think it goes far
enough if we are really to have the reform kind of package that many of
us would like to see.
Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield, if he has any time left. I
will say that I agree with exactly what the gentleman said. I wish
there could have been more in this bill too. But, again, getting input
from so many on both sides of the aisle has been a challenge.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Reclaiming my time, I would like to say, Mr. Speaker,
that it is all well and good to talk about we are going to work very
hard to fix the Ethics Committee, but we are in the 16th month of this
term, and I don't see much action taking place over there.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I happen to believe we are losing our moral
authority to lead this place. It has been over a decade since my party
took over the majority, and I feel like we have forgotten how we got
here. Republicans were united on three common issues, and one of them
was reforming Congress.
It was amazing after the 2004 election we considered repealing the
rule requiring a Republican leader to step down if indicted. Next we
proceeded to remove the members of our Ethics Committee who had voted
to hold our former majority leader accountable for his actions. Then we
proceeded to make it more difficult to initiate an Ethics Committee
investigation.
I think there is a tendency for power to corrupt, and absolute power
to corrupt absolutely. We need bold action, and we need bold reform.
Regretfully, this bill does not do it, and this rule does not allow us
to make it better.
{time} 1615
I asked the Rules Committee to consider 5 reforms that Congressman
Meehan and I and others had proposed. Create an Office of Public
Integrity. If you do not think it makes sense, debate it and then
explain why.
Strengthen lobby disclosure requirements above what this legislation
includes. If you do not think it makes sense, allow the amendment and
then argue against it and vote it down.
Require disclosure of huge sums being spent by professional lobby
firms and lobby organizations on grassroots campaigns to stimulate
lobbying by Members of Congress. Allow that amendment. If you do not
think it makes sense, argue against it and vote it down.
Require Members to pay for charter flights they take rather than pay
a first-class fare. Allow this amendment, and if you do not think it
makes sense, argue against it and vote it down.
Enact a true gift ban. If you do not think it makes sense, still
allow a debate. Debate it, and if you do not think it makes sense, vote
it down.
Particularly as it relates to charter flights, here we are going to
ban Members from potentially flying to deliver a commencement address,
but we are going to say to the leaders on both sides of the aisle, you
can go on a corporate jet and only pay the first-class rate when it
will cost that corporation literally tens of thousands of dollars. I do
not understand how we, with a straight face, can say we are cracking
down on the abuses of lobbying when we allow the corporations to fund
where our leaders go.
The bottom line for me is why can we not have debate and vote on
these issues and a number of others? I believe we need to defeat the
rule and then do what my majority leader and the chairman have said:
work on a bipartisan basis on a new bill, on new rules, that will allow
some debate.
When I was re-elected 10 years ago and Republicans took over, I
really believed, Mr. Dreier, that we would be allowed to have debates.
Every year I see less and less of it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me say once again that I am very proud of the reform agenda that
we have implemented and continue to implement in a wide range of areas
including institutionally right here on ensuring that we have a free-
flowing debate on a wide range of issues, a guaranteed motion to
recommit, which I know my colleagues will have on this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence), the distinguished chairman of the
Republican Study Committee.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I
commend the chairman of the Rules Committee for his outstanding
leadership and no small amount of perseverance and courage in evidence
today.
I also speak in commendation of Speaker Hastert and our leadership
for bringing the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act to the
floor in this rule.
After months of scandal and years of deficit spending, we have come
to a moment of truth. We will show today on this floor in less than an
hour who in this body is committed to reform and who is not.
This legislation has significant lobbying reforms: enhanced
disclosure reporting for lobbyists, civil and criminal penalties for
noncompliance, and imposes a moratorium on privately funded travel. But
as we change the way lobbyists spend their money, this Congress also
understands that we must change the way we spend the money of the
American people, understanding that you cannot complain about the
sharks when you are holding a bucket of chum.
This bill contains historic and significant budget reforms. Under the
reforms we will consider, Members will have unprecedented opportunities
to challenge so-called earmark spending at every stage of the
legislative process. And we can do more earmark reform, applying it to
all committees, as has been suggested, but we dare not do less.
Lobbying reform must be married with spending reforms that give greater
transparency and accountability to the process and the American people.
This country longs for a Congress that will renew its commitment to
fiscal and ethical reform, and this is such a moment. This is a moment
of truth. I urge all of my colleagues to support the rule for the
Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I had an amendment that was
adopted in the Judiciary Committee, and the adoption of this rule would
eliminate that amendment.
That amendment would have created just a study of a practice where
some lobbyists appear to be charging percentage contingency fees for
getting earmarks. Now, when you combine this idea with the K Street
Project where you are supposed to be hiring Republican lobbyists who
are supposed to be contributing back to the legislators, you can see
how ugly a practice this can get. I just asked for a study.
And, Mr. Speaker, these kinds of contracts are illegal for agents of
foreign governments. They are illegal in some executive branch
lobbying. The Congressional Research Service in a memorandum cited
these as bad because they furnish the strongest incentive to the
exertion of corrupting and sinister influences to the end that the
desired legislation may be secured, and there is a long line of cases
in which it
[[Page H1882]]
is utterly void against public policy. The CRS memo cites Oliver
Wendell Holmes in 1906, saying that it is the tendency in such
contracts to provide incentives towards corruption. An 1853 Supreme
Court case said that it is an undoubted principle of the common law,
that it will not lend its aid to enforce a contract such as this to do
an act which is inconsistent with sound morals or public policy or
which tends to corrupt or contaminate.
Mr. Speaker, these kinds of contracts are illegal in 39 States
because of their corrupting influence. If we are going to have a bill
that suggests it is going to do something about corruption, what is
wrong with at least studying the prevalence of these contracts which do
not appear to be illegal in the Federal Government but everybody knows
have a corrupting influence?
I would hope that we would defeat the rule so that my amendment,
which was adopted in the Judiciary Committee, can be reinserted back
into the bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
As I listen to critics of this legislation, you would think that the
package that we have is a huge step backward. Let me first say to my
friend Mr. Scott that his amendment was not germane to the bill, and
all of the amendments that we have made in order are germane to the
bill. We, in fact, used that as a guide in proceeding here.
When one thinks about what has or has not happened, again, this
criticism is leveled towards what is not in the bill, failing to
recognize what is in the bill.
This bill doubles the fines for lobbyists who fail to disclose. It
adds the possibility of jail time for failing to comply with the act.
It adds oversight to make sure disclosure information is accurate, and
it gives the public full on-line access to disclosure reports, all
things that are needed and are improved with the passage of this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, at this point I am very pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from Scottsdale, Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California, the
chairman of the Rules Committee, for the time to speak on behalf of
this rule.
And one of the challenges we confront in an institution that, yes,
has a partisan composition and is made up of, admittedly, imperfect
beings is that there are numerous examples of imperfection and, dare we
say, partisanship brought to this debate.
But the question in the final analysis, despite the seeming
inevitability of incrementalism, which in itself in this case is not
fatal or does not flaw this positive action, is that the short-term
temptation to attempt to gain partisan advantage is not completely
negated on this floor. And, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, we would be
naive if we thought that it were.
I listened with great interest to my friend from Virginia, a member
of the Judiciary Committee, offer some legal case history, although his
amendment was not germane to this bill. I could point out, just as a
citizen, we could look at other challenges faced by other Congresses
and other majority in a landmark work entitled The Ambition and the
Power that dealt with the challenges of a previous majority.
What is past is prologue. What we have an opportunity to do in this
House today, despite admitted imperfections, despite the temptation of
partisanship, is to take a meaningful step forward for reform.
I listened to constructive criticisms from those who say the bill
does not go far enough. I listened to other criticisms that perhaps are
partisan in nature. But the question before this House is will we stand
up clearly and take a step in favor of reform?
This Member says yes. Let it begin with this rule. Vote ``yes'' on
the rule and ``yes'' on the legislation and ``yes'' for real reform.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will be blunt. Washington is mired in
corruption. In this last year alone, the Vice President's Chief of
Staff was indicted for obstructing justice. Two of the former majority
leaders top aides have pled guilty to bribery and conspiracy. And a
senior Republican Member of Congress was convicted of accepting over $1
million in bribes from military contractors. Yet this so-called reform
legislation, this incrementalism that we should accept, is a complete
and utter sham.
In my committee, the Committee on Government Reform, we worked hard
to pass true reform legislation of the executive branch, and on a
unanimous bipartisan vote of 32-0, we reported legislation that would
have closed the revolving door between K Street and the Federal
Government. Our bill would stop lobbyists like the former Deputy
Interior Secretary from using a high-ranking government position to
benefit energy industry clients. It would prohibit senior officials,
like the former Medicare Director, from seeking jobs representing
pharmaceutical companies while writing prescription drug legislation.
Our legislation would have ended secret meetings between lobbyists and
executive branch officials like those that produced the deeply flawed
White House energy plan. And it would have promoted open government,
banned covert propaganda, and given national security whistleblowers
long overdue protection.
But what does the Republican leadership do when Committee Chairman
Tom Davis and I jointly proposed these landmark bipartisan reforms and
we asked that it be included in this legislation or give us a rule to
report it out as separate legislation? They reject it. They would not
give us an opportunity to bring bipartisan legislation to the floor.
And then they stand here and say, we cannot do more because we do not
have bipartisan support. But when we give them a bill on ethics and
lobbying reform with bipartisan support, they ignore it and will not
give us a chance on the House floor.
A corrupt mentality governs in Washington, and there is no better
metaphor for the contempt for reform that has infected this body than
the treatment that our proposal received.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? I would be happy
to yield the gentleman time.
Mr. WAXMAN. If you yield me time, I would be happy to yield to you.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to engage in a colloquy
with my friend.
{time} 1630
I have the greatest respect for him as a fellow Californian. The fact
is, Mr. Speaker, as we look at this issue, will the gentleman not
acknowledge that the problem of corruption we face in this town is a
bipartisan issue, that it crosses party lines and it is not just a
Republican issue?
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I certainly think what
we have seen is a lot of corruption, and the resolution of how to deal
with it ought to be bipartisan. We gave you a bipartisan proposal,
which you would not bring to the House floor.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California will not yield
further to me?
Mr. DREIER. I yielded twice as much, 100 percent more, than what the
gentleman yielded to me.
Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman will not yield further.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes). The House will be in order.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the gentleman from
Minnesota to proceed, and then if my friend from California would like
to ask me a question or something, as soon as we are done with the
gentleman from Minnesota, I will be happy to yield to my friend from
California.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, this bill does include many
important provisions, and I am thankful for that; but I feel that we
have not gone quite far enough in terms of stopping the revolving door
from public service to K Street. It does not extend the current 1-year
ban on Members becoming registered lobbyists.
To fix the problems caused by competing public and personal
interests, we must close the revolving door between Congress and
lobbying. That is why I introduced H.R. 4685, to permanently ban
Members from taking jobs
[[Page H1883]]
as registered lobbyists. We must make sure there is not the temptation
for Members of Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I applaud the things that are in the bill. I hope that
we can continue to work on this further in the future.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I would simply
say in response to my friend, as he knows very well, we have really
gone a long way toward making sure there is greater transparency on
that issue, so the so-called ban on lobbying, the cooling-off period,
is made clear with lines that we draw. I think it is really moving in
the direction to which my friend has referred.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I
appreciate the clarity that was put in the bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this juncture I would like to yield 30
seconds to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my good friend why, when
the committee that has jurisdiction over executive branch lobbying has
a unanimous vote on a bipartisan bill to try to stop some of these
egregious problems of the revolving door, why we couldn't get it on the
floor?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would reclaim my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Both gentlemen will suspend. Thirty seconds
has been yielded. Please allow the 30 seconds to expire.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I would simply
say that this measure is designed to deal with lobbying and ethics
reform for the first branch of government, the legislative branch; and
it is for that reason that we have not gotten into the executive branch
issue to which my friend referred.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on
each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier)
has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The Chair would remind the House that when a Member who controls time
yields a specific block of time to another, that time may not be
reclaimed and should not be interrupted by interjection.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that I have 8\1/2\
minutes remaining and my colleague from Rochester has 15\1/2\ minutes
remaining, I think it would be probably useful for us to proceed with
hearing some of her arguments.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the lobbying reform proposal drafted by the Republican
leadership in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal and other recent
instances of corruption by public officials is woefully lacking in many
respects; but chief among them, however, is its failure to address the
central weakness and the most corrosive aspect of the current lobbying
rules, and that has proven to be this revolving door aspect we have
heard so much about today, which involves public sector congressional
folks, employees, going over to work for special interest groups. In
the most recent instance with the Abramoff scandal, we had staffers for
the former Republican leader going over to work for Abramoff.
However, the need to impose greater restrictions on the flow between
key legislative and executive branch policymaking posts and business
and lobbying firms was never more evident than during the days
following the passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug Act. That was
an absolute disgrace. We came to find out that the former chairman of
the House Energy and Commerce Committee had taken the top job at the
pharmaceutical industry's most powerful trade group only a couple of
months after he had played an instrumental role in the bill's
development and promotion.
We came to find out only days after passage of the Medicare act that
the administration's chief congressional negotiator on the bill had
landed a job at a top lobbying firm representing drug companies and
health care providers with major stakes in the legislation.
As has been pointed out, that legislation has a provision that says
the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall not negotiate lower
drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies. Then one of the chief
drafters of the bill goes to work for the pharmaceutical companies. It
weakens our credibility as an institution here. Not only were seniors
robbed, but also I think that the insurance companies were allowed to
greatly benefit as a result of this revolving door situation, and we
must correct it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this lobby bill began with grand talk and
broad promises, and today it is ending with a whimper. The announcement
was the high watermark. Since then, the Republican strategy has been on
each of these reforms, let the weak get weaker, and to reject most
every Democratic proposal that has been advanced, even some like my own
that had no visible opposition.
So much has been stripped from this bill that if it remains here
another week, there won't be anything left but the name, and the name
is certainly appropriate, The Transparency Act, because you can see
right through this bill, that it does not reflect any meaningful
bipartisan reform of a very corrupt system.
Tragically, the party of Abraham Lincoln is becoming the party of
Abramoff. No wonder you have blocked every effort we have made to
investigate this wretched scandal. With all the special interest wining
and dining, what a ``Grand Old Party'' it is. But it is a grand party
for everyone but the taxpayers, who have to pick up the tab, because
corruption is not a victimless crime. Ask those who bear the higher
price at the gas pump, who bear the costs as taxpayers of no-bid
Halliburton contracts, or the suffering of our seniors from a
pharmaceutical bill written for the manufacturers, not for the seniors.
This bill represents no right step in the right direction, no true
incremental reform. It is, instead, a phony, contrived maneuver to
obstruct genuine change, to stop the greed and end the culture of
corruption that is weakening our country.
We have come forward as Democrats with one proposal after another to
reach across the aisle and to try to address this corruption, but at
every turn our hand has been slapped away by those who are content with
the corrupt system that is ruining this country and damaging this
Congress.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my
time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our minority
leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, we are about to vote on a rule for a so-
called lobbying reform bill that The Washington Post has said ``is
simply a joke.'' ``Or more accurately,'' it goes on to say, ``a ruse
aimed at convincing what the leaders must believe is a doltish public
that the House has done something to clean up Washington.'' A ruse.
That is what this is.
And to the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, if you think
that what is being proposed today maintains a high ethical standard for
this House, either your standards are too low or you have no interest,
no interest, in cleaning up the culture of corruption that the
Republicans have in this House of Representatives.
This Republican leadership so-called Lobbying Accountability and
Transparency Act holds no one accountable and provides little
transparency to the activities of lobbyists or anyone else. It is an
embarrassingly trivial response to the culture of corruption that has
thrived under the Republican Congress.
And this corruption has a cost to the American people, as others of
my colleagues have said. This corruption has come at great cost to the
American people in terms of prices at the pump, a Medicare prescription
drug bill that does little to lower the cost of spiraling health drug
costs, and waste and fraud in the gulf coast and in Iraq.
This bill is a missed opportunity, a missed opportunity. As House
Democratic Leader, I would have hoped that we could have worked
together with the leadership of this House of Representatives to put
forth something
[[Page H1884]]
that truly threw up the windows and pulled back the shades to let in
the fresh air. But that didn't happen because of this ruse.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I wouldn't even think of yielding to you. You have all
the time in the world.
I come to this floor with great sadness. I come here as one who has
served on the Ethics Committee for 7 years, at a time when we worked in
a bipartisan fashion to maintain a high ethical standard. I take very
seriously our responsibility to the American people to do their
business here, not the business of the special interests of the
lobbyists.
That is why it is such a pity that we really don't have transparency
in this rule and in this bill, where we can come to the floor with an
open rule, where all points of view can be considered and all positive
initiatives can be considered and voted up or down. Let's leave that up
to the debate.
We certainly can do better than this. That wouldn't be difficult.
Democrats are offering a motion to recommit that breaks the link
between K Street lobbyists and the Congress of the United States. It
says it ``bans.'' It is unequivocal. It is unambiguous. It bans gifts
and travel from lobbyists and from organizations who employ lobbyists.
It prohibits use of corporate jets for official travel. It just
prohibits it. You can't do it. It shuts down the K Street Project, in
which lobbying firm jobs are traded for legislative favors. And it
shuts down the revolving door. What a disgrace, this revolving door
that is spinning so fast. It prohibits Members, senior staff and
executive branch officials from lobbying their former colleagues for 2
years after leaving office. Two years. I think it should be longer, but
that is a compromise.
Today, the Republican majority brings forth a rule that is itself an
abuse of power. The Republican Rules Committee has refused to let this
House debate bills that 165 Democrats cosponsored. The Republicans have
refused to let this House debate even Republican serious proposals
directed at cronyism and corruption in government contracting. The
Republicans have refused to let this House debate any serious attempt
to end the culture of corruption.
They call this bill the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act?
The Washington Post calls it a joke. The sad thing is, it is not a very
funny joke, because, once again, the American people are paying the
price.
My colleagues have listed some of the abuses of power. Mr. Waxman in
particular talked about what the impact is on the American consumer
from some of those abuses of power.
Imagine that the person managing the bill on prescription drugs left
this House and soon was representing the pharmaceutical industry for $2
million a year in salary. How much does it cost to sell the seniors
down the river? Well, about $2 million a year, if you are the manager
of the prescription drug bill. That is why Americans, middle-income
seniors, will be paying more at the pharmacy because of the corruption
that was involved in writing this bill, a bill where the pharmaceutical
industry insisted that there be a prohibition in the bill against the
Secretary of HHS for negotiating for lower prices. It was in the bill
because the pharmaceutical industry insisted upon it. They had their
representatives at the table. America's seniors did not. Who do you
think came out on top in that bill writing?
We have talked about a time when the American taxpayer has the burden
of that, plus paying a price at the pump because of the corruption in
writing the energy policy for this country, behind closed doors,
refusing to reveal what went into writing that legislation.
{time} 1645
And that legislation, do not take it from me, the Republican
Department of Energy stated at the time that the energy bill proposed
and passed by the Republicans in this Congress would increase the price
at the pump. They said it at the time.
So not only are the consumers paying the price at the pump and an
increased cost in their home heating oil and cooling oil as we go into
the summer months; they gave a gift, they, the American taxpayers, we
gave a gift to the oil companies.
That same bill that increased the price at the pump that people are
now paying nearly $3 a gallon for, they, those oil companies, those
same oil companies got subsidies of $12 billion in the energy bill.
They got royalty relief, royalty holidays of several more billion
dollars.
And to make matters worse, in the most recent tax bill that is being
prepared to come to this floor, they will get $5.5 billion more in tax
breaks. What are they taking the American taxpayer for? What are they
thinking of? It is such an insult to the intelligence of the consumer
and the taxpayer.
Wait a minute, at a time of record, of record profits, historic and
obscene profits, these companies are paying enormous fees. The CEO of
Exxon is getting a retirement package of $400 million. Record profits.
High subsidies from the taxpayer, and high prices at the pump, a very
raw deal for the American consumer.
All of it born from the culture of corruption in this House of
Representatives. We must break that link. We are here for the interests
of the American people, for the public interest. The Republicans are
here for the special interests. They are the handmaidens of the
pharmaceutical industry. They are the handmaidens of the energy
companies. They do not know any other way to do it.
And that is why we get not only bad policy, not only corruption in
this House, not only a cost of that corruption to the taxpayer and to
the consumer, but we have a ruse of a bill that tries to masquerade as
reform on this House of Representatives.
I feel really sad about this. I feel sad for the American people.
They expect and deserve better. And we can give that to them in our
motion to recommit that I talked about earlier. It bans the gifts and
travel. It breaks the link. It stops the revolving door. It also says
that if you are convicted of a felony in the performance of your duties
as a Member of this House, you do not get your pension. You do not get
your pension.
And as I said, again, this whole thing about jet travel and the rest,
our motion to recommit would prohibit corporate travel for official
purposes. So I hope that our colleagues will understand that we
certainly can do better and that the American people are watching; that
we can present substantive reforms, some that we should be debating
today. I can assure my colleagues that these reforms, that if we have
these reforms, we will end this culture of corruption. I also assure
you that if the Democrats win the Congress next year, they will be
implemented on the first day, the first day of the first session of
this next Congress.
So let us start fresh with this. The American people, as I say,
expect and deserve better. We can clear the slate by rejecting, all-out
rejecting this ruse, this pathetic, pathetic little tiny step that is a
missed opportunity for a high ethical standard and is an excuse to keep
the culture of corruption that is here.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and if
the opportunity presents itself, to support the Democratic motion to
recommit. I want to in closing commend the ranking Democrat on the
Rules Committee, Congresswoman Slaughter. She has been a relentless
crusader for a high ethical standard in this House for not only lobby
reform and all kinds of other reform, but for injecting a level of
civility into how we should have debate on the floor of the House that
respects the views of Democrats and Republicans, because we respect the
people who sent all of us here, not just having Republicans heard and
Democrats blocked out.
So Congresswoman Slaughter, I commend you for your leadership. I
thank you for your courage. I urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my dear
friend from California, the distinguished minority leader, to whom I am
happy to yield at any time whatsoever, that on the issue of
prescription drugs, we are very proud of the fact that more than 30
million Americans, many more than had been anticipated, are today
saving millions and millions of dollars because of the Medicare
prescription drug package that we put into place.
[[Page H1885]]
On the issue of energy issues, we are outraged at the increase in
gasoline and fuel costs. But I will tell you, I am really perplexed,
because as they decry the issue of global warming, you would think that
they would be ecstatic at the fact that gasoline prices have gone
through the roof.
But, unfortunately, it is their policies, their refusal to pursue
ANWR in a responsible way to deal with the issue of boutique fuels and
to deal with the issue of refinery capacity that has been a problem.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a very hardworking member of
both the Rules Committee and the Committee on Ethics, my friend from
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
I rise to support the rule and the underlying bill. And I want to
first, Mr. Chairman, commend you. I have watched this process unfold in
front of us as we have worked, as you and the Speaker committed we
would, through regular order, through five different committees, over 4
months, entertaining dozens of amendments.
I have watched you struggle with the numerous amendments we had, and
yet try to get them down to a manageable level, things that actually
counted and made a difference in the legislation that let us debate
things.
I have watched as you and the Speaker and others have tried to craft
a bill that moved us forward, and indeed this bill does move us
forward. After all of the smoke and all of the rhetoric and everything
is said, the real basic question is simply this: Will we be better off
with or without this bill? There is no question we will be better off
with this bill. We will be more transparent, we will have more
reporting by lobbyists, stricter supervision, higher penalties for
those who transgress, whether they be those amongst us or others in the
lobbying and the political community.
We have a measure of campaign finance reform that could be triggered
by this legislation. And indeed as you pointed out, Mr. Speaker, this
is simply the first step of a long journey. And it is very important. I
appreciate the way that you have dealt with the dilemma of having some
who want to go further than we are able to go, and actually enact
legislation, and those who do not want to do anything at all.
And it is always easiest to take one of those two positions, because
you are always right. You never have to answer for anything. But at the
end of the day, the Speaker and the chairman have to craft a package
that will pass and will put them in a position to negotiate with the
Senate. I think they have done that.
I also wanted to highlight just briefly an amendment that may come up
later in this debate, which is indeed bipartisan in nature, and which I
think takes us in the right direction in appropriately regulating
private travel, something that has been an abuse, and where I have had
the good fortune of working with my friends across the aisle, Mr.
Miller, Mr. Berman. I had the opportunity to also work with Mr.
Hastings and Mr. Lungren, and we think we have crafted an amendment
that everybody in this House can be pleased with.
That would not have happened without your help, Mr. Chairman, and
without your support. Let me conclude by saying, I am very proud to
have worked with my friend, the chairman on the Rules Committee. I
appreciate his support as we have worked through difficult issues.
I know we are at the beginning of a long debate. I am very confident
at the end of the day we will have a legislative package that will be a
marked improvement.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Speaker how much time
is remaining on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes). The gentleman from California
has 5\1/2\ minutes. The gentlewoman from New York's time has expired.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a hardworking
member of the Rules Committee, the distinguished chairman of the
Republican Policy Committee, my good friend, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Putnam).
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his hard work on
this issue. This is another situation where the Democrats were for it
before they were against it, before they were for it, before they were
against it again.
It has been interesting to watch this debate unfold as fingers have
been pointed now since the end of last year about a culture that they
have described as being corrupt, and yet here they come today to oppose
a bill that addresses many of the same issues that they have been
screaming about for the past 4 months.
The Policy Committee did exhaustive work, Mr. Speaker, in bringing
together groups of Members to talk about these issues. Reforming the
institution is among the most important and also among the most
difficult issues to do, because everyone involved has an innate
understanding of the issues that we are dealing with and the needs of
the House from the perspective of their particular district.
There was widespread agreement that disclosure, sunshine,
accountability should be the three pillars upon which we build this
reform effort. And we did that. When it comes to issues like travel, as
Mr. Cole has described, who has been a leader in a bipartisan effort to
reform those practices, it has been a very difficult path, but one
which has yielded bipartisan results in the form of the amendment that
we will be considering later.
When it comes to making sure that there is an opportunity for the
public to know what goes on in this institution and what interest
groups that are attempting to lobby the Congress are doing, we
increased the reporting requirements. We increased the penalties for
those people who would take advantage of the public trust that they are
given by the voters and by the electorate.
When it comes to the issues of making sure that we have a functioning
ethics committee, that is the most important piece of this process,
increasing the leverage to make sure that that committee is one that is
functioning appropriately.
So in sum, Mr. Speaker, it is appalling to me that people would say
that in this case, after 4 months of decrying the status of things,
that nothing is better than disclosure requirements, that nothing is
better than transparency, that nothing is better than greater
accountability.
The foundation upon which this bill is crafted is something that
every Member can go home and talk to their constituents about. It is
something that will improve the work of this institution and begin the
process of restoring the public trust in the people's Chamber.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
As many of my colleagues have said, this has been obviously a
challenging time for us. We are dealing with some very serious problems
in this institution. They are bipartisan. They cross party lines. And
that is why the Speaker and I and others felt very strongly about the
need to do what we can to do what we possibly could to ensure that we
reached out to both Democrats and Republicans and a wide range of
individuals and outside groups and all for recommendations.
I am happy that many of those issues have been addressed, and I think
it is very important for us to ask each Member to look at the bill as a
whole and answer these very important questions: Does it 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? Does it
strengthen the integrity of the United States Congress?
Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely convinced that the answer to every
single one of those questions is a resounding ``yes'' on every single
count. No matter what some have argued on the other side, if they want
to maintain the absolute status quo, it creates the potential to
continue many of the problems that we have faced.
{time} 1700
Virtually everyone has acknowledged that while they may not believe
that this bill goes as far as we would like, this is the first step in
a process that will allow us to join with our colleagues in the other
body to deal in a conference with the measure that I hope is even
stronger than this very important first step that we are taking.
[[Page H1886]]
I think that the vice chairman of the Rules Committee Mr. Diaz-Balart
put it very well when he said that anyone who casts a vote against this
rule is saying no to the issue of reform. No, I don't want to proceed
with bringing about the kinds of institutional changes that will play a
role in enhancing the level of integrity to which the American people
can hold this great deliberative body.
We hear everyone talking about reform. Voices for reform are out
there, and they are very prevalent in the media, here on the House
floor, day after day after day. But in just a few minutes we are going
to have the opportunity to transform those voices for reform into votes
for reform. This is our opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, with that I urge an ``aye'' vote on this rule so that we
can move ahead with this very, very important reform effort.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to join my
colleagues in making a point that seems to be lost on the leadership of
this House: this is not simply a ``lobbyist problem'' we are facing.
Ensuring that lawmakers comply with existing ethics rules and enhancing
lobbyist disclosure requirements are important goals . . . and even on
this measure, . . . the so-called ``Lobbying Accountability and
Transparency Act'' falls embarrassingly short.
What started as a limited but seemingly earnest attempt at reform has
been progressively hollowed out over the past several weeks in--you
guessed it--closed-door meetings with lobbyists. The result is not
surprising. Reporting requirements for lobbyist-hosted fundraisers?
Gone. No more bargain rates on corporate jets? Gone. A study to examine
lobbyist employment contracts? Gone.
But again, this is not simply a lobbyist problem. House Democrats
have tried in earnest to offer a plan for reform that takes a hard look
in the mirror and examines what Congress must do to clean up its own
house.
My colleagues Dave Obey, Barney Frank, Tom Allen and I have
introduced a fourteen-point plan that would address not only individual
abuses, but also the abuses of the legislative process. Our proposal
would end the practice of keeping votes held open long enough to twist
recalcitrant arms into compliance. It would prevent legislation from
being slipped into conference reports without conference approval. It
would require House-Senate conferences to actually meet and vote. And
it would give Members of Congress at least a full day to examine the
contents of any legislation we are voting on.
We have testified before the Rules Committee in favor of this
comprehensive approach. During Rules Committee markup of this bill and
again during the hearing on the rule last night, numerous amendments
were offered and defeated--mostly on party-line votes--that would have
implemented these reforms. The Democratic Substitute, which was also
denied a fair hearing last night, recognized the need to take a
comprehensive approach to lobbying and ethics reform. At each step in
the process, our attempts at genuine, bipartisan reform were turned
away.
So what did we get instead? It's no surprise: a bill that could serve
as a case study in everything that is broken in our legislative
process--of everything we should be ``reforming.'' We get a so-called
``Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act'' that offers neither
accountability nor real transparency. We get a minority party--and many
Members of the majority--completely shut out of the process once again,
their amendments denied, their advice and concerns unheeded. We get a
restrictive rule that makes in order just nine out of the 74 amendments
offered--and only one sponsored by a Democrat without a Republican
cosponsor--and allows for only one hour of debate on what should be one
of the most significant bills we consider all year.
This leadership had a real chance to enact real reform, not for the
sake of an aggrieved minority . . . not for the sake of election-year
politics . . . but for the sake of our institution, for its integrity
and its capacity to govern. Instead, they seem to think they can
convince the American people that they're cleaning up our House, when
all they're doing is sweeping our problems under the rug.
Well Mr. Speaker, the American people will not be so easily fooled.
And I assure you that those of us in this body who want real,
comprehensive reform will not rest until we have successfully enacted
such a measure. But this is not such a measure. I urge my colleagues to
oppose this legislation.
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I rise today in
opposition to the rule before us.
The ethics process in this body is broken. In all candor, there is
plenty of blame to go around as to why we find ourselves in this
situation. We undermine the public's faith in this great institution
when we let petty politics erode the very processes meant to preserve
the public's trust in Congress.
I have met with the Majority Leader on this issue, and I sincerely
believe that he has a genuine desire to have an effective, functioning
Ethics process in the House. I thank him for his willingness to listen,
and I hope we can perhaps address this issue in the future.
Having previously served on the Ethics Committee, I firmly believe
that the ethics process can work. For the sake of this institution--it
must work. And as we begin consideration of the Leadership's ethics and
lobby reform package, I will say there are some provisions in the base
bill before us that should ultimately be adopted--earmark reform,
denying Congressional pensions to convicted felons, enhanced disclosure
and improved ethics education are common-sense proposals that I would
hope that we can all support.
That being said, I cannot support this rule. Ethics reform is
incomplete absent changes to improve the enforcement of House rules. My
colleague Joel Hefley and I have put forward legislation to strengthen
the ability of the Ethics Committee to dispense with ethics matters by
expediting the review of these issues and insulating committee members
and non-partisan staff from the political pressures that can pollute
the ethics process. We do this by giving the Chair and Ranking Member
on the committee subpoena power earlier in the investigative process
and prohibiting the arbitrary dismissal of Members and technical staff.
We also require ethics education for Members and staff, and we
dramatically improve disclosure associated with gifts and travel. All
of these common-sense reforms would greatly improve the ethics process
in the House.
We sought to offer our legislation as an amendment to the bill we are
to consider today. This proposal was not made in order under the rule.
Thus, we are faced with the prospect of passing an incomplete ethics
reform package that lacks enhanced enforcement.
I think this is a mistake, and for this reason, I must reluctantly
oppose this rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________