[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 51 (Wednesday, May 3, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H2011-H2030]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          LOBBYING ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2006

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 783 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4975.

                              {time}  1313


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4975) to provide greater transparency with respect to lobbying 
activities, and for other purposes, with Mr. Boozman in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I was just listening to the debate on the last bill 
considered under suspension of the rules, and I saw a wonderful sense 
of bipartisanship as we were able to pass, I suspect we may have a vote 
on it, but I know it will pass overwhelmingly, the legislation by our 
good friend from Dallas, Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson.
  It is my hope that, as we proceed with this very important issue, 
that that same sense of bipartisanship can prevail. Because I believe 
that it is absolutely essential to dealing with the challenge that lies 
ahead.
  Mr. Chairman, as you know very well, recent scandals involving 
elected representatives from both political parties have underscored 
the very urgent need for us to reform ethics and lobbying rules.

                              {time}  1315

  The American people and Members of Congress are very correctly 
incensed about this. I believe that it is absolutely outrageous some of 
the things that we have seen from both political parties over the past 
several months.
  Action, common-sense action, Mr. Chairman, is absolutely needed, and 
that is why I am very proud that Speaker Dennis Hastert 4 months ago 
stepped up to the plate and said this is exactly what we need to do, is 
we need to take strong action.
  Republicans and Democrats have worked together tirelessly on this 
issue over the past 4 months. The goal is to strengthen and reform 
House rules, as well as that 1995 Lobbying Disclosure Act which we very 
proudly put into place when we won the majority back in 1994.
  Our aim, our goal, is a Congress that is effective, a Congress that 
is ethical, and a Congress that is worthy of the public trust. Now, I 
know that the American people should understandably have a healthy 
skepticism towards this institution. That is what Thomas Jefferson 
wanted. But, at the same time, it is very important that we do what we 
can to enhance the level of trust that the American people have in 
their elected representatives.
  We know right after this began, at the beginning of this second 
session of the 109th Congress, we stepped right up and were able to 
take very bold action to bring about reform. On our very first day of 
legislative business we voted to level the playing field by ending the 
access to the House floor and gym by former Members of Congress who are 
registered lobbyists. This rule change was supported by 379 of our 435 
Members.
  At the beginning of the last month, we took a second step in the name 
of balance and fairness. In another bipartisan vote, the House closed 
an enormous loophole in campaign finance regulations. Integrity in our 
elections was a key focus of our reform efforts, and the 527 Reform Act 
makes sure campaign finance laws apply across the board.
  Now we are considering the comprehensive reform package, H.R. 4975, 
the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. Mr. Chairman, 
this legislation seeks to uphold the highest standards of integrity 
when it comes to Congress' interaction with outside groups.
  I am very proud of the process and the results of this multi-month 
effort that we have seen. Anyone, anyone, Democrat and Republican 
alike, outside groups, academics, anyone who wanted to offer any 
suggestion, any proposal at all, make any comment on any part of the 
legislation has had that opportunity. This has been a very thorough 
and, again, a very bipartisan process.
  Mr. Chairman, we already conducted a very spirited and worthwhile 
debate just last Thursday when we were considering the rule that allows 
us to consider this legislation; and, from that debate, it was very 
clear to me that there is a lot of confusion over H.R. 4975. Frankly, 
Mr. Chairman, as I have read editorials for a wide range of 
publications here in this town and across the country, there is an 
awful lot of confusion as to what this bill actually does. So I thought 
that I would take just a moment to summarize for our friends here in 
the House and for anyone who might be following this, any editorial 
writer out there, I would like to summarize what this legislation will 
and will not do.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation will enhance transparency and 
accountability in Congress through increased disclosure and tighter 
rules. No matter what anyone says, Mr. Chairman, this legislation does 
increase transparency

[[Page H2012]]

and accountability through toughening up disclosure and tightening the 
rules.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation will fulfill the public's right to 
know who is seeking to influence their Congress.
  This legislation will provide brighter lines of right and wrong and 
more rigorous ethics training so that everyone can understand what is 
right and what is wrong here. I was taught that as a kid, but obviously 
there has been some confusion and in the past there have been gray 
areas. This legislation creates that clear definition and provides an 
opportunity for greater training for Members and staff so they can have 
an understanding of it.
  This legislation will significantly reform the earmark process to 
foster more responsible and accountable government spending.
  I read one editorial in which they said this bill does not tackle the 
so-called Bridge to Nowhere issue. Well, Mr. Chairman, anyone who has 
followed this debate knows that full well that last week when we were 
debating the rule, the Speaker, the majority leader, I, the whip, 
others made have a very strong commitment, working with the 
Appropriation Committee, that the Senate has passed language which we 
think is very good.
  It is language which says that when we look at the issue of earmark 
reform so we can have greater accountability when it comes to spending 
that it should not simply focus on the appropriations process. It 
should be universal and go across the board to the other committees as 
well. That commitment was made a week ago, and yet some people seem to 
think that we are not willing to take that on.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation will considerably increase fines and 
penalties for violating the transparency and accountability provisions.
  This legislation will give a new authority to the House Inspector 
General to perform random audits of lobbyist disclosure forms and refer 
violations to the Department of Justice.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, here is what this legislation will not do. It will 
not permit business as usual. It will not perpetuate the status quo.
  Mr. Chairman, while this body is united in its desire for reform, we 
clearly have disagreements over some of the specifics. Some think that 
this bill goes too far; some think that this bill does not go far 
enough; and, frankly, I wish that this bill were stronger than it is. 
But we are getting ready to take this very important step to go into 
conference with the Senate; and, as we do that, I believe that we can 
come back with a stronger bill. This is what I am hoping will happen, 
but we must proceed with this measure so that we can make that happen.
  Yet today we stand, as I said, on the starting blocks of our reform 
effort, and the single most important thing that we can do at this 
stage is to keep the process of reform moving. That is really what this 
is all about today, Mr. Chairman. We know full well that they are going 
to get a lot of people standing in the way, and yet we need to take 
this step forward, and that is what H.R. 4975 does.
  There is no question whatsoever that this bill, regardless of what 
anyone says about it, that it represents progress. It is a move in the 
right direction, and a lot of us want to do more, but this is a bill 
that moves us in the right direction.
  There is no question at all that it is a vast improvement over the 
status quo, and there is no question that it does put us on a path 
towards that very important conference that we will have with our 
friends in the other body.
  Now, of course, Mr. Chairman, there are many up there who want to 
engage in nothing but criticism. They want to say no. They want to 
defeat this effort for real reform. They want to just criticize what it 
is that we are trying to do here when we have been able to fashion a 
bipartisan package. But to what end? To protect the current system? 
Because this is really what is going to happen. I mean, if we pass the 
previous question, if we defeat this legislation, all we will be doing 
is perpetuating the status quo because it will slow the process of 
reform. The same system that we have spent 4 months decrying, as we 
sought this reform, would be perpetuated.
  It defies logic, Mr. Chairman, to criticize the current standards and 
then vote to keep them in place, because that is exactly what will 
happen. With their recommittal motion, that is exactly what will happen 
with any attempt to defeat this measure.
  Mr. Chairman, Winston Churchill, I think said it very well, when he 
wrote: Criticism is easy; achievement is difficult.
  Mr. Chairman, this is no time for us to recoil in our effort to bring 
about reform. By voting yes for this bill, the House will vote for 
achievement, for progress and for rebuilding the trust of the American 
people. A vote for H.R. 4975 is a vote for reform.
  Mr. Chairman, after we pass this bill, let me tell you what is next 
on our agenda: more reform. The Republican party is the party of 
reform. The Republican party has and will continue to reach out to our 
Democratic colleagues who are reform-minded to continue down this road 
towards reform.
  The drive for reform never stops. We have demonstrated that 
consistently in the past, and we will continue to do so in the future. 
It is a continuous, ongoing process that takes both perseverance and 
commitment.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is absolutely essential for us to 
continue down the road towards reform so that we can make this 
institution more effective and more respected.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  There is certainly an ``Alice in Wonderland'' quality to this debate 
already this afternoon where Alice could believe 90 possible things 
before breakfast, and to believe that we all worked together on this 
bill is absolutely not true. Democrats and Republicans have worked 
hard, but in different alleys, going in different directions.
  To that end, I would like to submit for the Record at this point from 
The Post this morning an editorial entitled, ``Kill this Bill,'' along 
with several others. Every editorial group and outside organizations 
have said this bill is a hollow sham.

                 [From washingtonpost.com, May 3, 2006]

                             Kill This Bill

       ``Bold, Responsible, common-sense reform of our current 
     lobbying and ethics laws is clearly needed,'' House Rules 
     Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) told his 
     colleagues on the House floor last week. ``We owe it to our 
     constituents. We owe it to ourselves. We owe it to this 
     institution.''
       Very true--which is why House members should reject the 
     diluted snake oil that Mr. Dreier and the GOP leadership are 
     peddling as bold reform. Their bill, which is expected to 
     come before the House for a vote today, is an insult to 
     voters who the GOP apparently believes are dumb enough to be 
     snookered by this feint. The procedures under which it is to 
     be debated, allowing only meaningless amendments to be 
     considered, are an insult also--to the democratic process.
       At best the bill would marginally improve the existing 
     arrangement of minimal disclosure, laxly enforced. Reporting 
     by lobbyists would be quarterly instead of twice yearly and 
     slightly more detailed (with listings of lobbyists' campaign 
     contributions--already available elsewhere--along with gifts 
     to lawmakers and contributions to their charities). Nothing 
     would crimp lawmakers' lifestyles: Still allowed would be 
     meals, gifts (skybox seats at sporting events, say) and cut-
     rate flights on corporate jets. Privately sponsored travel 
     would be suspended, but only until just after the election.
       The provisions on earmarks are similarly feeble. Lawmakers 
     who insert pet projects in spending bills would have to 
     attach their names to them--but that's all. If that happens, 
     these provisions wouldn't be subject to challenge. Earmark 
     reform that wouldn't allow a vote to stop future ``Bridges to 
     Nowhere'' isn't real reform.
       Matching the anemic measure is the undemocratic procedure 
     under which it will be ``debated'' on the House floor. Nine 
     amendments are to be considered, including such tough-love 
     provisions as ``voluntary ethics training'' for members and 
     holding lobbyists liable for knowingly offering gifts whose 
     value exceeds the gift limit. (Not to worry: Legislators 
     wouldn't be liable for accepting them.) The Rules Committee 
     refused to permit votes on amendments to strengthen the 
     measure, including proposals to establish an independent 
     ethics office; to require lawmakers to pay full freight for 
     chartered flights; or to double the waiting period for 
     lawmakers to lobby their former colleagues from one year to 
     two. Neither would the majority risk an up-or-down vote on 
     the much more robust Democratic alternative.
       Democrats tempted to vote for this sham because they're 
     scared of 30-second ads that accuse them of opposing lobbying 
     reform ought to ask themselves whether they really think so 
     little of their constituents. As for Republicans willing to 
     settle for this legislative fig leaf, they ought to listen to 
     Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.). ``I happen to

[[Page H2013]]

     believe we are losing our moral authority to lead this 
     place,'' Mr. Shays said on the House floor last week. He was 
     generous not to have put that in the past tense.
                                  ____


                    [From USA Today, April 24, 2006]

                          Snow Job on Lobbying

       Congress still doesn't get it. After more than a year of 
     negative headlines about political corruption and money-
     soaked alliances with lobbyists, House leaders are weakening 
     their already anemic excuse for reform.
       They hope to pass the plan this week and then, with the 
     glowing pride of grandees doling pennies to the poor, con the 
     public into believing they're actually giving up enough of 
     their prized perks to make a difference.
       The plan--pushed by Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier 
     and Majority leader John Boehner contains a few enticing 
     illusions, such as modest changes in disclosure rules and 
     pork-barrel spending restraints. But it's far from anything 
     lobbyists might fear. In light of the tawdry political 
     culture exposed by the sprawling case of super lobbyist Jack 
     Abramoff, awaiting sentencing in Washington, the measure is 
     most noteworthy for what it would fail to do:
       Cushy travel paid for by private groups--a device lobbyists 
     use to buy favors--would be banned, but only until after the 
     election. Next year, it would be back to business as usual.
       Lobbyists would be barred from flying on corporate jets 
     with members of Congress, a response to calls to abolish this 
     cozy form of special-interest access. But nothing would 
     prevent executives who aren't registered lobbyists from 
     continuing to do the same thing. And nothing would alter the 
     practice of routinely making these planes available for 
     members' political or personal trips at deeply subsidized 
     fares.
       There's no provision for creating a much-needed 
     independent, non-partisan Office of Public Integrity to give 
     credibility to probes of ethics complaints. Ethics committees 
     of the Senate and House of Representatives have proven 
     inadequate for the task.
       House Republican leaders have dropped proposed requirements 
     that lobbyists disclose which lawmakers and aides they have 
     contacted and how they have raised money for politicians. As 
     a result, lobbyists banned from paying $100 for a 
     congressman's restaurant dinner would remain free to pay 
     $25,000 or $50,000 to underwrite a fundraising party to 
     ``honor'' the member.
       Most rules allowing members of Congress and their staffs to 
     accept gifts from lobbyists would remain unchanged.
       The sorry record of this Congress cries out for real 
     reform, not a toothless sham. One member has been sent to 
     prison for extorting bribes from lobbyists and favor-seekers. 
     Former House majority leader Tom Delay is under indictment on 
     political money-laundering charges, two of his former aides 
     have pleaded guilty to corruption charges, and he's quitting 
     because he fears the voters' backlash. At least a half-dozen 
     other members, from both parties, are under investigation by 
     various federal agencies on everything from bribery to 
     insider trading.
       Not coincidentally, polls show public disillusionment with 
     Congress at the highest levels in more than a decade. This is 
     fueled in part by the lobbying and corruption scandals that 
     show special interests and self-interest trumping the public 
     interest.
       If the self-righteous incumbents can't do better than this 
     outrageous substitute for needed reform, they will deserve to 
     be defeated in November.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Apr. 30, 2006]

                     Now You See It, Now You Don't

       The inclusion of something termed ``ethics training'' in 
     the House Republican majority's pending lobbying reform bill 
     is the ultimate touch of drollery. It is a public relations 
     kiss-off acknowledging growing concern about the appearance 
     of scandalous money ties between Congressional campaigners 
     and their claques of loyal lobbyists. At the same time, it is 
     clear notice that this ethically challenged Congress has no 
     intention of doing anything serious about reform. The House 
     majority leader, John Boehner, conceded as much in observing, 
     ``The status quo is a powerful force.''
       As it is, Mr. Boehner has had to drag his members kicking 
     and screaming to a vote this week on the cut-and-paste 
     figments of reform that the House G.O.P. will be peddling to 
     the voters this fall. The bill is even weaker than the 
     Senate's half-hearted measure. Rather than banning gifts and 
     campaign money from lobbyists, the bill embraces disclosure--
     the equivalent of price lists for the cost of doing business 
     with a given lawmaker. A bipartisan attempt at true reform 
     was squelched as non-germane, as if the need to create an 
     independent ethics enforcement body is not obvious by now 
     after the lobbyist corruption story of Jack Abramoff and his 
     back-door power over lawmakers.
       The Democrats are right to oppose the measure. Some 
     Republicans, worried that it will be properly perceived as 
     the Bill to Nowhere, did point out loopholes in the proposal 
     to rein in the pork-barrel earmark gimmickry dear to 
     lawmakers and lobbyists. But no credible fix was made.
                                  ____


              [From the Houston Chronicle, Apr. 26, 2006]

                            Stillborn Reform

       After tough jawboning about ethics reform in response to 
     the scandal centered on convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, 
     House Republican leaders have produced legislation that mocks 
     its title, the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act 
     of 2006.
       In fact, the bill does little to increase accountability in 
     the lawmaker-lobbyist relationship and is transparent only in 
     its display of political showmanship and the absence of 
     substance. Even after the conviction of a California 
     congressman for bribery, the guilty pleas of two former aides 
     to U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay and the widening net of the federal 
     Abramoff probe, Congress, seems to be falling back into a 
     ``What, me worry?'' posture.
       The House version that might be voted on this week is even 
     weaker than its Senate counterpart, which government watchdog 
     groups criticized as toothless. Jettisoned from the proposal 
     were strictures on gifts to elected officials and a 
     requirement that legislators pay private charter rates for 
     transportation on corporate jets. A ban on elected officials' 
     acceptance of free junkets from private groups will extend 
     only until after the next election, an indication that 
     Congress lacks the resolve to give up a major perk.
       Dropped by the wayside was a plan to invigorate the 
     slumbering congressional ethics committees with an 
     independent public integrity office. Also deleted were 
     requirements that lobbyists disclose contacts with lawmakers 
     and fund-raising efforts on their behalf, a system that 
     allows lobbyists to funnel other people's campaign cash to 
     buy influence with key officials. A spokeswoman for House 
     Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier, R-Calif., told Roll 
     Call the provision was removed because it ``could have a 
     chilling effect on lobbying.''
       Given the disproportionate influence of highly paid special 
     interest advocates on the legislative process in Washington, 
     we thought limiting lobbyist clout over lawmakers was the 
     whole point of reform. Dreier is apparently more concerned 
     with the health and welfare of lobbyists than his own 
     legislative body's reputation.
       In a letter to lawmakers, a coalition of pro-reform groups 
     appealed for the defeat of the legislation and the enactment 
     of tough measures to rein in the influence of lobbyists. 
     According to the missive, ``H.R. 4975 represents an effort by 
     Members to have it both ways--holding on to the financial 
     benefits and perks they receive from lobbyists and other 
     special interests, while claiming that they have dealt with 
     the lobbying and ethics problems in Congress. . . . The 
     public will not be fooled by this phony game.''
       Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer said the House bill 
     ``is apparently based on the premise that you can fool all of 
     the people all of the time.'' He points out the misleading 
     language of the legislation, including ``a section called 
     `Curbing Lobbyists' Gifts' that doesn't curb gifts from 
     lobbyists, and a section called, `Slowing the Revolving 
     Door,' that contains no provisions to slow the revolving 
     door.''
       How many more members of Congress, their aides and 
     lobbyists have to be convicted of fraud, bribery and abuse of 
     voter's trust before legislators get the message that the 
     public is serious about ethics reform?
       In pretending that their bill is something other than a 
     self-serving sham, House leaders demonstrate just how out of 
     touch they are. If it passes, the next chance for ethics 
     reform may come at the polls in November.
                                  ____


                 [From Star-Telegram.com, May 3, 2006]

       ``One of the Greatest Legislative Scams That I Have Seen''

                            (By Molly Ivins)

       Austin.--Either the ``lobby reform bill'' is the 
     contemptible, cheesy, shoddy piece of hypocrisy that it 
     appears to be . . . or the Republicans have a sense of humor.
       The ``lobby reform'' bill does show, one could argue, a 
     sort of cheerful, defiant, flipping-the-bird-at-the-public 
     attitude that could pass for humor. You have to admit that 
     calling this an ``ethics bill'' requires brass bravura.
       House Republicans returned last week from a two-week recess 
     prepared to vote for ``a relatively tepid ethics bill,'' as 
     The Washington Post put it, because they said their 
     constituents rarely mentioned the issue.
       Forget all that talk back in January when Jack Abramoff was 
     indicted. What restrictions on meals and gifts from 
     lobbyists? More golfing trips! According to Rep. Nancy L. 
     Johnson of Connecticut, former chairwoman of the House ethics 
     committee, passage of the bill will have no political 
     consequences ``because people are quite convinced that the 
     rhetoric of reform is just political.''
       Where could they have gotten that idea? Rep. David Hobson, 
     R-Ohio, told the Post, ``We panicked, and we let the media 
     get us panicked.''
       By George, here's the right way to think of it: The entire 
     Congress lies stinking in open corruption, but they can't let 
     the media panic them. They're actually proud of not cleaning 
     it up.
       The House bill passed a procedural vote last week, 216-207, 
     and it is scheduled for floor debate and a final vote today--
     which gives citizens who don't like being conned a chance to 
     speak. Now is the time for a little Cain-raising.
       Chellie Pingree of Common Cause said, ``This legislation is 
     so weak it's embarrassing.'' Fred Wertheimer, president of 
     Democracy 21 and a longtime worker in reformist vineyards, 
     said: ``This bill is based on the

[[Page H2014]]

     premise that you can fool all of the people all of the time. 
     This is an attempt at one of the greatest legislative scams 
     that I have seen in 30 years of working on these issues.''
       Come on, people, get mad. You deserve to be treated with 
     contempt if you let them get away with this.
       I'm sorry that all these procedural votes seem so picayune, 
     and I know the cost of gas and health insurance are more 
     immediate worries. But it is precisely the corruption of 
     Congress by big money that allows the oil and insurance 
     industries to get away with these fantastic rip-offs.
       Watching Washington be taken over by these little sleaze 
     merchants is not only expensive and repulsive--it is 
     destroying America, destroying any sense we ever had that 
     we're a nation, not 298 million individuals cheating to get 
     ahead.
       I'm sorry that these creeps in Congress have so little 
     sense of what they're supposed to be about that they think 
     it's fine to sneer at ethics. But they work for us. It's our 
     job to keep them under control until we can replace them. 
     Time to get up off our rears and take some responsibility. 
     Let them hear from you.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Apr. 26, 2006]

                      The Lobbyist Empowerment Act

       The House Republican leaders managed a new feat of 
     cravenness during the recent recess, hollowing out their long 
     promised ``lobbying reform'' bill to meet the dictates of--
     who else?--Washington's power lobbyists.
       During two weeks of supposed inactivity, the leadership 
     bill was chiseled down at the behest of K Street to an 
     Orwellian shell of righteous platitudes about transparency 
     and integrity. The measure to be debated this week has been 
     stripped of provisions to require full disclosure of 
     lobbyists' campaign fund-raising powers and V.I.P. access in 
     Congress. The measure buries all attempts at instituting 
     credible ethics enforcement in the House.
       The nation should not be fooled. The proposal is a 
     cadaverous pretense that Congress has learned the corrupting 
     lessons of Jack Abramoff, the disgraced superlobbyist; 
     Representative Tom DeLay, the fallen majority leader; and 
     Duke Cunningham, the imprisoned former congressman. It makes 
     a laughingstock of the pious promises of last January to ban 
     privately financed junketeering by lawmakers. Instead, these 
     adventures in quid pro quo lawmaking would be suspended only 
     temporarily, safe to blossom again after the next election.
       The bill's cosmetic requirements for limited disclosure are 
     overshadowed by the brazen refusal to plug the loopholes for 
     lobbyists' gifts or to end their lavish parties for 
     ``honoring'' our all too easily seduced lawmakers. The G.O.P. 
     leaders can't even marshal the courage to rein in the 
     shameful use of corporate jets by pliant lawmakers.
       It's hard to believe that members of Congress mindful of 
     voters' diminishing respect would attempt such an election-
     year con. One Republican proponent had the gall to argue that 
     we mustn't ``chill'' the right of lobbyists, the ultimate 
     insiders, to petition government.
       The true measure of the debate will be whether the House 
     continues to suppress a bipartisan package of vigorous 
     reforms offered by Martin Meehan, the Massachusetts Democrat, 
     and Christopher Shays, the Connecticut Republican. These 
     measures would at long last galvanize ethics enforcement and 
     crimp the disgraceful symbiosis of lobbyist and lawmaker on 
     Capitol Hill.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Apr. 25, 2006]

                          Sham Lobbying Reform

       Do you remember, back when the spotlight was on Jack 
     Abramoff, how House Republican leaders pledged to get tough 
     on lobbyists? Well, you may; apparently they don't. The House 
     plans this week to take up the Lobbying Accountability and 
     Transparency Act of 2006, a watered-down sham that would 
     provide little in the way of accountability or transparency. 
     If the Senate-passed measure was a disappointment, the House 
     version is simply a joke--or, more accurately, a ruse aimed 
     at convincing what the leaders must believe is doltish public 
     that the House has done something to clean up Washington.
       Privately paid travel, such as the lavish golfing trips to 
     Scotland that Mr. Abramoff arranged for members? ``Private 
     travel has been abused by some, and I believe we need to put 
     an end to it,'' said Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill). But 
     that was January; this is now. Privately funded trips 
     wouldn't be banned under the House bill, just ``suspended'' 
     until Dec. 15 (yes, just after the election) while the House 
     ethics committee, that bastion of anemic do-nothingness, 
     ostensibly develops recommendations.
       Meals and other gifts from lobbyists? ``I believe that it's 
     also very important for us to proceed with a significantly 
     stronger gift ban, which would prevent members and staff from 
     personally benefiting from gifts from lobbyists,'' said Rules 
     Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) in--you guessed 
     it--January. Now, Mr. Dreier's bill would leave the current 
     gift limits unchanged.
       Flights on corporate jets? No problem; the bill wouldn't 
     permit corporate lobbyists to tag along, but other corporate 
     officials are welcome aboard while lawmakers get the benefits 
     of private jets at the cost of a first-class ticket.
       Mr. Dreier's Rules Committee took an already weak House 
     bill and made it weaker. From the version of the measure 
     approved by the House Judiciary Committee, it dropped 
     provisions that would require lobbyists to disclose 
     fundraisers they host for candidates, campaign checks they 
     solicit for lawmakers and parties they finance (at 
     conventions, for example) in honor of members.
       The bill would require more frequent reporting by lobbyists 
     and somewhat more detail. Lobbyists would have to list their 
     campaign contributions--information that's available 
     elsewhere but nonetheless convenient to have on disclosure 
     forms. And some additional information would have to be 
     disclosed--meals or gifts that lobbyists provide to 
     lawmakers, along with contributions to their charities. Some 
     lawmakers want to strengthen the bill. But will the Rules 
     Committee allow their proposals to be considered? Rep. 
     Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) would require lawmakers to pay 
     market rates for corporate charters. Mr. Shays and Rep. 
     Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) would supplement the paralyzed 
     House ethics committee with an independent congressional 
     ethics office--needed now more than ever. House Democrats 
     have a far more robust version of lobbying reform that 
     deserves an up-or-down vote. Having produced a bill this bad, 
     the Rules Committee ought at least to give lawmakers an 
     opportunity to vote for something better.

  Mr. Chairman, the sad thing I think here is that, as hard as we all 
worked, the Democrat amendments were not allowed. We had one out of the 
nine that are here today, and our package of rules changes and lobbying 
reforms were not allowed, but we will have a chance to vote for those 
on the motion to recommit, and I urge people to do that.
  The esteemed Houston Chronicle columnist, Craig Hines, recently wrote 
that I and my Democrat colleagues are right to assail the lobbying 
reform bill last week, but he did not let us off the hook. There is one 
thing we did not do, Mr. Hines said, we should have been tougher, and 
he is right. There is no need to mince any words here. The issue at 
hand is just too important to allow for pleasantries.
  This bill is a sham; and by promoting it as a real reform measure, 
Republicans are lying to the American people.
  Consider what Mr. Hines said about it. ``The bill,'' he wrote, ``is 
designed to get the ruling Republicans past the November election. 
Period.'' He said that with this bill Republicans are hoping to ``keep 
control of the House with a minimum change in the way the majority 
party has come to do business.''
  And he is not alone. Every major editorial board in the country has 
roundly denounced this legislation. Today's Washington Post calls it 
``deluded snake oil'' and said that it ``is an insult to voters who the 
GOP apparently believes are dumb enough to be snookered by this 
feint.''
  Last week's Roll Call said the bill ``makes a mockery of its own 
title''; and the New York Times, calling it the ``lobbyist empowerment 
act,'' noted that the Republicans have buried ``all attempts at 
instituting credible ethics enforcement in the House.''
  The person who is head of the lobbying organization, when asked about 
it, he said, oh, that little thing, absolutely in his belief saying 
there is nothing here.
  To my friends on both sides of the aisle, your constituents are 
watching. If you vote for this bill, you are telling them that you are 
not serious about ethics reform. You are saying that you accept the 
leadership that promotes dishonest legislation and one that brazenly 
lies what its bills will do.
  Despite Republican proclamations to the contrary, the scope of what 
this bill does not do is nothing short of stunning.
  In January, the Speaker of the House, Representative Hastert, called 
for an end to privately funded travel, but this bill does not end it. 
It merely bans it until December, one month after the election, when 
the Ethics Committee is supposed to weigh in on the matter. Of course, 
Republicans have shut down the Ethics Committee for a year and a half, 
and I do not expect it to rule on anything significant anytime soon.
  Back in January, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Representative 
Dreier, said we should institute a much stronger gift ban, but the bill 
does not do that either.
  Last week in the Rules Committee, Republicans voted down 20 more 
commonsense Democratic amendments out of 21 submitted, and that is 95 
percent. They rejected an amendment that would prohibit securities 
trading by

[[Page H2015]]

Members and their staff based on nonpublic information. They vetoed a 
requirement that top officials report contacts that they have with 
private parties seeking to influence government action. They turned 
down a ban on gifts from lobbyists and an end to the inherently anti-
Democratic K Street project.
  Mr. Chairman, these endless omissions would be bad enough on their 
own, but the real reason why this legislation is such a disappointment, 
the real reason why it is such a missed opportunity to create the 
reform Americans are demanding is that it does nothing, nothing, to fix 
the battered and broken political process of this Congress.

                              {time}  1330

  The rules of the House and the procedures enshrined within it during 
our first two centuries as a Nation were conscientiously designed to be 
a vaccine against corruption in this body by maintaining an open and 
transparent legislative process, by allowing bills to be debated and 
amended, by permitting Members of Congress to actually read and reflect 
upon legislation before they are forced to vote on it. Through these 
means, Congress was supposed to be freed from the temptations of 
corruption that our Founding Fathers knew lurked in the shadows. But 
during the last 11 years of the Republican leadership, those shadows 
have spread, and today, it is hard to see the light anymore.
  The results have been as outrageous as they have been predictable. 
Corruption has become commonplace. Members no longer need to fear 
public scrutiny of their actions because they work in secret, as do the 
lobbyists who court them and whom they court in return, all 35,000 of 
them. Nor do they need to forge agreements with others to get 
provisions through the House; they just slip them into large bills 
without telling anyone.
  The system is broken, and as long as it is broken, it will remain 
corrupt. This bill was supposed to change this abysmal reality, but it 
will not change a thing. If we pass this legislation as it is written, 
secret last-minute perks and protections for big business will still be 
routinely added to the conference reports. The Rules Committee will 
still deny anyone not in the majority the right to amend legislation. 
Major thousand-page bills will still be dropped on the desk of Members 
only minutes before they have to vote for them. And when the time for 
the votes has come, the arm twisting and influence peddling on the very 
floor of this House will continue unabated, and it will go on 10 
minutes, 20 minutes, an hour, even 3 hours after votes have officially 
ended, whatever it takes to jam the agenda of the majority through the 
gears of our deteriorating democracy.
  None of these un-American shameful practices are even addressed in 
this bill, let alone prohibited. And then, as far as the majority is 
concerned, that will be that. The public cried out for reform after 
they realized the degree to which their trust and good will were being 
abused, and the Republicans promised change, but they have gone back on 
their word. This is the very opposite of a reform bill. It is instead a 
steadfast and cynical defense of an indefensible status quo.
  Mr. Chairman, let me again address my friends on both sides of the 
aisle. Some of you may be afraid that a vote against this bill will be 
portrayed by your opponents back home as a vote against reform. But it 
does not have to be that way because you do have a choice here today. I 
will be offering a substitute in the form of a motion to recommit that 
will do everything the Republican bill does not and will deliver 
everything that the American people expect from lobbying reform: it 
will ban travel on corporate jets as well as gifts and meals from 
lobbyists. It will shut down the K Street Project. It will end the 
practice of adding special interest provisions to conference reports in 
the dead of night. It will increase transparency for all earmarks, 
toughen lobbyist disclosure requirements and, most importantly, set up 
a structure for real enforcement of lobbyist requirements.
  Today is a moment of truth for this Congress. You can vote for the 
Republican bill before us and tell an entire Nation that you really do 
not care about what it thinks, or you can vote ``yes'' on the motion to 
recommit and pass the Democratic substitute. I urge my colleagues in 
the strongest possible words to do what is right for this Congress and 
for this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I have not been in 
Alice in Wonderland until I heard my colleague talk about it. So much 
for bipartisan comity. I am very proud to be working with Democrats on 
this important legislation, but as I listen to this mischaracterization 
of our strong bipartisan reform effort, I am somewhat stunned.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 4 minutes to an individual who 
has worked as hard or harder than anyone on this issue of reform, the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct, my Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Pasco, 
Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
support of H.R. 4975, the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act. 
Mr. Chairman, the American people have every right to expect the 
highest ethical standards here in the people's House.
  In order to uphold the integrity of Congress as an institution, we 
must go a step further to enhance transparency and accountability with 
respect to lobbying activities. The Lobbying Accountability and 
Transparency Act does just that while preserving the right of Americans 
to petition their government.
  Much like other bills that are brought to this floor, this bill is a 
compromise, and I would like to commend Chairman Dreier for seeking 
input from Members on both sides of the aisle, but especially for the 
long, hard work that he has worked on this issue since the turn of the 
year. This was no easy task. And as the chairman said, this is only the 
start of the process. But because this is a compromise, I believe that 
there are areas in which this bill can be improved. For that reason, I 
am pleased that we will have an opportunity to consider an amendment 
later today that I have cosponsored that will further improve the bill 
with regard to privately funded travel for Members of Congress.
  Much concern has been raised in recent months over abuse of House 
rules that permit Members and staff to accept privately funded travel 
connected with the performance of their official duties. Upon passage 
by the House, the legislation before us today would temporarily suspend 
such travel and direct the Ethics Committee to propose to the House new 
rules for approving and disclosing privately funded travel.
  As several of my colleagues will note later on, I am sure, and have 
noted in the past, privately funded travel often serves a very useful 
purpose, and the temporary suspension is not intended to signal that 
something is inherently wrong with these private trips. Instead, the 
temporary suspension recognizes that, until a new travel system can be 
put in place, Members taking such trips do so at considerable risk of 
public criticism that is in many instances unwarranted.
  For that reason, the bipartisan Lungren-George Miller-Hastings-
Berman-Cole amendment was proposed as a stop gap measure designed to 
protect Members and staff who have already made plans to travel during 
the 6 weeks between now and mid-June when the House is expected to act 
on recommendations for new travel rules to be proposed by the Ethics 
Committee.
  Very simply, our amendment provides that privately funded travel may 
be accepted during this interim period whenever two-thirds members of 
the Ethics Committee vote to approve the proposed trip. This mechanism, 
which will be in place for only a relatively short period of time, will 
make it possible for worthwhile trips to go forward while ensuring that 
all privately funded travel is carefully scrutinized for compliance 
with applicable House rules.
  I am pleased that several of my distinguished colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, including the new ranking minority member of the 
Ethics Committee, Mr. Berman, have had a hand in crafting this interim 
travel approval mechanism. I look forward to working closely with Mr. 
Berman not only to

[[Page H2016]]

ensure that this process runs smoothly but also on a bipartisan basis 
to develop clear and workable rules for approving privately funded 
travel that the Ethics Committee will communicate to all Members and 
staff.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill 
because it does nothing to reduce corruption and lobbying.
  Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment that was adopted in the Judiciary 
Committee. That language was subsequently stripped from the bill by the 
Rules Committee. That amendment would have simply required a study of 
the practice by which some lobbyists appear to be charging percentage 
contingent fees for obtaining earmarks in appropriations bills. Now, 
when you combine that idea with the K Street Project where you are 
supposed to be hiring a Republican lobbyist who is supposed to be 
contributing back to the legislators, you can see just how ugly a 
practice this can be. My amendment would have simply asked for a study 
of the prevalence of that practice.
  Mr. Chairman, these kinds of contracts are illegal when lobbyists are 
representing foreign governments and are illegal in some activities 
involving the Executive Branch. They are illegal in 39 State 
legislatures. However, it does not appear to be illegal lobbying 
Congress under Federal law. The Congressional Research Service in a 
memorandum dated September 21, 2000 cites a legal treatise which says 
that these contracts furnish the strongest incentive to the exertion of 
corrupting and sinister influences and are utterly void against public 
policy.
  Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was cited in that same 
memorandum as saying that they have a tendency in such contracts to 
provide incentives towards corruption. In fact, an 1853 Supreme Court 
case said that common law will not lend its aid to enforce a contract 
to do an act which is inconsistent with sound morals or public policy, 
or which tends to corrupt or contaminate by improper influences the 
integrity of our social or political institutions.
  Mr. Chairman, true lobbying reform ought to remove corruption from 
lobbying, and if we are going to be serious about that, we ought to at 
least study the prevalence of these contracts which everybody knows has 
a corrupting influence. By removing the amendment, it is clear that 
that was not the purpose of the bill, and I urge my colleagues to 
oppose the legislation.

                               Congressional Research Service,

                                   Washington, DC, Sept. 21, 2000.


                               memorandum

     Subject: Contingency Fees for Lobbying Activities.
     From: Jack Maskell, Legislative Attorney, American Law 
         Division.
       This memorandum is prepared in response to requests from 
     congressional offices for information about whether one may 
     lawfully have a contingency fee arrangement for ``lobbying'' 
     activities in which the fee for such lobbying activities is 
     contingent upon the success of ``lobbying'' efforts in having 
     legislation passed in the United States Congress.
       There is no statute under federal law which expressly 
     addresses the issue of contingency fees with respect to all 
     lobbying activities generally before the Congress. 
     Contingency fees may be expressly barred, however, under 
     certain circumstances. There is in federal law an express 
     prohibition against contingency fee arrangements with respect 
     to seeking certain contracts with the agencies of the Federal 
     Government. Activities which might generally or colloquially 
     be called ``lobbying,'' but which involve making 
     representations on behalf of private parties before federal 
     agencies to obtain certain government contracts, may thus be 
     subject to the contingency prohibitions. The reason for such 
     ban has been explained as follows: ``Contractors' 
     arrangements to pay contingent fees for soliciting or 
     obtaining Government contracts have long been considered 
     contrary to public policy because such arrangements may lead 
     to attempted or actual exercise of improper influence ....''
       Contingency fees are also prohibited for lobbying the 
     Congress by persons who must register as agents of foreign 
     principals under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The 
     prohibition is upon agreements where the amount of payment 
     ``is contingent in whole or in part upon the success of any 
     political activities carried on by such agent.'' The covered 
     ``political activities'' of such agents under the Foreign 
     Agents Registration Act include any activity which the agent 
     ``intends to, in any way influence any agency or official of 
     the Government of the United States ... with reference to 
     formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign 
     policies of the United States ...,'' and thus include the 
     activities of ``lobbying'' Members and staff of Congress on 
     legislation or appropriations.
       Although there is no general, express federal law barring 
     all contingency fees for successful lobbying before Congress, 
     there is a long history of judicial precedent and traditional 
     judicial opinion which indicates that such contingency fee 
     arrangements, when in reference to ``lobbying'' and the use 
     of influence before a legislature on general legislation, are 
     void from their origin (ab initio) for public policy reasons, 
     and therefore would be denied enforcement in the courts. In 
     some instances contingency fee arrangements based on the 
     success of legislation have been upheld in a few courts, 
     however, when the duties contracted for were professional 
     services that did not involve traditional, statutorily 
     defined ``lobbying'' or the use of personal influence before 
     the legislature, or where the client had a legitimate claim 
     or legal right to be asserted in a matter before the 
     legislature (e.g., ``debt legislation'').
       The concern of potential temptations from overzealousness 
     and undue influences which certain ``all or nothing'' 
     contingency arrangements might engender has also been the 
     reason behind the public policy disfavoring contingency fees 
     in the case of lobbying the legislature. As summarized in one 
     legal treatise: ``Agreements under which the compensation for 
     procuring or influencing legislative action is made 
     contingent upon the success of the undertaking 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 which holds 
     that if the agreement is one in which the compensation is 
     contingent upon success in accomplishing the end sought, it 
     is utterly void as against public policy.''
       The United Stats Supreme Court addressed the issue in 
     Hazelton v. Sheckells, in 1906. In that case the Court 
     refused specific performance of a contract to convey a deed 
     as compensation for services where ``the services 
     contemplated as a partial consideration of the promise to 
     convey were services in procuring legislation upon a matter 
     of public interest, in respect of which neither of the 
     parties had any claim against the United States.'' As 
     established in the conveyance document, such agreement 
     ``was in substance a contingent fee,'' dependent upon the 
     passage of legislation by the Congress. Justice Oliver 
     Wendell Holmes, writing for the Court, explained that it 
     was the ``tendency'' in such contract agreements to 
     provide incentives towards corruption, and not necessarily 
     any actual corrupt activity in a particular contract or 
     case, that made these contingent arrangements void for 
     public policy reasons. Thus, the Court found that even 
     though the services in this case were legitimate, that 
     ``[t]he objection to them rests in their tendency, not in 
     what was done in the particular case,'' especially since 
     if there had been undue or improper influence ``it 
     probably would be hidden and would not appear.'' The Court 
     stated that ``in its inception'' the contingency fee 
     arrangement ``necessarily invited and tended to induce 
     improper solicitations, and it intensified the inducement 
     by the contingency of the reward.'' The Court found that 
     earlier Supreme Court precedent had established ``that all 
     contracts for a contingent compensation for obtaining 
     legislation were void,'' and refused to enforce the 
     contract in question.
       The judicial disfavor expressed by the Supreme Court for 
     contingency contracts for lobbying on general legislation 
     dates back at least to 1853, when in Marshal v. Baltimore & 
     Ohio R.R., supra, the Court with reference to secret 
     contingent contracts explained:
       ``It is an undoubted principle of the common law, that it 
     will not lend its aid to enforce a contract to do an act . . 
     . which is inconsistent with sound morals or public policy; 
     or which tends to corrupt or contaminate, by improper 
     influences, the integrity of our social or political 
     institutions. . . . Legislators should act from high 
     consideration of public duty. Public policy and sound 
     morality do therefore imperatively require that courts should 
     put the stamp of disapprobation on every act, and pronounce 
     void every contract the ultimate or probable tendency of 
     which would be to sully the purity or mislead the judgments 
     of those to whom the high trust of legislation is confided.
       ``. . . Bribes in the shape of high contingent 
     compensation, must necessarily lead to the use of improper 
     means and the exercise of undue influence. Their necessary 
     consequence is the demoralization of the agent who covenants 
     for them; he is soon brought to believe that any means which 
     will produce so beneficial a result to himself are ``proper 
     means''; and that a share of these profits may have the same 
     effect of quickening the perceptions and warming the zeal of 
     influential or ``careless'' members in favor of his bill.''
       In a more recent federal case on this subject, a United 
     States Court of Appeals in 1996, in Florida League of 
     Professional Lobbyists, Inc. v. Meggs, upheld against a 
     constitutional challenge on First Amendment

[[Page H2017]]

     grounds the State of Florida's specific legislative ban on 
     contingency fee contracts for lobbying. The court there 
     reaffirmed, albeit reluctantly, the long-recognized judicial 
     precedents concerning the general public policy against such 
     contingency fees for lobbying. The court noted that there was 
     no direct precedent overturning the older Supreme Court cases 
     directly on point on contingency fees and lobbying, but did 
     seem sympathetic and responsive to the plaintiff's arguments 
     that more modern cases on the First Amendment and 
     compensation for advocacy might eventually warrant a 
     different outcome on this issue:
       ``Florida points out that in cases decided well before the 
     articulation of `exacting scrutiny,' the Supreme Court 
     specifically held that contracts to lobby for a legislative 
     result, with the fee contingent on a favorable legislative 
     outcome, were void ab initio as against public policy . . . 
     [citations omitted]. The League does not contest the 
     applicability of these older decisions to this case. And, we 
     are persuaded that these decisions permit a legislature to 
     prohibit contingent compensation. The League, however, 
     suggested at argument that the extensive, interim 
     developments of First Amendment law established conclusively 
     that the Supreme Court today would strike a contingent-fee 
     ban on lobbying.
       ``This prediction may be accurate, but we are not at 
     liberty to disregard binding case law that is so closely on 
     point and has been only weakened, rather than directly 
     overruled, by the Supreme Court.''
       As to State statutory bans on contingency fees for 
     lobbying, it should be noted that as of this writing most of 
     the States (39) have existing in their state codes an express 
     prohibition against such contingency fees for lobbying 
     activities. See, for example, Alabama (Sec. 36-25-23(c), 
     Michie's Ala. Code); Alaska (sec. 24.45.121 (a)(6), Alaska 
     Statutes); Arizona (sec. 41-1233(1), Arizona Rev. Statutes); 
     California (Government Code, Sec. 86205(f), Annotated Calif. 
     Codes); Colorado (sec. 24-6-308, Colorado Rev. Statutes); 
     Connecticut (Sec. 1-97(b), Conn. Gen. Statutes Ann.); Florida 
     (Sec. 11.047 [legislature]; Sec. 112.3217 [executive branch], 
     Florida Statutes Ann.); Georgia (sec. 28-7-3, Official Code 
     of Georgia Ann.); Hawaii (sec. 97-5, Hawaii Rev. Statutes 
     Ann.); Idaho (sec. 67-6621(b)(6), Idaho Code); Illinois 
     (S.H.A. 25 ILCS 170/8); Indiana (sec. 2-7-5-5, Burns Ind. 
     Statutes Ann.); Kansas (sec. 46-267, Kansas Statutes Ann.); 
     Kentucky (sec. 6.811(9), Kentucky Rev. Statutes); Maine 
     (Title 3, Sec. 318, Maine Rev. Statutes Ann.); Maryland 
     (State Government, Sec. 15-706, Michie's Ann. Code of Md.); 
     Massachusetts (Ch. 3, Sec. 42, Mass. Gen. Laws Ann.); 
     Michigan (sec. 4.421(1) Mich. Compiled Laws Ann.); 
     Minnesota (sec. 10A.06, Minn. Statutes Ann.); Mississippi 
     (sec. 5-8-13(1), West's Ann. Miss. Code); Nebraska (sec. 
     49-1492(1), Revised Statutes of Neb.); Nevada (sec. 
     218.942(4), Nev. Revised Statutes Ann.); New Mexico (sec. 
     2-11-8, New Mexico Statutes); New York (Book 31, 
     Legislative Law, Sec. 1-k, McKinney's Consolidated Laws of 
     N.Y. Ann.); North Carolina (sec. 120-47.5(1), Gen. 
     Statutes of N.C.); North Dakota (54-05.1-06, N.D. Century 
     Code Ann.); Ohio (sec. 101-77, Page's Ohio Rev. Code 
     Ann.); Oklahoma (Title 21, Sec. 334, Oklahoma Statutes 
     Ann.); Oregon (sec. 171.756(3), Oregon Rev. Statutes); 
     Pennsylvania (65 Pa. Cons. Statutes Ann. Sec. 1307(a)); 
     Rhode Island (sec. 22-10-12, Gen. Laws of R.I.); South 
     Carolina (Sec. 2-17-110(A), Code of Laws of S.C.); South 
     Dakota (sec. 2-12-6, S.D. Codified Laws); Texas 
     (Government Code, 305.022, Vernon's Texas Codes Ann.); 
     Utah (sec. 36-11-301 (Utah Code Ann.); Vermont (Title 2, 
     266(1), Vt. Statutes Ann.); Virginia (Sec. 2.1-791, Code 
     of Va.); Washington (Sec. 42.17.230(f), West's Rev. Code 
     of Wash. Ann.); Wisconsin (sec. 13.625(d), Wise. Statutes 
     Ann.).
       As noted, the weight of judicial opinion has been either to 
     uphold such restrictions against challenges, or in some cases 
     in the absence of an express statute to judicially find such 
     contingency fee arrangements void for public policy reasons. 
     In one instance in the 1980's, however, a provision, enacted 
     as a result of a state initiative, barring all contingency 
     fees for legislative lobbying activities was struck down by a 
     state court as an overbroad intrusion into the right to 
     petition the government. The Supreme Court of Montana found 
     the law ``overbroad because it precludes contingent fee 
     agreements that are properly motivated as well as those that 
     are improperly motivated'' and as such, the ``ability of 
     individuals and organizations to fully exercise their right 
     to petition the government may be severely curtailed by this 
     broad prohibition.''
       While the existing state of the law is clearly for most 
     States to continue to expressly prohibit by law contingency 
     fee agreements with respect to legislative lobbying on 
     general legislation, and to have those prohibitions upheld 
     (or to consider such contingency agreements void for public 
     policy reasons where there is no express law, as is the case 
     with respect to lobbying before Congress), other 
     interpretations have permitted such arrangements where an 
     agent, attorney or representative is seeking legislation 
     based upon a claim or similar legal interest or right to be 
     asserted against the government, or when such action involves 
     conduct and activity that is done in the normal course of 
     client representation by an attorney and is not expressly 
     contemplated by the original contract.
       There have also been cases where legitimate professional 
     services are contracted for, such as, for example, the 
     drafting of legislative language, as opposed to merely 
     engaging another's ``influence'' to ``lobby,'' when such an 
     arrangement for services, even if based on the contingency of 
     the passage of legislation, has been permitted. Such cases 
     have been described as related to contracts where the 
     ``services rendered thereunder did not partake of anything in 
     the nature of lobbying....'' Although relating to 
     legislation, the services in question were not necessarily 
     within a specific or narrow definition of ``lobbying'' in the 
     sense that nothing that was contracted for involved any 
     activities attempting to ``exert private or personal 
     influence with members of the legislature, or in interviewing 
     or bringing pressure to bear on them....'' In making 
     arguments for allowing such contingent fees in cases of 
     professional services rendered in relation to legislation 
     where no undue influences are contemplated or used, and no 
     traditional ``lobbying'' is conducted, it has been suggested 
     that such permissibility of the fee arrangement would have no 
     more ``influencing'' tendency than in the permissible 
     instance of one representing oneself before the legislature 
     (and thus having an even greater financial stake than an 
     agent in the outcome), or if an agent or attorney represented 
     a client before a judicial panel, i.e., a court.
                                                     Jack Maskell,
                                             Legislative Attorney.

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
my very good friend from Charleston, West Virginia, a hardworking 
member of the Rules Committee (Mrs. Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman of the 
Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, for his hard work and leadership in 
drafting the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. It 
has been a tough job, and it has been a pleasure to work with him on 
this important reform legislation in the Rules Committee.
  Mr. Chairman, we are all well aware of the recent scandals that have 
plagued the House of Representatives. The unscrupulous action of a few 
Members and staff has severely damaged this hallowed body that we are 
privileged to serve in. What is even more disturbing is that some see 
this as an opportunity for political gain. The recent scandals 
transcend political affiliation and ideology, and it is incumbent upon 
all Representatives to come together and restore the integrity of the 
House. This is not the time for catchy phrases and rhetoric. Rather, it 
is the time for each of us to step up and adhere to the duties as a 
Member of Congress.
  I am especially pleased that this legislation includes language that 
I sponsored in the Rules Committee to strengthen and improve ethics 
training for staff and Members of Congress. This section would require 
all staff to attend an ethics training course or face severe penalty. 
It also requires that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
will set up a similar program for Members and strongly encourages them 
to participate. I certainly plan to.
  I realize that this may seem harsh to some, but my staff, who I 
require to have ethics training, now have benefited greatly from these 
training sessions, and I firmly believe that all staff should share in 
this experience. This measure ensures that all staff will receive this 
training.
  This legislation also instructs the Standards Committee to report to 
the Rules Committee by no later than December 15 on the adequacy of the 
rules. The legislation is good progress. Thank you for granting me the 
time, and thank you for your leadership on this issue.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, all the American people really need to know 
about this lobbying bill is that our friends on the Republican side of 
the aisle want to clean up Congress the way teenagers want to clean up 
their bedrooms. Instead of socks and sweatshirts and whatnot strewn 
about the floor, we have lobbyists' money and special gifts and favors. 
And instead of really taking it out and putting it out of the body of 
this Congress, what they want to do is sweep it under of the bed, so 
when the public's attention is not looking, we can just call it right 
back out. This is a sham bill. It is not a real reform.
  Let me point out two things that they did not address. This reform 
bill does nothing to give Members of Congress more time to read 
legislation. We offered an amendment that would have allowed 72 hours 
for Members and the

[[Page H2018]]

public to read legislation. It was not even allowed to be brought up 
for debate. This amendment does not do anything to ban insider trading 
by Members of Congress or lobbyists. It is not illegal currently for 
Members of Congress to share information with lobbyists who then share 
it with investors who can make a fortune on this. It is illegal in the 
private sector, but the leadership on the Republican side refused to 
make it illegal for Members of this Congress. We are cleaning up 
Congress the way teenagers clean up their bedroom, and the result will 
be the same mess we started with.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask of the Chair how much time is 
remaining on each side.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Price of Georgia). The gentleman from 
California has 13 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from New York 
has 19 minutes remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the so-called 
Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act. A poll released just last 
week found that the Congress had a dismal approval rating of just 22 
percent. That is an unprecedented 10 percent drop from the last poll. 
With this closed rule and this bill, we can see why the American people 
have lost faith in their elected representatives. This is not real 
reform; it is a sham.
  Congressman Shays and I tried to offer a package of amendments to 
bring transparency and credibility back to the ethics process. Our 
amendments would have created an office of public integrity, increased 
grassroots lobbying disclosure, increased general lobbying disclosure, 
required Members of Congress to pay charter costs for planes made 
available by corporations, and limited gifts.

                              {time}  1345

  I have also worked with Mr. Emanuel on two more amendments to 
strengthen this bill. Both were denied.
  Instead of allowing an open debate on our proposals, the leadership 
proposed and decided that it would be business as usual.
  What do I mean by ``business as usual''? Well, I mean last year we 
voted an energy bill written by big oil companies loaded with $12 
billion in tax breaks for the oil and gas industry. What was the 
result? Consumers are suffering with high gas prices at the pump today, 
over $3 a gallon for gasoline.
  Recently, lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry wrote a 
prescription drug bill that increased their profits and did nothing to 
help seniors. The result: seniors are stuck with a confusing 
prescription drug plan that does little to help them with their costs.
  Today, the Republican leadership has chosen to continue to be an 
outlet for moneyed special interests that are not accountable to 
anyone. Real lobbying reform must end the practice of corporate 
lobbyists writing our laws. The so-called Lobbying Accountability and 
Transparency Act is neither accountable nor transparent. It does 
nothing to address the problems in the current lobbying system. This 
bill is not going to fool the public.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, corruption is rampant in Washington, and 
we are now in the fifth month of this congressional session. About the 
only action these Republicans have taken is to enact a harsh 
punishment. Yes, they have enacted a punishment on all of the fat cats. 
They have said that lawmakers-turned-lobbyists can no longer use the 
House gym. Apparently, the thinking here is that fat cats will no 
longer be entitled to skinny lobbyists.
  Where the real sweating has actually taken place in these five 
months, where the real heavy lifting has occurred, is by Republicans 
who have been in a continual workout to create the impression they were 
doing something while actually changing nothing about the way this 
House operates. It was as if the idea was to have a press conference 
and give a few speeches and not expect anything to happen because that 
press conference announcing their legislation was the high-water mark. 
After that, as to each provision of the bill it was the weak getting 
weaker at every stage of this process.
  How do you measure the cost of corruption to the American people that 
is occurring here? The cost is reflected in the experience that our 
seniors (and those who are helping them) are having right now with the 
prescription drug bill written for pharmaceutical manufacturers instead 
of the people that needed the help. The cost is reflected in the no-bid 
contracts, whether in Iraq or in response to Hurricane Katrina, and the 
price that the jobless, the homeless, and the hopeless are paying for 
the corruption of this Administration. The cost of a failed energy 
policy is reflected in the price we pay at the pump every time we fill 
up. That is the cost of corruption.
  The bill before us today is not designed to curb the cost of 
corruption, just to deflect criticism from Republicans for doing 
nothing about it. The culture of corruption will not end in this city 
and in this country with one Member's conviction or resignation, and it 
certainly will not end when the Republican leadership is here today 
simply resigned to business as usual.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, who do our Republican friends believe they 
are fooling today with this so-called lobbying ``reform'' bill?
  I submit: not a soul. Certainly not the American people and certainly 
not editorial writers who have examined this legislation.
  The San Antonio New Express called the Republican bill ``a 
disgraceful sham.''
  The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel calls it ``miserable.''
  The Philadelphia Inquirer says, ``The House is just playing 
pretend.''
  The New York Times calls it ``an Orwellian shell of righteous 
platitudes about transparency and integrity.''
  And public interest groups have derided this Republican bill as a 
``complete joke,'' ``a total scam,'' and ``phony.''
  Let no one here be mistaken: this bill is not driven by a desire to 
address the most serious lobbying and ethics scandal this body has 
experienced in a generation. I have said before, and I repeat: the 
failure of ethics and honesty have been of conduct, not of rules. But 
rules can both inform of expectations and propriety.
  The greed and flagrant abuses of convicted felons, former Republican 
Member Duke Cunningham and Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, hang over 
this House like a dark cloud.
  The K Street Project, proudly promoted by Mr. DeLay and Senator 
Santorum and the Republican leadership, in which quid pro quo was the 
blatantly articulated standard of conduct, is the most flagrant example 
of the aptly named ``culture of corruption.''
  This empty shell of a bill is driven by one thing: the majority's 
cynical calculation that it will not pay a price with voters this 
November for failing to take meaningful steps to end this culture of 
corruption.
  The chairman of the Rules Committee was quoted as saying that the 
adoption of the reform package ``would get this,'' meaning the repeated 
instances of rules violations and criminal conduct, ``behind us.''
  The adoption of this bill or any bill will not do that. Only honest, 
ethical, principled behavior over a period of time will do that. But a 
strong reform package would have been a start. Sadly, that has not been 
an option before us today.
  It does not diminish our moral responsibility, however, to demand and 
ensure ethical and honest behavior by all of us, not an endless 
political game of cross claims and allegations, but by an Ethics 
Committee that does not shun its responsibilities and sit moribund in 
the face of scandal after scandal. The people expect more of us. We 
should give it to them.
  It may be fitting that this do-less-than-the-do-nothing Congress of 
1948 Republican Congress is forcing Members to vote on this do-almost-
nothing bill.
  The American people see right through this ruse.
  And they deserve better.
  Lobbyists must be required to act honestly and ethically. But, it is 
Members who have sworn an oath before God and our fellow citizens to 
uphold the laws and protect the Constitution.

[[Page H2019]]

  It is Members who bear the direct responsibility for the honest 
administration of the people's business. This Congress is not meeting 
that responsibility.
  It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the Republican leadership does not 
want a real debate on these issues.
  Democrats offered a much stronger alternative, but the majority 
refused to allow it to be considered.
  So much for openness, transparency and democracy.
  I urge my colleagues: Vote against this Republican ruse.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.
  My friend said, if we have a small bill. We don't have a small bill. 
This is a very, very strong package that we have come forward with.
  He has talked about outside organizations that have criticized this. 
I am very happy that three of the recommendations that outside 
organizations have provided to us are included in this. We have 
included input from a wide range of entities.
  This is a package that does double the disclosure rate for lobbyists 
when it comes to their activities that relate to this institution. We 
have very strong reforms.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mesa, 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I commend the leadership for bringing this 
bill forward. We can beat up on lobbyists all day long. It is an easy 
thing to do. There has been a lot of it going on; and, in the end, it 
is neither here nor there, in my view.
  What is important is what we do to reform this institution and our 
own behavior. Part of our behavior that needs reforming is earmarks. 
Over the past 10 years, we have seen earmarks explode from some 2,000 
in all appropriations bills to more than 15,000 today. That is simply, 
simply unacceptable.
  What this legislation does is put a Member's name next to every 
earmark and ensures that anyone in the House can challenge that earmark 
at any point in the process. That is real reform because what we need 
is accountability and transparency. This bill goes a long way toward 
doing that.
  Could it go further in certain areas? Sure it could. We will see some 
of those in the amendment process. But it is a start, and it is 
something positive, and we ought to take it in particular regard to 
earmark reform.
  Again, I commend the leadership for bringing it forward and plan to 
vote for it. I urge all Members to do so as well.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, last May, nearly a year ago, my colleagues 
Mr. Meehan, Senator Feingold and I introduced the first lobbying reform 
legislation in the Congress. It has the support of Public Citizen, 
Common Cause, and non-partisan scholars like Norm Ornstein and Tom 
Mann, none of whom support the bill that is on the floor today.
  We said then it would take bipartisan cooperation to get real reform. 
This legislation has chosen politics above progress, business as usual, 
rather than breaking the gridlock of the special interests.
  Today, we are considering the incredible shrinking bill. With each 
passing day, it has become weaker and smaller. If we were going to vote 
on it tomorrow, it probably would be a blank page.
  The Washington Post calls it a ``watered down sham,'' ``simply a 
joke,'' ``diluted snake oil,'' and ``an insult to voters who the GOP 
apparently believes are dumb enough to be snookered by this feint.''
  The New York Times called it a ``laughingstock'' and ``an election 
year con.''
  Republican Congressman Hefley, the former chairman of the Ethics 
Committee representing the Republican Caucus, said, ``In terms of ethic 
process reform, I don't think we have much of that here. And I think 
actually we are missing an opportunity here.''
  Of the restrictive rule, he said, ``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.''
  He is upset because this bill does not offer an independent Office of 
Public Integrity. It does not ban gifts from lobbyists. It does not ban 
lavish junkets. It does not close the revolving door that allows 
Members of Congress and the administration to go to K Street and become 
lobbyists. In fact, there are more former Members who are lobbyists 
today in K Street than there are in either caucus; 270 former Members 
now lobby the institution. There is no disclosure of lobbyist contacts 
with members of the administration or disclosure of grass roots 
lobbying.
  Mr. Chairman, we have an institutional problem; and it requires an 
institutional solution. Whether it is record gas prices, sky-high 
medical costs, out-of-reach tuition, the American people are paying a 
price for the House that Jack and Duke and Tom built; and they cannot 
afford much more.
  When you guys came to Washington in 1994, you said you were going to 
change Washington; and Washington has changed you. It has become clear 
in the last 12 years, rather than have a contract with America, you 
have a contract with K Street.
  When the gavel for the Speaker comes down, it is intended to open the 
people's House, not the auction house. When you look at the 
prescription drug legislation, you look at the energy legislation, you 
look at what they contributed, you see the results: $86 million for 
lobbying by Big Oil and $15 billion in taxpayer subsidies to Exxon and 
Mobil. There is $139 million in contributions and lobbying expenses by 
the pharmaceutical industry and $140 billion in additional profits by 
the pharmaceutical company. It is as plain as black and white.
  What has happened here in Washington is as clear as night and day. 
You can either see it for what it is or accept it. This legislation 
does nothing to reform or change the business and the politics that is 
conducted here and the vicious circle between K Street and the 
administration and what happens here in the people's House.
  This legislation was supposed to break that gridlock of that 
triangle. Instead, it reinforces and allows business as usual; and it 
allows the House that Tom and Jack and Duke built to continue.
  You came here as revolutionaries. Rather than change Washington, 
Washington has changed you and all your principles. As Washington 
always says, you are firm in your opinion, it is your principles you 
are flexible on.
  This time you have missed a historic opportunity to change 
Washington. What we have seen is the dominance of the special interests 
on the people's House. This election is about making sure that gavel 
returns to the American people and it does not open up this auction 
House but returns to the people's House.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Price of Georgia). The Chair admonishes all 
Members to direct their remarks to the Chair and not to another in the 
second person.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what I was going to say, 
what the Chair just said. I am sure that my colleague from Chicago, my 
very good friend, was not in any way impugning the integrity or motives 
of any of his colleagues in this institution.
  And I should say that the legislation itself very specifically says 
that no Member may have any decision that is impacted that influences 
an outside hiring decision that another Member raises, and so that is 
raised in this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend, a great 
reformer, the gentleman from Phoenix (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill and 
commend the chairman for his hard work on it.
  Witness after witness on the other side has stood up and said, well, 
this is wrong with it, and that is wrong with it, and this is wrong 
with it. I want to make the point that, in the course of this debate, 
while we have been here on the floor, the press has broken a story that 
a businessman just pled guilty to paying a $400,000 bribe to a Member 
of this institution.
  Now, I am not going to mention that Member's name. I don't think we 
need

[[Page H2020]]

to sink to that level. But it does yet, once again, in the midst of 
this debate, illustrate the need for this bill.
  Of course you can always stand on the outside and criticize the 
efforts of those who are in the arena doing the job. But this bill does 
take steps forward.
  My colleague on the other side just said it does nothing to change 
the policies that govern this institution. That is simply flat wrong. 
This bill, for example, enacts dramatic new earmark reform which has 
not existed prior to now, which will shine sunshine on earmarks so that 
if a Member tries to steer an earmark to their personal benefit, or any 
earmark, it can be seen.
  I would have wished we would move quicker on this, and indeed, 
perhaps there are some things we could have done sooner. But it takes 
time to build a coalition. This bill ends the situation right now where 
a Member convicted of bribery may collect his pension funded by the 
American taxpayers after his conviction. If that doesn't create a 
different incentive in this institution, I don't know what it does.
  I would reiterate the chairman's marks. You cannot oppose this 
legislation, vote against it and say you are voting for reform, because 
what you are doing is leaving in place the current rules which do not 
go far enough.
  I include in the Record a letter from the Congressional Research 
Service referencing the loss of Federal pension annuity payments for 
conviction of certain crimes and contract issues.


                               Congressional Research Service,

                                   Washington, DC, April 27, 2006.


                               memorandum

     To: Honorable John B. Shadegg
     From: Jack Maskell, Legislative Attorney, American Law 
         Division.
     Subject: Loss of Federal Pension Annuity Payments for 
         Conviction of Certain Crimes and Contract Issues.

       This memorandum is submitted in response to your request 
     for a brief legal analysis of the permissibility of changing, 
     by legislation, the annuity formula and availability of 
     annuity payments under the federal retirement system for 
     federal officers and employees, including Members of 
     Congress, if those employees, officers or Members commit 
     certain federal crimes in the future.
       Constitutional considerations concerning the ex post facto 
     clause of the United States Constitution counsel against an 
     attempt to retroactively deprive former or current officers, 
     employees, or Members of Congress their federal pensions, 
     that is, based on a conviction of law for conduct that 
     occurred before the current legislative changes proposed to 
     the pension laws are enacted. A prohibited ex post facto law 
     is one which makes criminal an action which when engaged in 
     was innocent under the law or, as explained by the Supreme 
     Court in 1798: ``Every law that changes the punishment, and 
     inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the 
     crime, when committed. Chief Justice Marshall explained 
     simply and clearly that an ex post facto law ``is one which 
     renders an act punishable in a manner in which it was not 
     punishable when it was committed.'' Regarding specifically 
     the pensions of federal officers and employees, a lower 
     federal court in the celebrated Alger Hiss case found that 
     the ``Hiss Act'' was, if applied retroactively to deny Alger 
     Hiss his pension, punitive in nature and not regulatory, and 
     was therefore a prohibited ex post facto law adopted by 
     Congress after Hiss had engaged in the subject conduct:
       The question before us is not whether Hiss or Strasburger 
     are good or bad men, nor is it whether we would grant them 
     annuities if we had unfettered discretion in the matter. The 
     question is simply whether the Constitution permits Congress 
     to deprive them of their annuities by retroactive penal 
     legislation. We conclude that it does not. We hold that as 
     applied retroactively to the plaintiffs the challenged 
     statute is penal, cannot be sustained as regulation, and is 
     invalid as an ex post facto law prohibited by the 
     Constitution.
       Legislation which is prospective only, such as the 
     provisions of the current proposed pension changes in H.R. 
     4975, 109th Congress, do not appear to offend the 
     constitutional clause relating to ex post facto laws. The 
     provisions of H.R. 4975 would apply the further penalty of 
     loss of creditable service for one's federal annuities to 
     those who are convicted of particular federal offenses (such 
     as bribery, acting as an agent of a foreign principal, and 
     conspiracy to commit such offenses) only after, that is, 
     subsequent to, the enactment of the proposed legislation. It 
     is not a violation of the ex post facto clause to increase by 
     legislation the penalties of criminal offenses committed 
     after the enactment of that legislation.
       As to any future annuity payments affected, even those 
     ``earned'' or expected prior to the commission of the 
     particular crime in question, judicial precedents have 
     provided a clear indication that future annuity payments to 
     be provided by the Government for its officers, employees, 
     veterans or others, do not create a current property right or 
     interest in such future payments, but rather create a mere 
     ``expectancy'' or ``government fostered expectation'' which 
     may be modified, revoked or suspended by the authority 
     granting it through subsequent legislation. That is, as 
     specifically found by federal courts, ``even where . . . 
     there has been compulsory contribution to a retirement or 
     pension fund the employee has no vested right in it until the 
     particular event happens upon which the money or part of it 
     is to be paid,'' and thus a ``pension granted by the 
     Government confers no right which cannot be revised, modified 
     or recalled by subsequent legislation.'' There would appear 
     to be no violation or abrogation of any specific ``contract'' 
     by increasing the penalties for the violations of certain 
     specific crimes to include forfeiture or partial forfeiture 
     of anticipated federal annuity payments, even those future 
     benefits which had accrued (or for which credit had been 
     ``earned'') prior to the commission of the crime. It should 
     be noted that the current provisions of the so-called ``Hiss 
     Act,'' originally adopted in 1954, operate in the manner 
     questioned, that is, a federal officer's or employee's 
     annuity payments, even those that were ``credited'' to him or 
     her or ``earned'' over the course of many years with the 
     federal government, may be forfeited upon the subsequent 
     conviction of one of the particular national security-related 
     crimes designated in the Hiss Act.
       While there exists no current property interest or vested 
     right in future benefits and payments under the federal 
     retirement system, there are substantial arguments and 
     indications that there does exist a current, vested property 
     interest of federal employees in the contributions that the 
     employees or officers themselves make to the retirement 
     system. In a tax related case, a United States Court of 
     Appeals found that an employee's contributions to the 
     retirement system ``represent valuable rights which were 
     vested in him at the time . . .'' and are therefore currently 
     taxable income to the employee: ``Present vesting of a right, 
     even if its enjoyment is postponed to the happening of a 
     future event, is an important aspect of gross income for 
     income tax purposes.'' As to the employee contributions to 
     and earnings in one's Thrift Savings Plan, the legislative 
     history of the provisions establishing the Federal Employee 
     Retirement System (FERS) indicates that Congress intended for 
     such an account and its earnings to be a current vested 
     property interest of the employee, which is not merely a 
     promised future benefit, but rather ``is an employee savings 
     plan'' where the ``employee owns the money'' which is merely 
     being held ``in trust for the employee and managed and 
     invested on the employee's behalf . . . .'' The United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has explained that 
     where there is more than the mere expectation in future 
     benefits, and where the employee's rights have already vested 
     in certain amounts, then the retiree has a ``protected 
     property interest'' in such amounts already vested.
       There may thus be different legal and constitutional 
     considerations concerning the denial of future annuity 
     payments to federal employees, as opposed to the forfeiture 
     of one's own contributions to the retirement system or to the 
     Thrift Savings Plan. This is not to say, of course, that the 
     Government may not by law provide for the loss or abdication 
     of one's own ``property'' through fine, forfeiture or other 
     such transfer of that money or property, but rather that 
     legislation which would change the current law to require 
     loss or forfeiture of vested ``property'' must meet certain 
     constitutional criteria.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, Ms. Slaughter, 
for exposing this bill for the sham it is. It is an insult to voters 
around this country, an attempt to create a perception that we are 
making changes when, in fact, we are not. And not only is the bill 
snake oil, but the process by which this bill is passed is snake oil.
  The previous speaker talked about those who are trying to criticize 
the process from the outside. Well, let me just tell you a little 
story. When this bill was before the Judiciary Committee, I offered an 
amendment. It was a simple amendment to require registered lobbyists to 
disclose contributions they solicit and transfer to Members of Congress 
in the course of doing their business. It was an attempt to shine a 
light on the pay-to-play culture that we have seen in Washington. That 
amendment passed this Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan vote of 28-4.
  The Washington Post then wrote an editorial about it, and I would 
like to cite from that editorial because what the editorial said very 
clearly was this was a provision that exposed, more than any other 
provision, the way Washington does business. And they said in very 
prescient manner, we are afraid to shine the light on this issue for 
fear that it will be shot down all the more quickly. But, in fact, no 
other disclosure requirement would be more useful in explaining the way 
Washington does business than this one.

[[Page H2021]]

  Well, what happened? A funny thing happened on the way to the Rules 
Committee from the Judiciary Committee. When people voted ``yes'' in 
the daylight, it was taken out in the middle of the night, and then the 
Rules Committee denied us an opportunity to vote on that very provision 
here on the floor of the House, a sham process for a sham bill.
  Now, this is a lot more than just about golf trips for Members of 
Congress paid for by lobbyists. The fundamental issue for the American 
people is what it is costing them every day because we don't have 
better rules to shine the light on lobbyists.
  And we should look at the current gas prices right now. This 
institution and the President has signed now two bills in the last 
several years on energy. Both were said to be a big provision to reduce 
the price of gas. Well, we all know what a sham those bills were. What 
one of those bills did was create billions of dollars of subsidies to 
the oil and gas industry at a time that industry has experienced record 
profits and people are seeing high prices at the pump.
  We heard the other day this Band-Aid proposal from the Republican 
Senate, $100 rebate. What the American people are looking for is not 
chump change. They are looking for real change in the process in 
Washington so that we can change this country and take it in the right 
direction.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, for a unanimous consent request, I yield to 
my good friend from Vienna, Virginia, my classmate (Mr. Wolf).
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4975 because I 
do not believe it is truly reform.
  I had looked forward to the day on the floor when the House by its 
actions could demonstrate to the American people that we take seriously 
the call for bold reforms in the wake of recent lobbying and ethics 
scandals.
  In reviewing H.R. 4975, the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency 
Act, I am disappointed to say that today is not that day.
  Last week I read in The Washington Post that some members are saying 
people don't care about lobby reform. Well, I care and I believe the 
American people care, too. A Washington Post-ABC News poll last month 
showed that 63 percent of Americans called ``corruption in Washington'' 
important to them.
  Having worked in Washington for over three decades, I understand that 
lobbying is a part of everyday life in the nation's capital. Every day, 
good people walk the halls of Congress making the case for their 
constituency, advocating on any number of issues and causes with great 
passion and insight from cancer research to education reform to human 
rights awareness to environmental protection.
  Yet something has gone terribly wrong with the general culture of 
Washington. Standards of conduct have shifted. What is acceptable today 
would not have been tolerated 20 years ago.
  We must break the cycle of ``Washington business as usual'' which has 
impugned the honor and integrity of this institution.
  The American people demand honesty and integrity in their 
government--as they should. Cosmetic changes will not suffice. Bold, 
sweeping reforms must be enacted.
  Sadly, the bill before us today fails to meet that test, and I cannot 
support it.
  I was encouraged when we began this process in early January and 
members were urged by the House leadership to provide ideas and 
suggestions on changes in lobby and gift rules. I sent a three-page 
letter with several recommendations which I believe should be a part of 
this debate. Several committees were then given the opportunity to come 
up with reforms under their jurisdiction.
  But tinkering around the edges is not real reform. I believe this 
bill fails to fully acknowledge that the current system is broken, and 
it fails to offer genuine reform.
  It pains me to say that we have reached the point where the ethics 
process in Congress has become paralyzed and unworkable. Bipartisanship 
and comity which used to be the norm have been replaced with 
partisanship and animosity. Rules with no enforcement are useless.
  We had the opportunity through this legislation to establish an 
independent, non-partisan Office of Public Integrity to provide 
credibility in the ethics process and ensure fairness for every member 
on both sides of the aisle. But this bill has no provision to create 
that office.
  While this legislation offers some increased lobbying disclosure 
reporting requirements and penalties for noncompliance, it doesn't go 
far enough.
  With regard to the revolving door between congressional service and 
lobbying Congress, current law is a one-year cooling off period, and as 
I read it, this bill keeps the status quo, opening the door after a 
one-year ban--albeit with some added notification and disclosure 
requirements. To show real reform, we should be debating keeping the 
door closed for a much longer period of time, similar to the Senate 
bill which I understand is a two-year ban.
  And it's not just Congress where the revolving door should be shut 
longer. I believe the executive branch needs scrutiny.
  My amendment was made in order to restrict former ambassadors and CIA 
station chiefs from lobbying on behalf of the foreign nations where 
they have been stationed. Currently, an ambassador can leave the 
service of the United States one day and be hired the very next day as 
an agent of foreign nation where they had served. These officials see 
every decision the United States makes in relation to that country. 
They have access to intelligence, policy documents and other 
confidential information.
  But under today's rules, the day they leave they have every legal 
right to use that same information on behalf of a foreign nation. Being 
an ambassador or CIA station chief is a high honor. That person becomes 
the face of our nation in the country where they are serving. We must 
safeguard the integrity of these positions.
  Yet how can we debate subjecting certain executive branch officials 
to a five-year revolving door statute when this bill fails to extend 
the cooling off period for members leaving Congress or even allow 
debate on this matter? Therefore, I am withdrawing my amendment.
  We also are supposedly here today considering legislation to tighten 
lobbying regulations in large part because of the lobbying scandal 
associated with former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the information 
revealed about his ties to tribal casinos. The corruption which has 
been associated with the explosion of tribal gambling and political 
contribution is an issue I've been concerned about for nearly 10 years 
and one I have raised on this House floor numerous times.
  These revelations have focused renewed attention on the need for 
Congress to thoroughly review the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. 
We should have a provision in this bill to close the tribal 
contribution loophole that allows funneling of millions of dollars into 
campaign coffers.
  How can we even begin to call this the Lobbying Accountability and 
Transparency Act without addressing the issues that initially fueled 
this debate?
  Then we come to the issue of so-called earmark reform. True reform 
and transparency in the process of identifying how taxpayer dollars are 
being spent must be comprehensive reform. The spotlight has to shine on 
every committee--appropriating and authorizing including the tax 
writing committee. Lobbyists don't limit their work to appropriations 
issues. They lobby year round advocating for a myriad of issues across 
the committees of Congress--tax credits, defense programs, 
transportation projects. The narrow focus on only the appropriations 
process in the bill as written is not real reform. Real earmark reform 
must include projects in authorization bills like the ``Bridge to 
Nowhere.''
  We had an opportunity today to make true, fundamental, substantive 
reforms in the way business is done in Washington and restore the 
confidence of the American people in this institution. This legislation 
before us and the few amendments allowed under the rule fail this 
institution and the American people. More amendments should have been 
allowed from members of both parties.
  In a 1799 letter to Patrick Henry, George Washington said, ``The 
views of Men can only be known, or guessed at, by their words or 
actions.'' Would our Founding Fathers think our actions today are the 
best we can do to restore integrity to this institution?
  I think they would say we can and we must do better.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the very hardworking 
chairman of the Committee on Administration, our friend from Grand 
Rapids, Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to rise and defend the 
bill that is before us.
  I am astounded at some of the debate I have heard here, including 
rising gas prices, which has nothing to do with this bill.
  We hear a lot about a culture of corruption. That is utter nonsense. 
I am proud of my colleagues in this body, by and large, very 
hardworking, good people trying to do the people's business honestly 
and well.
  The point is, we have to put in place some restrictions, some rules 
to deal with those few who stray and do something that shouldn't be 
done. That is what this bill is about. It is fair. It is reasonable. It 
will provide penalties for those who violate the rules of the

[[Page H2022]]

House or the laws of this land, and that is precisely what we need, and 
it is important to pass that bill today. We cannot dilly dally with 
amendments that weaken it or with recommittals that change the intent 
of it.
  We want a bill that will work. We want a bill that the Senate will 
look at and say, this is wonderful, let us pass it, too. We have to 
accommodate the principles of this body. We have to work and put in 
place all of the components of this bill which have been carefully 
worked out on both sides of the aisle, so that we will have a good 
bill, a fair bill. And I urge that we adopt this bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I did have some speakers on the way, but 
at this moment, they are not on the floor, so I will reserve.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Dallas (Mr. Hensarling), a very hardworking reformer of this 
institution.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, one cannot legislate morality, but one 
can legislate transparency.
  But from listening to today's debate, it appears that Democrats are 
now against more transparency. Perhaps the recent ethical woes of 
several high-profile Democrats may help explain why.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have now said no to tax 
relief that created 5 million new jobs. They have said no to more 
domestic oil production, to lower gas prices, and now they are saying 
no to transparency for lobbying activities.
  I say yes to this legislation because it has transparency where we 
need it, and that is on earmarking, earmarking which includes examples 
like the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska, the $50 million for an indoor 
rainforest in Iowa, and $1 million for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, 
and the list goes on and on.
  How Congress spends the people's money is where true reform is 
needed, and no one spends more of the people's money than Democrats.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I admit there are many good and useful earmarks. 
We are not eradicating them today. We are simply reforming them. And I 
congratulate Chairman Dreier for his work, and the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) for his leadership on this issue.
  I urge passage.
  Mr. DREIER. It appears again that my friends on the other side don't 
have any remaining speakers. I know you are waiting and want to reserve 
the balance of your time. Absolutely, in a bipartisan sense of comity, 
we want you to reserve the time.
  I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
this legislation, and I congratulate the gentleman from California for 
your work.
  It is critical that we scrutinize lobbying activities to help restore 
the confidence of the American people in their government. And this 
bill makes real progress addressing some recent high-profile scandals 
that have basically rocked American confidence in government. In fact, 
it includes one of the proposals I introduced several months ago 
requiring lobbyists to itemize their reports so we know how much money 
lobbyists spend on Members and their staff. You know, we do this in 
campaign finance, and the same openness should apply to these 
transactions. And I thank the gentleman for including that proposal in 
this package.
  But, you know, looking at lobbyists and lobbying reforms is only part 
of the process. We have to look also at the way we behave as well in 
this House. In particular, Congress must address earmarks.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, it is my fervent hope that we would not simply 
stop with earmark reform for appropriation bills. As authorization 
bills and tax bills often include infamous and egregious earmarks, we 
should seek to make these processes open and honest as well. Again, I 
am not opposed to earmarks in general. I think that the legislative 
branch has a role to play in this area. It is not simply an area for 
the executive branch to play. But it is an area where the transparency 
and the light of day should shine on all earmarks. Transparency will 
then make sure that the good ones rise to the top and actually will be 
passed and the other ones which are not so good will obviously fall by 
the wayside.
  If I may add one other comment, Mr. Chairman. As this legislation 
goes through the process, I am a little bit concerned about GSEs and 
government-sponsored entities, and I would commend the gentleman to 
look as it goes through the process as we revisit this in conference.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, for a unanimous consent request, I yield to 
our hardworking and very senior colleague from Davenport, Iowa (Mr. 
Leach).
  (Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, To be blunt, we can do better than this.
  Congress is missing the big picture. Ethics cannot be legislated, but 
the role of lobbyists and their disproportionate, sometimes corrupting, 
power can. The issue is money in politics and the need for campaign 
reform.
  There is nothing wrong with any of the proposals being considered 
today except that they do not do enough. Neither this, nor I suspect 
any Democrat substitute, includes what really matters.
  What is too often lost in debates surrounding Congressional ethics is 
the notion of the public interest and concern for the public good. 
Instead, in our discussions, especially off the Floor, a desire is 
frequently expressed to appeal to one or the other political party's 
base. Interest groups make it clear that they expect to be attended to 
and rewarded for support provided.
  Thus, to understand American politics and the ethics abuses that are 
spurring the legislation under consideration one needs to examine 
American campaigns. Interest group money is seldom given as a token 
concern for good government. It is too often disbursed in a quasi-
contractual manner: quids to be followed by quos, to be matched in 
subsequent election cycles for those who follow the rules. Simply put, 
large contributions imply obligational contracts between a candidate 
and large donors.
  In a cyclonic cycle, legislators are caught in dozens of swirls that 
buffet the fabric of balanced democratic judgment. Priorities become 
impossible to set, thus making deficit financing a virtual 
inevitability. The last point should be stressed--federal deficits and 
the economic problems they create are not unrelated to campaign 
financing abuses. Deficits begin with choices on federal spending and 
taxation and each begins in promises and obligations, and all this 
begins in the way campaigns are run, in politics as usual--in 
commitments to large donors.
  Lord Acton, the British statesman, immortalized his public service 
with the observation that power corrupts, with absolute power tending 
to corrupt absolutely. It strikes me that a fitting corollary to the 
Acton dictum is the notion that even more corrupting than aspiring to 
power is the fear of losing it. This fear leads to timidity, if not 
complacency, on reform agendas.
  Today, for instance, we face one of the most troubling scandals of 
modern times. It uniquely involves PACs, Members of Congress, relatives 
of Members, lobbyists, insider-controlled non-profit organizations, and 
K Street interest groups acting surreptitiously and in concert to 
advantage themselves at the expense of the public. It is the story of 
raising cash, disguising sources and buying influence.
  The Jack Abramoff affair is a disgrace. But care must be taken to 
recognize that it may not be aberrational. There is a systemic element 
to the problem and it involves the sullying role of money in politics. 
A government of the people, by the people and for the people cannot be 
a government where influence is purchasable. The subordination of 
individual rights to indiscriminate moneyed influence is the 
subordination of representative democracy to institutional oligarchy. 
Kakistocracy is the end result.
  To put recent events in context, the legend of the Ring of Gyges is 
instructive. In The Republic, Plato's brother Glaucon tells the story 
of a shepherd in Lydia who finds a magical ring. After an earthquake 
revealed a cave, the story goes, Gyges discovered a gold ring on an 
enthroned corpse inside and put the ring in his pocket. Later with his 
fellow shepherds, Gyges noticed that when he turned the collet of the 
ring to the inside of his hand, he became invisible. When he turned the 
ring the other way, he reappeared. Confident that the ring was indeed 
magical, he contrived to be chosen as a messenger sent to the court. 
Once there, he used his invisibility power to seduce the queen, kill 
the king and take the kingdom.
  Glaucon's story suggests that when individuals are invisible--i.e., 
in a democracy out of sight of their constituents--it is difficult to 
resist enticement and act virtuously. The current 
Congressional scandals suggest that some actors may have thought they 
had gotten hold of

[[Page H2023]]

Gyges' ring. That is why it is so important that new rules be applied 
to the political process. Transparency matters, but so do the rules 
that apply to conflicts of interest, many of which in the current 
system are quite legal.

  What this body is considering today is a band-aid when surgery is 
required. We need to end political action committees and go to a system 
of small donations matched by federal funds. The public wants less 
expensive, less conflicted, less divisive politics. Public service, not 
political partisanship should be the goal.
  Finally, with regard to the Abramoff scandal, it should be noted that 
one of the principal lobbying objectives of the gambling interests he 
represented was to block the kind of anti-internet gambling legislation 
that Representative Goodlatte and I have been pushing for the past 8 
years. Passing internet gambling enforcement legislation is the 
unfinished business of a Congress in disrepute. It should, as I 
suggested to the Rules Committee, be part of this bill, as should the 
campaign reform amendment I requested be considered. But as chagrined 
as I am that the legislation before us doesn't do more, I am obligated 
to register appreciation for the commitment of leadership to bring 
forth a serious bill on the internet gambling issue by the first week 
of June.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our hardworking friend 
from Utah (Mr. Bishop), a member on the Rules Committee.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I tend to agree that this was 
probably a do-nothing bill, only in the respect that the vast majority 
of the people on both sides of this aisle will do nothing to violate 
the procedures and the proposals that we will have placed in front.
  From my own personal perspective, I was the Speaker of the House in 
Utah before I came here. Of the 75 members, a far easier body to manage 
than this, 72 of them were the kind I knew would give the shirt off 
their back, a sight I hoped never to see, give the shirt off their back 
for the good of the State. There were three I always had to check on 
what they were doing. I thought that percentage of good to bad actors 
was fairly good for the State of Utah. But as I have been here in 
Congress, I think that same percentage applies to this body. It applies 
to large industrial groups. It applies to church groups. It applies to 
the lobbyist community. It probably applies to every group except maybe 
those who are incarcerated right now. Both sides of the aisle are good, 
decent people, and laws will not magically change the behavior that has 
been developed on those few bad actors that will be there.
  So what purpose do we have in this? It is to establish a means of 
rules to clarify and certify who the good guys are.
  I also was a lobbyist for that time between when I was a legislator 
and came here. And I want you to know that the laws that are proposed 
in here to change lobbyist laws are good ones. They are effective. They 
will make a difference, and they will add transparency to that 
particular group. I am very proud of those.
  There is one other thing that I think is very important in this bill 
that is proposed, and that is the mandatory training aspect. It is 
important to try and make sure that we all understand what the rules of 
behavior are, the rules of procedure, so as to avoid problems ahead of 
time.
  When my predecessor in this seat was the chairman of the Ethics 
Committee, he instituted the Office of Advice and Education; its goal 
was simply to make sure that everyone knows what is happening. This 
bill mandates that all staff will have training in what is considered 
ethical behavior and will encourage us to do the same thing so we know 
what is taking place.
  I am grateful that the chairman, Mr. Dreier of California, has had an 
open process, has invited everyone to participate in here, because what 
we are dealing with are simply the guidelines established for those who 
are the good guys in this body, which is by far the majority of those 
on this side as well as the other side of the aisle.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member on Judiciary.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we have got a number 
of problems, as you have heard with the proposal here for lobbying 
accountability and transparency.

                              {time}  1415

  The main thing I want to bring to your attention is that, throughout 
the scandals that have illustrated how large sums of money were spent 
secretly to conduct lobbying campaigns, the current Lobbying Disclosure 
Act requires the disclosure of lobbying activities that involve direct 
contact with Members of Congress, but there is no disclosure 
requirement for professional lobbying firms that are retained to spend 
money on campaigns aimed at stimulating the public to lobby Congress, 
including multimillion dollar advertising campaigns. We need stronger 
revolving door provisions.
  So I rise reluctantly against a Lobbying Accountability and 
Transparency Act that does not seriously reform the system. This bill 
really represents an effort for some to have it both ways, holding on 
to the financial benefits and perks they receive from lobbyists and 
other special interests, while claiming they have dealt with the 
lobbying ethics problems in Congress.
  This Republican proposal is problematic because it does not address 
the problems that have given rise to the recent lobbying scandals and 
the falling confidence of Americans in the integrity of Congress.
  The ban on privately sponsored travel, as you have heard, only exists 
through this year's elections. The corporate subsidized campaign travel 
and other officially related travel is still allowed. The current 
broken revolving door policy remains unchanged, and gifts are allowed.
  So I come to you to tell you what it is we want: disclosure of the 
lobbying campaigns. We want stronger revolving door provisions. We want 
fundamental changes to gift, travel, and employment relationships among 
Members of Congress, the lobbying firms, and the lobbyists.
  H.R. 4975, that is being handled so well by the gentlewoman from New 
York, in its current form is illusionary. There is not real lobbying 
and ethics reform.
  So I urge my colleagues to reject this weak and ineffective 
legislation.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no good reason for anybody to vote for this 
bill. As we said, practically every major newspaper and every good-
government group has discredited it.
  And let me tell you what it does not do:
  It does nothing to prevent the abuses that regularly occur with 
conference reports, including the addition of secret, last-minute perks 
and protections for big business.
  It does nothing to stop the majority leadership from jamming massive 
conference reports through the House before the ink is dry and before 
Members read the bill.
  It does nothing to stop the majority from locking Democrats out of 
conference meetings and negotiations.
  It does nothing to stop the majority from repeatedly waiving the 
rules on every bill that comes to the House floor.
  It does nothing to stop the majority from shutting out Democrat 
amendments on the floor.
  It does nothing to curb the practice of holding votes open on the 
floor to change the outcome of a vote.
  It does nothing to keep lobbyists from writing major legislation 
behind closed doors.
  It does not ban gifts from lobbyists.
  It does not ban corporate travel.
  It does not stop or slow the revolving door.
  It does not do anything the majority says it does.
  Voting for this bill violates the core principles of the Democratic 
Party and everything we have fought for in this Congress. No Member of 
this House should vote for this bill. It is not just a bad bill. It is 
a dishonest bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said at the outset, we have gone through a long, 
bipartisan, 4-month process to get to where we are. Speaker Hastert 
began in January saying we need as an institution

[[Page H2024]]

to step up to the plate and deal with the issue of lobbying and ethics 
reform, and that is exactly what we have done.
  Again, we have worked with Democrats and Republicans, outside 
organizations; and, as I have listened to the debate and the statements 
made from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it is very 
obvious to me that they have failed to read this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, in virtually every single area that my friend from 
Rochester just addressed, this is addressed in the legislation. And if 
it is not actually addressed in the legislation itself, we have made 
commitments that we are going to, as we move this process forward, get 
into a conference with the Senate and address some of these issues of 
concern.
  Critics seem to be absolutely intent on telling us what this bill is 
not. Everything that was said by my friend from Rochester was in the 
negative. Just imagine if we went through every single day lamenting 
what is not. Today is not Christmas; that is terrible. Today is not 
Thanksgiving, and that is terrible. Today is not my birthday, and that 
is terrible. But what does it get us? It does not get us a thing. 
Searching for storm clouds on a clear day is a recipe for inaction and 
defeatism.
  Mr. Chairman, Speaker Hastert and I and the leadership team here and 
the Republicans and, I am happy to say, some Democrats have indicated 
to me that they are interested in not defeatism; they are interested in 
pursuing vigorous reform.
  As I listened to the litany of what this bill is not, I think it is 
very important again, as I have read some of these editorials which 
mischaracterize the legislation, as I listened to the rhetoric that 
mischaracterized this legislation, let us again look at the bill and 
just four simple things of what this bill is: This bill actually 
doubles the fines, doubles the fines, for lobbyists who fail to 
disclose. This bill adds the possibility of jail time for failing to 
comply with the Act. This bill adds oversight to make sure disclosure 
information is accurate. It gives the public full, online access to 
disclosure reports. It withdraws the government-funded pension for 
people who commit the crimes that we have outlined in the legislation.
  So, Mr. Chairman, anyone who tries to say that they are supporting a 
recommittal motion, are going to vote against this legislation because 
it does not do enough is, in fact, standing in the way of reform.
  Many people said we should get this thing out. The Speaker and I said 
we wanted this to pass by early March. Obviously, we needed more and 
more input from Members, from outside organizations, from academics, 
from our constituents who are concerned about this issue. And, Mr. 
Chairman, we extended beyond that early March date. Here we are now in 
early May, having listened to so many different people, and we have 
come up with a bill that I believe is strong. I believe it is bold. I 
hope we will be able to do more, but this is legislation that allows us 
to move forward in a positive way.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, this bill represents a missed opportunity 
for the House to address lobbying and ethics reform in a responsible 
manner. Our ethics process in the House of Representatives is broken, 
and the actions of some members and lobbyists have brought discredit to 
the reputation of this body. That is why I am so disappointed in the 
response of the House leadership in bringing this extremely weak bill 
to the floor today, using a partisan process which deliberately shuts 
out debate on the most pressing reform issues before this House.
  I served on the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct from 
1991 to 1997. I served as the ranking member of the adjudicative 
subcommittee that investigated and ultimately recommended sanctions 
against former Speaker Gingrich. In 1997 the House leadership appointed 
me to serve as the Co-Chairman of the House Ethics Reform Task Force, 
with my colleague Bob Livingston from Louisiana. Our bipartisan task 
force came up with a comprehensive set of reforms to overhaul the 
ethics process. We created a bipartisan package to change House and 
committee rules which the House adopted. This was the last bipartisan 
revisions of House ethics procedures.
  Our bipartisan legislative package in 1997 also included a provision 
which authorized non-members to file complaints against members, 
provided that the complaints were in writing and under oath. 
Unfortunately, the full House rejected this proposal, and for the first 
time the House closed its doors to the receipt of outside ethics 
complaints. In March I testified before the Rules Committee and urged 
them to allow consideration of my amendment, which I subsequently filed 
with the Committee. I am disappointed that the Committee would not even 
allow my amendment to come up for a vote in the full House, and that it 
also refused to allow the House to consider the alternative approach 
offered by Mr. Shays and Mr. Meehan to create an independent Office of 
Public Integrity (OPI) to receive and investigate complaints from non-
members.
  Our ethics process has broken down in the past. Indeed, when our task 
force was meeting and deliberating in 1997, the House took the 
extraordinary step of imposing a moratorium of the filing of new ethics 
complaints.
  I am afraid we have reached a similar crossroads in the House today. 
Some members have recently talked about ethics ``truces'' in which the 
political parties have voluntarily agreed to place a moratorium on 
filing ethics complaints, regardless of the merits of the charges. The 
Chairman of the Ethics Committee was removed from his position, perhaps 
as retaliation for agreeing, on a bipartisan basis, to repeatedly 
admonish the former House Majority Leader for ethical misconduct and 
transgressions. Outside good government groups have repeatedly called 
for non-members to be permitted to file ethics complaints. In December 
2004 the Congressional Ethics Coalition, a nonpartisan group which 
included Common Cause, Democracy 21, Judicial Watch, and Public 
Citizen, issued a statement which called on Congress to authorize non-
members to file ethics complaints against members of Congress.
  The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is the only committee 
of the House with an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. The 
Committee can only work effectively in a bipartisan manner. In March 
the Senate passed strong ethics and lobbying reform legislation by a 
vote of 90 to 8, and I am disappointed that the House is not given the 
similar opportunity today to pass a strong bill. I will support the 
Motion to Recommit which would substitute the text of H.R. 4682, which 
I have co-sponsored, which would strengthen our ethics and disclosure 
standards.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4975, 
the so-called ``Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act.''
  The time is long past due for meaningful lobbying reform. We have 
seen scandal after scandal emerging in the past year that has 
demonstrated that the way business has been done in Washington must be 
changed.
  The public deserves to have an open government with honest elected 
officials who are truly acting in the best interests of their 
constituents, not their own personal or financial interests.
  It's time for the culture of corruption to end.
  Yet the bill that has come to the floor today does little to reform 
the lobbying process. I am disappointed that the Rules Committee failed 
to make in order numerous Democratic amendments that would have enacted 
fundamental changes including a substitute amendment that contained 
provisions from the ``Honest Leadership and Open Government Act'' which 
I and many of my Democratic colleagues have cosponsored. This 
legislation, among other important provisions, would clean up the 
government contracting process, ensure that votes on the House floor 
are not held open for hours to twist arms, and ban gifts from 
lobbyists.
  This is not a problem requiring only cosmetic solutions. This is a 
serious problem that needs fundamental reforms to restore the integrity 
not only of the political process, but of Congress.
  We must act to restore the public's confidence in their House, the 
people's House.
  I believe that true reform must include the proposals put forth in 
the ``Honest Leadership and Open Government Act,'' and since the 
Majority has refused to let that happen, I will oppose the bill before 
us and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the House of Representatives 
will vote today on a bill that the authors think will help end the 
culture of corruption that exists in the Congress and restore the 
public's confidence in this body.
  I will vote no on this bill, H.R. 4975, not because I believe we do 
not need to address these significant matters, but because the bill 
fails to provide any real reform at all.
  We have an opportunity today to make significant changes in the way 
we perform the people's business and to help restore the people's 
confidence in their elected representatives. With this bill, the 
majority, who only a few months ago was shouting for reform, has failed 
to seize this opportunity. In fact, it has presented a bill that 
contains no significant reform at all.
  Throughout the country, far too many people believe that Congress 
gives its vote to the

[[Page H2025]]

highest bidder. This perception must be eliminated, but the minor 
changes in this bill will not do so.
  Restoration of the people's respect of Congress requires one thing--
that we change the way our political campaigns are financed. While our 
campaign finance rules have been strengthened over the years, they 
remain insufficient.
  The time has come to take private money out of politics--entirely--
and, in its place, provide limited public funding for all Congressional 
campaigns. This is real reform. And it is the only type of reform that 
will even begin to restore the respect and trust of the American people 
in Congress.
  The bill before us today will not do this, and we must into fool 
ourselves into believing that it will.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4975, the 
so-called Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006.
  With the massive corruption investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, 
the bribery conviction of Rep. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham and the 
additional inquiries into the actions of even more members of Congress, 
it had been my hope that the Speaker and Republican leaders of the 
House would act to erase the dishonor that has befallen this 
institution. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Instead the House 
Republican Leadership has brought before us a bill that insults the 
intelligence of the American people. This bill fails to slow the 
revolving door between congressional service and lobbying; it fails to 
require disclosure of Members' contacts with lobbyist, lobbyists' 
fundraisers and other events that honor Members of Congress. It delays 
real action on privately funded travel and gifts until after the 
November elections. It fails to crack down on pay-to-play schemes, and 
includes loophole-laden earmark provisions that would not have exposed 
the infamous ``Bridge to Nowhere'' and does nothing to prohibit dead-
of-night special interest provisions.
  I have always believed that public office is a public trust. I work 
every day to live up to the trust the people of North Carolina's Second 
Congressional District have placed in me. The recent Republican 
corruption scandals anger me because they threaten the bonds between 
the American people and their elected leaders.
  The Speaker and Republican Leadership earlier this year promised real 
reform, but this is not it. I support the real lobbying reform in H.R. 
4682, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006. Our bill 
will require lobbying disclosure, including lobbyists' fundraisers and 
other events that honor Members and more. It will double the period in 
which former Members are prohibited from lobbying their former 
colleagues, from one year to two years; it will permanently ban travel, 
gifts and meals from registered lobbyists to Members of Congress, and 
prohibit Members from using corporate jets for officially connected 
travel and shut down the K Street project. In addition, the Democratic 
lobbying and ethics reform proposal will change the way Congress does 
business; allowing Members enough time to review bills, requiring 
earmark reform and mandating open conference committee meetings. These 
reforms and others would give the public full faith and confidence that 
Members of the U.S. House are operating honestly.
  I will vote against H.R. 4975, a fig leaf of reform, and support 
meaningful lobbying reform by voting to recommit this bill to Committee 
and replace it with H.R. 4682, the Honest Leadership and Open 
Government Act of 2006, our stronger Democratic bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the Lobbying 
Accountability and Transparency Act is being considered today.
  Accountability and transparency with respect to the lobbying 
profession is necessary to ensure public confidence in how Members and 
staff of this House interact with the outside world.
  And I further believe that this legislation will help brighten the 
lines for Members and staff in terms of what is permissible behavior 
and what is not.
  Consistent with this need to have such bright line, I want to make 
certain that some of the language in the bill is understood to mean 
what it says and nothing more.
  Under Section 105(7), lobbyists would be required to disclose ``the 
date, recipient, and amount of funds contributed by the registrant or 
an employee listed as a lobbyist by the registrant under paragraph 
(2)(C); (A) to, or on behalf of, an entity that is named for a covered 
legislative branch official, or to a person or entity in recognition of 
such official; or (B) to an entity established, financed, maintained, 
or controlled by a covered legislative official.''
  Members have a longstanding history, and one that I respect, of 
raising money for and being otherwise involved with charitable 
organizations.
  This provision would apply to charities when such charity is named 
for a covered legislative branch official, or when a charity recognizes 
a covered legislative official.
  It would also apply to a charity that is established, financed, 
maintained or controlled by a covered legislative official. It would 
not apply in any other circumstance.
  It would not apply, for instance, when the spouse of a Member engages 
in such activity independent of his or her spouse's official position.
  Mr. Chairman, this is good legislation.
  The Republican record is long, and it is strong on the issue of 
lobbying reform.
  Republicans have delivered on ethics reform time and time again.
  In 1989, we enacted a Bush Administration proposal that included 
numerous ethics reforms.
  We cleaned up the House banking and post office scandals.
  When we became the majority in 1995, we instituted more reforms, 
including the first significant lobbying disclosure bill.
  And remember it is a Republican Justice Department that is 
prosecuting the cases that have led to this legislation.
  This reform package represents a great improvement over the current 
system.
  It will deter wrongful behavior by giving the public a better view of 
what their elected officials are doing in Washington.
  These reforms will shine a light on Congress by making lobbying 
disclosure reports more frequent, accurate and accessible to the 
public.
  This legislation is a welcome change in the rules governing lobbying 
and ethics.
  I thank Chairman Dreier and the Congressional leadership for their 
worthwhile efforts.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I am here today to ask that you grant 
me the opportunity to reinstate an amendment to H.R. 4975 that had been 
added in the Judiciary Committee, but was somehow stripped out en route 
to the Rules Committee.
  My amendment simply requires ``registered lobbyists'' to disclose the 
fact that they have ``solicited and transmitted'' a campaign 
contribution. Moreover, my amendment would require that lobbyists, who 
serve as campaign treasurers and chairman of political committees to 
disclose that as well. This amendment was added to the Lobbying 
Disclosure Act on April 5, 2006 by a vote of 28 to 4.
  It is ironic that an editorial about this amendment in the Washington 
Post, on April 13, 2006, stated--``We are almost reluctant to flag this 
provision for fear that it will be shot down all the more quickly, but 
in fact no other disclosure requirement would be more useful in 
explaining the way Washington does business than this one.''
  I am not sure what appalls me more, the fact that the bill does 
precious little to address the problems that have created the culture 
of corruption on Capitol Hill or the fact that the few enhancements to 
the bill, added through the committee process, have been summarily 
deleted without a debate or vote. The irony is that the abuse of power 
that has taken place on the Hill, that undermines the confidence of the 
American people, is alive and well in the management of the bill that 
was originally designed to correct such abuses.
  The bill before us today is a weak attempt to create the allusion of 
reform. It fails to address: the problems with the revolving door 
between public service and lobbying, the showering of benefits to 
Members of Congress by lobbyists who have business before them, the 
need to enhance a broken Ethics Committee process and the need to 
reform the campaign financing system that creates the dangerous 
intersection between congressional action and campaign fundraising.
  The amendment that is before the Committee today, in my opinion, is a 
modest but important step in the direction to expose some sunlight on 
the activities where registered lobbyists have business before the 
Congress while at the same time soliciting and transmitting campaign 
contributions, in addition to serving as officers that run campaigns 
and political committees. I believe that these practices should be 
studied for the prospects of future regulation.
  However, at the very least, I believe that we need to compel the 
disclosure of these activities to the American people. We need to 
create transparency around the campaign finance practices that a 
registered lobbyist performs, as well as, the business that they bring 
to Members of Congress. As Justice Brandeis has said, ``sunlight is the 
best disinfectant''. Moreover, this disclosure will allow the American 
people to see the whole picture, of lobbying activity, so that they may 
judge, for themselves, the propriety of the transactions that have 
become an everyday practice in Washington.
  With public opinion of Congress at an all time low, we owe the 
American people a serious bill that is not a ``reform bill'' in name 
only. The culture of corruption that has plagued the 109th Congress is 
probably only rivaled, in infamy, by the Watergate era. The American 
people have seen Members of Congress: give appropriations earmarks in 
exchange for a Rolls Royce and lavish antiques; enjoy posh

[[Page H2026]]

golf trips in Scotland at the expense of Native American tribes who 
were exploited by nefarious lobbyists, determine which lobbyists on K 
Street get the lucrative contracts, channel campaign finances to 
Members' spouse and children, and bend the House rules to allow the 
House leadership to bend the arms of Members to force a particular vote 
outcome.
  The American people are shocked and appalled by these activities. 
However, the real shocker is the reality that many people do not see, 
i.e. the nexus between these conflicts of interest and the pocketbooks 
of the American people. The effects can be seen in the influence of the 
oil industry in gaining subsidies while gas prices are skyrocketing, as 
well as the impact that the pharmaceutical industry had in drafting the 
Medicare Part D bill that prohibits drug importation and the 
competition for price reduction.
  We need to restore the trust of the American people. We need to start 
today by allowing this bill to be made into a real lobbying reform 
bill. I urge the Committee to rule my amendment in order so that I have 
the chance to add my amendment to this bill a second time.

                          Real Lobbying Reform


     a house committee tackles the nexus between campaign cash and 
                         legislative influence

       Don't hold your breath for this to turn up in the final 
     version of lobbying reform, but the House Judiciary Committee 
     approved an amendment last week that would help shed light on 
     the symbiotic relationship between lobbyists and lawmakers. 
     Offered by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the provision would 
     require lobbyists to report not just the campaign 
     contributions they gave directly to lawmakers but also the 
     campaign checks they solicit for or deliver to lawmakers--in 
     other words, a measure of the real influence they wield. 
     Astonishingly, this proposal passed the Judiciary Committee 
     by a vote of 28 to 4--along with the underlying bill, a 
     proposal that started out weak and was watered down from 
     there.
       We're almost reluctant to flag this provision for fear that 
     it will be shot down all the more quickly, but in fact no 
     other disclosure requirement would be more useful in 
     explaining the way Washington does business than this one. 
     That may help explain why, until now, it hasn't been a part 
     of any of the major proposals. The central role that 
     lobbyists play in hunting, gathering and delivering campaign 
     cash--rather than the checks they write directly--is the true 
     source of their power. But while both sides in the 
     transaction are well aware of how much Lobbyist X has raised 
     for Representative Y, the media and the public are--at least 
     based on the required disclosures--in the dark.
       Presidential candidates--first George W. Bush and after 
     that Sen. John F. Kerry and other Democrats--have shown that 
     it's feasible to provide information about the amounts 
     bundlers have raised for them; their voluntary disclosure has 
     added significantly to public understanding. If lawmakers are 
     serious about effective reform, making certain the Van Hollen 
     amendment survives would be a good way to demonstrate their 
     commitment.

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. House of Representatives will 
vote on the ``Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006'' 
(H.R. 4975) on Wednesday, May 3. The measure is a woefully inadequate 
response to the most significant ethics and lobbying scandals that have 
swept Capitol Hill in nearly three decades. Even lobbyists say so. When 
asked about the significance of the House lobbying reform bill by The 
Buffalo News, Paul Miller, president of the American League of 
Lobbyists answered: ``That little thing?''
  In fact, the measure is a ruse that fails to address any of the major 
problems with congressional ethics and lobbying that have surfaced over 
the past year. When it comes to lobbying reform, Congress is not up to 
the task.
  H.R. 4975 takes a cynical approach to reforming lobbying disclosure 
and behavior on Capitol Hill and is opposed by Public Citizen and other 
reform groups. The bill fails to restrict campaign fundraising 
activities by lobbyists, fails to ban gifts from lobbyists, fails to 
curb revolving door abuses, and fails to create an independent 
oversight and compliance office. It bans privately sponsored travel--
but only until after the next election. This legislation not only is 
inadequate, it makes a mockery of the lobbying reform drive.
  To make matters worse, a very restrictive rule has been attached to 
the bill that prohibits floor consideration of any strengthening 
amendments, which means that the bill cannot be improved upon when the 
House considers it on Wednesday. Representative Chris Shays, Marty 
Meehan and others have offered a package of strong reforms that are 
prohibited from consideration because of this rule.


                        A. SUMMARY OF H.R. 4975

  An earlier package of lobbying reforms presented in January by House 
Speaker Dennis Hastert and Representative David Dreier called for a ban 
on privately sponsored travel; prohibited gifts from lobbyists, 
including meals; and doubled the revolving door ``cooling-off'' period 
from 1 to 2 years, during which retiring Members of Congress and their 
staffs could not make direct ``lobbying contacts'' with their former 
colleagues.
  But on Feb. 5, newly elected House Majority Leader John Boehner said 
on ``Fox News Sunday'' that ``[B]ringing more transparency to this 
relationship [with lobbyists], I think, is the best way to control it. 
But taking actions to ban this and ban that, when there's no appearance 
of a problem, there's no foundation of a problem, I think, in fact, 
does not serve the institution well.'' In the end, Boehner's reluctance 
for significant reform won out among the Republican conference.
  The final legislative proposal speeding through the House does not 
include any of the earlier reform provisions. Instead, H.R. 4975 
proposes the following:
     1. Travel
  Temporarily suspends privately sponsored travel for Members of 
Congress and their staffs until after the 2006 elections.
  Permits corporate jets to be used to transport Members, reimbursed at 
first-class airfare rates, but does not permit lobbyists to travel with 
Members on these corporate jets. Lobbyists could, however, attend and 
participate in the rest of the travel junket.
  Instructs the House Ethics Committee to develop by December 15 a new 
ethics policy regarding privately sponsored travel, which would likely 
emphasize pre-approval of trips by the Committee.
     2. Gifts
  Gifts to Members and their staffs would continue to be permitted 
under the existing gift limits ($50 per gift; $100 per year from any 
one source).
  Unlike current ethics rules, lobbyists would be required to report to 
the Ethics Committee all gifts they give to Members and staffs.
  Tickets to sporting events would be valued at face value rather than 
artificially set below face value, as is currently provided under House 
gift rules.
     3. Revolving Door
  Maintains the current 1-year cooling-off period, during which 
retiring Members and their staffs are prohibited from making direct 
lobbying contacts with their former colleagues. Retiring Members and 
their staffs may conduct all lobbying activities except for making 
lobbying contacts immediately after leaving public office.
  Requires Members to disclose to the Ethics Committee when they are 
negotiating future private-sector employment that may pose a conflict 
of interest; the disclosure must be made within 5 days of negotiations 
for compensation. However, Members are not required to recuse 
themselves from official actions involving potential future employers.
     4. Disclosure
  Imposes quarterly, rather than semi-annual, reporting deadlines on 
lobbyists' financial reports.
  Establishes electronic filing and disclosure of lobbyist reports.
  Requires lobbyists to report their campaign contributions to 
candidates, committees and leadership PACs on lobbyist disclosure 
reports as well as to the Federal Election Commission.
     5. Section 527 Organizations
  Subjects federal section 527 political organizations to the reporting 
requirements and contribution limits of federal campaign finance law.
  Applies a minimum 50-50 allocation ratio of hard and soft money for 
section 527 organizations involved in both federal and non-federal 
election activity, but caps soft money contributions for non-federal 
activity at $25,000 per year.
  Repeals current limits on party coordinated expenditures with 
candidates.
     6. Earmarks
  Requires the disclosure of the names of members who sponsor earmarks 
in appropriations bills and conference reports.
  Allows members to object to and remove specially targeted earmarks 
that were not disclosed in the original appropriations bills or 
conference reports under point of order rules.
  By informal agreement, House leaders have pledged to expand the 
earmarking provision in conference committee to apply to all tax and 
authorizing bills as well as appropriations bills.
     7. Forfeiture of Retirement Benefits
  Cancels retirement benefits for members convicted of a crime related 
to their official duties in public office.


                     B. WHAT H.R. 4975 DOES NOT DO

  H.R. 4975 does not address the most serious problems that gave rise 
to the recent spate of lobbying and ethics scandals. Indicted super-
lobbyist Jack Abramoff could have done business as usual even if the 
``reforms'' contained in H.R. 4975 had been in existence while he was 
working.
  Several of the most serious problems that have not been addressed by 
this bill, nor by the Senate bill, include:

[[Page H2027]]

     1. No meaningful enforcement mechanism is offered
  The legislation leaves in place the failed and discredited system for 
enforcing House ethics and lobbying rules. The House ethics committee 
has been missing in action during all the scandals involving 
unmonitored lobbying activities, travel junkets and unregulated gifts. 
Even two years after news of the activities of Abramoff and his allies 
first came to light, there is no known congressional inquiry into 
allegations that lawmakers took improper or illegal actions on behalf 
of lobbyists. In fact, the House ethics committee didn't even meet in 
2005--during the height of the scandal--and has met in 2006 just 
twice--once to squabble over its future direction and a second time to 
secretly approve H.R. 4975 and send it to the floor.
  Regardless of the details of the law Congress passes, if no one is 
watching and no credible mechanism for enforcement exists, there likely 
will be little compliance with the law.
     2. No effective steps are taken to break the corrupting nexus 
         between lobbyists, money and lawmakers
  While H.R. 4975 does require some additional disclosure requirements 
of contributions by lobbyists, the House bill does nothing to break the 
lobbyist-money-lawmaker nexus. Unlike state laws in California and 
Tennessee that prohibit contributions from lobbyists, H.R. 4975 does 
not impose any new limits on campaign contributions from lobbyists or 
fundraising done by lobbyists for members. Nor does it place any new 
limits on the ways lobbyists or their employers provide financial 
benefits to members, such as hosting fundraising events for members.
  Not only does H.R. 4975 fail to slow the flow of money from lobbyists 
to lawmakers, but it does not even take the simple step of restricting 
lobbyists from controlling the purse strings of lawmakers. Lobbyists 
may still serve as treasurers of lawmakers' campaign committees and 
leadership PACs. The bill no longer even requires disclosure of 
lobbyist participation in fundraising events or parties honoring 
members.
     3. The temporary travel moratorium is a slap in the face to 
         anyone trying to curb the abuses of congressional travel 
         junkets
  While the bill provides a temporary suspension of privately funded 
trips for lawmakers, it does so in a way that raises deep concerns that 
these trips will be reinstated as soon as the 2006 congressional 
elections are over and the incumbents are re-elected. The legislation 
provides for the House ethics committee to recommend travel rules for 
members by Dec. 15, 2006, and sets the stage for establishing in future 
years an ineffective ``pre-approval'' system by the House ethics 
committee for members' privately funded trips. This approach would not 
end the travel abuses that have occurred, even if there was a publicly 
credible House ethics committee to approve the trips, which there is 
not. Under this approach, the temporary suspension of privately funded 
trips could end after the November elections without a direct vote on 
ending the suspension or on adopting travel rules for future years.
  H.R. 4975 also allows members and staff to continue to be shuttled on 
corporate jets to faraway wonders of the world at the low, discounted 
rate of a first-class ticket (compared to charter rates). This is one 
of the business community's favorite means for subsidizing the 
campaigns and travel of lawmakers with the expectation of receiving 
something in return.

     4. No effort is made to slow the revolving door.
  Currently, 43 percent of retiring members of Congress--those who 
retire for reasons other than death or conviction--spin through the 
revolving door to become lobbyists. The current ``cooling-off' period 
prohibits former members and staff only from making direct ``lobbying 
contacts'' with their former colleagues for one year after leaving 
public service. They can, and do, engage in all other lobbying 
activity, including planning lobbying strategy, supervising a team of 
lobbyists and making lobbying contacts with others in government who 
were not in the same branch of government or congressional committee. 
They are prohibited only from picking up the telephone and calling 
their former colleagues.
  H.R. 4975 does not attempt to expand the coverage of the revolving 
door prohibition to include ``lobbying activity'' as well as ``lobbying 
contacts.'' The bill does not even extend the one-year cooling-off 
period to two years.
  Note: For a chart comparing Senate and House lobbying reform 
legislation, go to 
http://www.cleanupwashington.org/documents/LegCompare.pdf. For more 
links to information about lobbying reform, go to http://
www.cleanupwashington.org/lobbying/page.cfm?pageid=24.


                         C. HOUSE FLOOR ACTION

  H.R. 4975 cleared all the committee hurdles with almost no amendments 
in just one week. House Republican leaders clearly want fast action on 
the final bill, most certainly before any further indictments are 
issued in the widening corruption investigations. They have also closed 
off any chance for the full House to consider strengthening amendments 
by attaching a very restrictive closed rule to the bill.
  The restrictive rule attached to H.R. 4975 was approved by a near 
party-line vote of 216-207 on April 27 during a tumultuous floor 
session. After a discombobulated performance on the House floor in the 
morning, in which the GOP leadership pulled the lobbying reform rule 
from the floor 24 minutes after it was introduced because they lacked 
the votes to pass it, the leaders whipped their colleagues into line by 
evening in a closed-door emergency session that lasted an hour and a 
half.
  Many moderate House Republicans opposed the rule because the bill did 
not go far enough in reforming ethics and lobbying practices. For 
example, Representative Jeff Flake told The Washington Post: ``You have 
one of your members in jail, others being investigated. To still take 
the position that we don't need reform--it's unbelievable.''
  Other Republicans, such as Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry 
Lewis objected that the earmarking provision applied only to the 11 
appropriations bills, but not to the tax and authorizing bills of other 
committees, such as the transportation committee, which produced the 
``bridge to nowhere'' earmark. House Republican leaders worked out a 
deal with the appropriators that the earmark provision would be 
extended to tax and authorizing bills in conference committee.
  In the end, all Democrats and only 16 Republicans refused to support 
the restrictive rule. Republicans voted 216 in favor of the rule and 12 
against, with three not voting. No Democrat voted in favor of the rule, 
while 194 voted against it and seven did not vote. One Independent 
voted against the rule.
  Republicans who voted against the restrictive rule include: Reps. 
Chris Shays (R-Conn.), Todd Platts (R-Pa.) Jim Ramstad (R-Minn.), 
former House ethics committee chairman Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), Kenny 
Hulshof (R-Mo.), a former member of the panel, Jeb Bradley (R-N.H.), 
Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.), Charles Bass (R-N.H.), 
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), Mark Green (R-Wisc.) and James Sensenbrenner (R-
Wisc.).
  For a complete roll call vote on the restrictive rule, go to: 
www.CleanUpWashington.org/documents/vote4975rule.pdf.
  The rule prohibits consideration of all but nine amendments among the 
73 that were submitted for consideration. None of the amendments 
advocated by the reform community as strengthening amendments are 
allowed to be considered on the House floor. In addition, the rule:
  Allows for one hour of debate, equally divided between the majority 
and minority parties;
  Reinstates the provisions to regulate Section 527 political 
organizations as political committees subject to federal election 
contribution limits; and
  Repeals current party coordinated expenditure limits; and
  Removes a provision calling for the General Accountability Office to 
study contingency fees paid to lobbyists who secure earmarks.
  Most of the amendments that are allowed for consideration would 
weaken the already weak bill. The nine permissible amendments are as 
follows:


  Summary of Ordered Amendments (Length of Time Permitted for Debate)

  (1.) Gohmert (Texas) #29. Strikes the current section 106 that 
establishes criminal penalties for violations of the law. (10 minutes)
  (2.) Castle (Del.)/Gerlach (Pa.) #38. Requires that lobbyists be held 
liable for offering gifts that violate the gift ban. (10 minutes)
  (3.) Lungren (Calif.)/Miller, George (Calif.)/Hastings (Wa.)/Berman 
(Calif.)/Cole (Okla.) #6. Modifies section 301 to allow privately 
sponsored travel during the temporary moratorium if pre-approved by the 
ethics committee. (10 minutes)
  (4.) Sodrel (Ind.)/McGovem (Mass.)/Davis (Ky.) #47. Amends section 
502 to add a voluntary ethics training program for members within 100 
days of being sworn in to Congress. (10 minutes)
  (5.) Jackson-Lee (Texas) #53. Modifies the extent to which pensions 
can be withheld from the spouse and family. (10 minutes)
  (6.) Gingrey (Ga.) #14. Extends the prohibition on converting 
campaign dollars for personal use currently applicable to campaign 
committees to leadership PACs. (10 minutes)
  (7.) Wolf (Va.) #7 [WITHDRAWN BY WOLF]. Prohibits former ambassadors 
and CIA station chiefs from acting as an agent of the foreign nation 
where they were stationed for five years after their service as 
ambassador or station chief is completed. (10 minutes)
  (8.) Castle (Del.) #34. Requires that all registered lobbyists (not 
members of Congress) complete eight hours of ethics training each 
Congress. (10 minutes)
  (9.) Flake (Ariz.) #17. Prohibits a person from directly or 
indirectly, corruptly giving, offering or promising anything of value 
to any public official with the intent to influence any

[[Page H2028]]

official act relating to an earmark. Also prohibits a public official 
from corruptly demanding, seeking, receiving, accepting or agreeing to 
receive or accept anything of value in return for influence in the 
performance of an official act relating to an earmark. (10 minutes)


  D. CONCLUSION: Reject H.R. 4975 and Make the House Address Genuine 
                            Lobbying Reform

  H.R. 4975 is not real lobbying reform. It fails to address the most 
fundamental abuses of ethical behavior by lobbyists and members of 
Congress alike. The bill instead is being used as a vehicle for 
Republican leaders to claim that have dealt with lobbying abuses while 
avoiding sweeping changes. Republican leaders are betting that H.R. 
4975 will be enough to dodge a voter backlash come November.
  This sham reform legislation should be rejected and sent back to the 
House to be fundamentally rewritten. If the House refuses to deal with 
corruption and the perception of corruption in Congress, the issue 
should not be allowed to fade as the election nears.
  Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy 
organization based in Washington, D.C. For more information, go to 
www.citizen.org.
 Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the lobbying 
reform bill because this legislation does not go far enough in 
reforming the rules of the House.
  As the former House Ethics Committee chairman I feel H.R. 4975 does 
very little in providing comprehensive reform. This bill contains much 
needed changes to lobbying reform and I congratulate Chairman Dreier 
for putting together these much needed changes. Unfortunately, this 
bill is silent on reforming the rules of this institution to enhance 
the ethics process, which are equally as important as the lobbying 
changes.
  We had an opportunity to implement comprehensive ethics reform in the 
House, but unfortunately we are not taking advantage of this 
opportunity. Real, meaningful reform in the House must include 
strengthening the Ethics Committee and the ethics process.
  Representative Hulshof and I introduced a bill last month to 
strengthen the ethics committee in ways this bill does not.
  Our legislation would do three things this bill does not:
  It would increase transparency across the board, it would increase 
oversight, and it would give the Ethics Committee the authority to 
aggressively investigate potential violations when necessary.
  Our legislation includes broad and sweeping disclosure across the 
board for all gifts over $20, all privately funded travel, all lobbyist 
registrations, all passengers on corporate jets, and all member 
financial disclosure statements. All disclosure would be on the 
internet and all in real time.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill we introduced would give the Ethics Committee 
broader subpoena power during informal investigations, which is when 
the key decisions are made regarding whether to fully investigate a 
potential violation.
  Our legislation would strengthen the independence of the chair and 
ranking member by giving them presumptive six year terms like other 
chairmen.
  Our bill would also strengthen the independence of the ethics 
committee staff by making this a career office, like the 
parliamentarians office, yet with the accountability all staff should 
have.
  However, neither the Republican leadership nor the Democrat 
leadership have offered a solution that addresses what is important, 
the Ethics Committee.
  I think we've missed a good opportunity to do some good things and I 
look forward to working with my colleagues in addressing further 
reforms in the future.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us today is a 
missed opportunity to fix an area in great need of reform. The bill 
does little to reign in the activities of lobbyists and members and the 
restrictive rule prevented many viable alternatives from being 
considered.
  There are a lot of things we can do through the Ethics Committee and 
the Rules Committee to improve our broken ethics system. But what we 
should and must do is have an independent process. My colleague from 
Oregon, Greg Walden, and I crafted an amendment that would deal 
comprehensively with accountability and oversight of Congress in a way 
that we cannot accomplish under the current system. Our amendment would 
have established an independent commission, composed of former Members 
of Congress, who would be able to govern Congress in a fair and 
transparent manner. The amendment also provided meaningful reporting 
and review requirements for both Members and lobbyists.
  Our constituents will no longer stand for secretive legislative 
activity where the sponsor is not identified and the fingerprints are 
missing. Time must be allotted to digest proposals. There's no reason 
why there should not be a minimum of 3 days to examine something before 
it is voted on, unless there is a real emergency determined by a vote 
of the House.
  I think we can, and must, do more if we are to restore voters' faith 
in both their representatives and the system in general. While it is 
true that some who broke the law were caught and are now being 
punished, it is clear that we must do better if we are to rekindle the 
trust of the American people in our work and our integrity.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the public outrage over the Jack Abramoff 
scandal presented Congress with an opportunity to support real reform 
by addressing the root cause of the corruption: the amount of money and 
power located in Washington, D.C. A true reform agenda would focus on 
ending federal funding for unconstitutional programs, beginning with 
those programs that benefit wealthy corporations and powerful special 
interests. Congress should also change the way we do business in the 
House by passing the Sunlight Rule (H. Res. 709). The Sunlight Rule 
ensures that members of the House of Representatives and the American 
public have adequate time to read and study legislation before it is 
voted upon. Ending the practice of rushing major legislation to the 
House floor before members have had a chance to find out the details of 
bills will do more to improve the legislative process and restore 
public confidence in this institution than will imposing new 
registration requirements on lobbyists or making staffers waste their 
time at an ``ethics class.''
  I am disappointed, but not surprised, to see that Congress is failing 
to go after the root cause of corruption. Instead, we are considering 
placing further burdens on the people's exercise of their free speech 
rights. H.R. 4975 will not deter corrupt lobbyists, staffers, or 
members. What H.R. 4975 will do is discourage ordinary Americans from 
participating in the policy process. Among the ways H.R. 4975 silences 
ordinary Americans is by requiring grassroots citizens' action 
organizations to divulge their membership lists so Congress can 
scrutinize the organizations' relationships with members of Congress. 
The result of this will be to make many Americans reluctant to support 
or join these organizations. Making it more difficult for average 
Americans to have their voices heard is an odd response to concerns 
that Congress is more responsive to special interests than to the 
American public.
  This legislation further violates the First Amendment by setting up a 
means of secretly applying unconstitutional campaign finance laws to 
``Section 527'' organizations. This is done by a provision in the rule 
under which this bill is brought before us that automatically attaches 
the ``527'' legislation to H.R. 4975 if H.R. 4975 passes the House and 
is sent to the Senate for a conference.
  H.R. 4975 also contains minor reforms of the appropriation process to 
bring greater transparency to the process of ``earmarking,'' where 
members seek funding for specific projects in their respective 
district. I have no objection to increased transparency, and I share 
some of the concerns raised by opponents of the current earmarking 
process.
  However, I would like to remind my colleagues that, since earmark 
reform does not reduce the total amount of spending, instead giving 
more power to the executive branch to allocate federal funds, the 
problem of members trading their votes in exchange for earmarks will 
continue. The only difference will be that instead of trading their 
votes to win favor with Congressional appropriators and House 
leadership, members will trade their votes to get funding from the 
Executive branch. Transferring power over allocation of taxpayer 
dollars from the legislative branch to the executive branch is hardly a 
victory for republican government. Reducing Congress's role in 
allocating of tax dollars, without reducing the Federal budget, also 
means State and local officials, to say nothing of ordinary citizens, 
will have less input into how Federal funds are spent.
  Earmarks, like most of the problems H.R. 4975 purports to deal with, 
are a symptom of the problem, not the cause. The real problem is that 
the United States government is too big, spends too much, and has too 
much power. When the government has the power to make or break entire 
industries by changing one regulation or adding or deleting one 
paragraph in an appropriation bill it is inevitable that people will 
seek to manipulate that power to their advantage. Human nature being 
what it is, it is also inevitable that some people seeking government 
favors will violate basic norms of ethical behavior. Thus, the only way 
to effectively address corruption is to reduce the size of government 
and turn money and power back to the people and the several states.
  The principals in the recent scandals where not deterred by existing 
laws and congressional ethics rules. Why would a future Jack Abramoff 
be deterred by H.R. 4975? H.R. 4975 is not just ineffective to the 
extent that it burdens the ability of average citizens to support and 
join grassroots organizations to more effectively participate in the 
policy process, H.R. 4975 violates the spirit, if not the letter, of 
the First Amendment. I therefore urge my

[[Page H2029]]

colleagues to reject this bill and instead work to reduce corruption in 
Washington by reducing the size and power of the Federal Government.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor and a privilege to serve in 
the U.S. Congress. Having been entrusted by our constituents with the 
responsibility to serve their interests in this body, we hold a sacred 
trust to represent them openly, honestly, and selflessly.
  Serving as a public official necessarily and rightly subjects an 
individual to heightened scrutiny of behavior. It is tragic that 
scurrilous actions perpetrated by Members of this body have further 
eroded the trust that Americans place in their electoral and 
representative system. Congress must act expeditiously and strongly to 
restore this trust.
  Unfortunately, the legislation that we have before us today is 
nothing more than a sham. It is a feeble attempt to fool the public--a 
package of half-hearted cosmetic changes that merely nibble at the 
edges of a fundamentally flawed governing ethos.
  H.R. 4975 falls far short of its two goals--fixing the systemic 
problems that have led to abuses of power, and restoring the faith of 
American citizens in the integrity of this institution.
  Recent scandals prove that we need to do something to ensure that 
Congressional travel is legitimate. Domestic and international travel 
is an important way to inform our representation and see the effects of 
our decisions in different communities and countries. For example, 
Members of Congress should have the opportunity to travel to Israel, 
Burma, Greece, Brazil, or other destinations where the votes cast in 
this chamber have a real impact. Such trips are entirely different from 
golf junkets to Scotland. Nonprofits and educational agencies should 
continue providing this important service because it informs Members in 
a setting free of special interest lobbyists. However, H.R. 4975 does 
nothing to stop lobbyists from funding and arranging Congressional 
travel. Such travel should be permanently banned altogether. H.R. 4975 
also fails because it imposes no restrictions on the use of corporate 
jets by Members, and does not require reimbursement of the flight's 
actual value.
  Sunshine, as they say, is the best disinfectant, and H.R. 4975 does 
not do nearly enough to allow the public to know the interaction 
between elected officials and lobbyists. H.R. 4975 contains no 
meaningful disclosure requirements on lobbyist campaign finance 
activities on behalf of Members of Congress. We must let the public 
know about fundraisers, events ``honoring'' Members, or outright 
contributions that special interest lobbyists are lavishing upon 
elected officials. The bill has been stripped of any such requirements.
  It is clear that the practice of ``earmarking'' is not the ideal way 
to fund the needs of the nation. Basing funding decisions not on merit, 
but on the influence and seniority of a Member of Congress inherently 
does a disservice to the nation. Earmarking needs to be severely 
restricted. At a minimum, each Member should be willing to fully 
disclose the requesting organization or person and explaining the 
purpose of the project publicly. Unfortunately, H.R. 4975 fails to 
achieve this goal. Its disclosure requirements apply only to 
appropriations bills--not to authorization or tax bills. It's a half-
measure, at best, that would do nothing to stop wasteful and 
unnecessary projects like the ``Bridge to Nowhere.''
  Sadly, the process by which this legislation comes before us has been 
fundamentally undemocratic. The Rules Committee disallowed the large 
majority of amendments that would improve this weak bill. It disallowed 
an amendment that would have required registered lobbyists to disclose 
lobbying contacts with Members of Congress and senior executive branch 
officials. It disallowed an amendment to increase the waiting period 
for Members and senior staff to lobby Congress. And it disallowed an 
amendment to require full payment and disclosure of charter flights.
  The Democratic alternative is a better way. The Honest Leadership 
Open Government Act would address these shortcomings and more. It would 
prohibit special interest provisions from being inserted in legislation 
in the dead of night, before they can be adequately reviewed and 
debated. It would restore democracy in the House by prohibiting votes 
from being held open to twist arms and lobby Members on the floor, and 
would prohibit cronyism in key government appointments and government 
contracting. We would also permanently ban gifts and travel arranged or 
funded by lobbyists, mandate disclosure of lobbyist fundraising 
activities on behalf of Members, and close the revolving door between 
the public and private sector.
  The Washington Post calls this bill, ``a watered-down sham.'' USA 
Today calls it an ``outrageous substitute for needed reform.'' Third 
party interest groups like Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of 
Women Voters, Public Citizen, and U.S. P.I.R.G. have all condemned this 
weak and inadequate effort to kick the can down the road. We have an 
historic opportunity to reform the way business is conducted in 
Washington, D.C., and we are poised to miss that opportunity.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4975 and support real reform.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
legislation.
  The American people are losing their faith in the integrity of 
Congress. Today we had a real opportunity to curb the influence of the 
special interests and lobbyists, and to disburse the cloud of 
corruption hanging over this Congress as a result of the improprieties 
of a small minority who have disgraced its good name.
  Yet this watered-down attempt at reform falls far short of what we 
need to do to restore confidence in the legislative process. This bill 
is reform in name only. Under this bill companies could continue to fly 
members in their corporate jets at discount rates. Members could 
continue to accept lobbying jobs shortly after drafting and advocating 
for industry- friendly legislation. Members could influence private 
employment decisions with the threat of taking or withholding official 
actions. And special interest provisions could continue to be slipped 
into legislation at the eleventh hour. Instead of developing a real 
policy to govern gifts and meals, this legislation defers that decision 
until after the elections in November. This bill also postpones 
adoption of a clear policy regarding special interest and lobbyist-
sponsored private travel.
  The bill before the House is not going to fool anyone. Across the 
country, newspapers are blasting the GOP lobbying reform bill for the 
farce that it is.
  The Washington Post has called it ``a watered-down sham that would 
provide little in the way of accountability or transparency.'' 
``Congress still doesn't get it,'' said USA Today. The New York Times 
writes ``It's hard to believe that members of Congress mindful of 
voters'' diminishing respect would attempt such an election-year con.'' 
And the Houston Chronicle asks ``How many more members of Congress, 
their aides and lobbyists have to be convicted of fraud, bribery and 
abuse of voters' trust before legislators get the message that the 
public is serious about ethics reform?''
  The Democratic reform plan, the Honest Leadership and Open Government 
Act, which I have cosponsored, would address each of these serious 
inadequacies, while further strengthening lobbyist disclosure 
requirements to shine some light into the relationship between campaign 
donors, lobbyists and Members of Congress.
  Yet, in what has become a standard abuse of House Rules, Democrats 
were denied the opportunity to debate a number of substantive 
amendments seeking to improve and strengthen many components of the 
bill. Consideration of substitute legislation was blocked as well, 
denying Members the chance to vote on the actual reforms included in 
the Democratic Honest Leadership and Open Government Act.
  The American people have seen the impacts resulting from the lax 
policies of this Republican Congress in many ways. Spiraling 
prescription drug costs, the skyrocketing cost of gasoline, waste, 
fraud and no-bid contracts in the Gulf Coast and Iraq, are all cases 
where a more open legislative process with reasonable oversight could 
have saved consumers thousands.
  While this Republican Leadership may be perfectly content in 
perpetuating a clearly flawed status quo, sticking to business as usual 
regardless of the multiplying and increasingly brazen cases of 
misconduct, and promising more reform at some indefinite date in the 
future, I know the American people both demand and deserve a real 
response. This is simply a smoke screen by Members of the Majority to 
delay real action right here and right now.
  Today Member after Member from the Republican Party came to the House 
floor not to extol the virtues of this legislation but to assure their 
colleagues that this was just a compromise, and that more would be done 
in conference and in the future. The American people do not want a 
compromise. They don't want to hear any more false promises of future 
action. The continuing cost of inaction has resulted in the loss of the 
confidence of the American people.
  I will vote against this legislation today and support the Democratic 
motion to recommit to send the bill back to Committee with instructions 
to immediately report the measure back to the House with the text of 
the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the legislation before us 
today. I oppose it, not because I oppose clean, open, and transparent 
government; or because I don't want the American people to have faith 
in their legislators.
  I oppose it, quite simply, because all it does is put lipstick on a 
pig. It allows the Republican majority to give themselves a self 
congratulatory pat on the back and then proceed with business as usual. 
It allows those same Republicans, who have let K Street and corporate 
greed-heads to feast at the trough of

[[Page H2030]]

American democracy, to proclaim their reborn innocence. It scolds the 
lobbying community for the sins of their membership, and does nothing 
to change the culture of corruption here in the Congress and in the 
Executive Branch other than making people fill out a couple more forms.
  I have served in this beloved institution for quite a while now. I 
love it with all my heart. In my time here I have always tried to do 
right by the people. I have always tried to spend their money wisely. I 
have tried to make sure that their government responds to their 
concerns. I have tried to make sure that the Executive Branch, whether 
it was run by Democrats or Republicans, understood Congressional 
prerogatives. And the Congress, as a whole, used to respect these 
privileges as well.
  Things have changed. They have changed, not because there's a 
thriving business for lobbyists--lobbyists thrived when Congress was 
honest--but because this Congress now sees K Street's interests as its 
own. Not only have we seen a rise in a culture of corruption, but we 
have also seen the withering of the culture of skepticism.
  Too many people here in the Congress accept, without a moment's 
hesitation, the priorities of a lobbyist. No questions are asked, no 
criticisms are made. Doing K Street's bidding is not our job, 
representing the American people is. Until the Majority figures that 
out, no amount of reform and self-congratulations is going to change 
our image or restore the faith of the American people.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Linder) having assumed the chair, Mr. Price of Georgia, Acting Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
4975) to provide greater transparency with respect to lobbying 
activities, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________