Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 51 (Wednesday, May 3, 2006)

[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.

____________________