[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 52 (Thursday, May 4, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E730]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          LOBBYING ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2006

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, April 3, 2006

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4975) to 
     provide greater transparency with respect to lobbying 
     activities, and for other purposes:

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed and regretful 
that I must vote against this bill, for two reasons--first, because it 
fails to adequately address the need for real reform of the lobbying 
rules, and, second, because the Republican leadership has insisted on 
adding unrelated, unnecessary and undesirable restrictions on political 
speech.
  The bill does include some good reform provisions, but they fall 
short of what is needed.
  For example, it would add some transparency regarding appropriations 
earmarks. I support that, which is why I am cosponsoring H.R. 4964, the 
Earmark Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006, introduced by 
Representative Flake. That bill would require all earmarks to be 
included in the texts of bills, so they would be known and could be 
debated and also would bar consideration of a conference report unless 
it includes a list of all earmarks and the name of the Member who 
proposed each earmark and was available to the general public on the 
Internet for at least 72 hours before its consideration.
  Unfortunately, the earmark provisions of this bill do not meet that 
standard.
  Similarly, the bill takes a step toward greater ethics training for 
Congressional staff. I also support that, which is why I have joined my 
Colorado colleague, Representative Hefley, in sponsoring H.R. 4988, the 
House Ethics Reform Act of 2006. That bill not only would require 
mandatory annual ethics training for Members of the House and House 
officers, it also includes provisions that would strengthen the ethics 
committee and enable it to carry out the job of ensuring compliance 
with the House's rules and standards of conduct.
  So, unfortunately, here too the bill falls short of what is needed.
  Similarly, the bill would do nothing meaningful to tighten the 
current House gift rule or curb meals from registered lobbyists. It 
would do nothing meaningful to curb the abuse that can come from the 
availability of corporate jets for Members. And it would do nothing to 
slow the revolving door, retaining the current 1-year period in which 
former Members are prohibited from lobbying their former colleagues.
  Those shortcomings would have been corrected by adoption of the 
motion to recommit, which would have added provisions from H.R. 4682, 
the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which I am cosponsoring. 
However, unfortunately, that motion was not adopted.
  But the worst part of all is that the bill, already watered down, was 
corrupted by the addition of H.R. 513, dealing with so-called ``527'' 
organizations--a bill that I strongly opposed when the House considered 
it last month.
  That legislation would bring independent groups under the 
jurisdiction of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and subject them 
to the full scope of federal election law regulation--even though this 
not necessary to remove any appearance of public corruption--and it 
would restrict the freedom of speech of people who band together to 
express themselves about federal candidates and issues of national 
importance. It also would lift limits on coordinated expenditures, 
allowing national party committees to completely underwrite individual 
campaigns.
  I cannot support these provisions--and so I cannot support the 
overall bill.

                          ____________________