[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 114 (Thursday, September 14, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H6597-H6616]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR EARMARKING REFORM IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1003 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1003
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution, House
Resolution 1000, amended by the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Rules now printed
in the resolution, is hereby adopted.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a very important reform that is
a bipartisan reform. It is bipartisan because it is an issue that I am
happy to say, as we have moved down the road towards reform, has
enjoyed strong bipartisan support. In fact, it was a key provision in
the House-passed Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act, which
did enjoy bipartisan support, not as strong as I would have liked, but
it did enjoy bipartisan support.
Specifically, Mr. Speaker, with this new rule, Member-directed
spending to projects in their district, or earmarks, will no longer be
anonymous. It is very simple.
We all know, as it stands now, there are no disclosure requirements
in appropriations, tax bills or authorizing legislation. Earmarks can
be buried in the text of bills that often number into the thousands of
pages. There is no easy way to account for how many earmarks are in a
bill or who is sponsoring them.
This new rule requires sponsors of earmarks to be listed in committee
reports. Conference reports must also have a list of earmarks that are
``air-dropped'' or brought into an agreement in the conference report
itself. It is just that simple.
We are blowing away the fog of anonymity so the public can have a
clear picture of what the projects are, how much they cost, and who is
sponsoring them. It is just a very simple case of transparency.
Mr. Speaker, this is a victory for fiscal responsibility and a
victory for spending taxpayer dollars more wisely.
As an enforcement mechanism, this new rule also provides for a
question of consideration when a bill or conference report does not
contain a list of earmarks. The question of consideration is debatable
for 30 minutes, 15 minutes equally divided.
Mr. Speaker, if a Member feels strongly enough about a proposed
earmark, they will have to attach their name to it. That is all we are
asking. And they need to be prepared to make their case in full view of
their colleagues, their constituents, and the American people as a
whole.
Mr. Speaker, the earmark reform bill will build on the reforms that
have already been implemented by the Appropriations Committee, and I
take my hat off to the Appropriations Committee for the very bold and
dynamic reforms that they have made. They have reduced the number of
earmarks already by 37 percent. Overall spending on Member projects was
reduced by $7.8 billion below last year's level.
Over the last 2 years, Member project spending has decreased by over
$10 million, and I want to especially express my appreciation to my
very dear friend, Jerry Lewis, who has so ably chaired the
Appropriations Committee and has stepped up to the plate and taken on
this issue of reform and done it with great success because of the fact
that he has been able to rein in Federal spending. It doesn't get a lot
of attention, but he has been very successful in doing that.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to make very clear that our focus is not
solely on appropriations. This was one of the requests that Chairman
Lewis made of us as we were proceeding with this work.
For this reform to be effective, it must be comprehensive, and that
was the commitment that the Speaker of the House and our leadership
team made to our Members. So let me point out that this earmark reform
applies across the board. It doesn't just apply to some committees. It
covers all committees, all appropriations, all tax, all authorizing
legislation, anything that moves through this House through regular
order.
Mr. Speaker, we have taken great care to clearly and precisely state
what constitutes a tax, an appropriation, or an authorizing earmark.
And the good news is that there is more agreement than disagreement on
those definitions. Yet clearly there is no magic bullet. There is not
going to be one definition that will be perfect and please everybody.
But at the end of the day, we have to come together. We have to come
together, Mr. Speaker, and move this process forward. If there is an
earmark in a bill, it belongs on a list. It is just that simple.
{time} 1600
If there is an earmark, we need to see it. Now, is this new
disclosure going to completely end the practice of earmarking? I
certainly hope not. I don't want it to, because I believe that
earmarking is part of our constitutional responsibility. But it will
shine a spotlight on earmarks without grinding the legislative process
to a halt.
Let me make very clear that the larger goal of this new rule is to
make a profound and lasting change in how this institution handles
earmarks and spends taxpayer dollars. The goal is to increase
transparency, disclosure and accountability, and the goal is to pull
back the curtain on earmarks for the public, because I believe, Mr.
Speaker, that they have a right to know.
For this earmark reform to be both meaningful and lasting, everyone,
from committee chairmen on down, must make a good-faith effort to
comply with the spirit of the new rule. Our leadership, and certainly
the Rules Committee, has made such a commitment, and we are determined
to make this work.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that while this is an
important milestone in the path toward reform, we have not reached the
goal
[[Page H6598]]
line. In fact, I don't believe that we will ever reach the absolute
goal line because reform is a continuous process. It gains momentum
from Members who never let up and never settle for the status quo.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for reforming
earmarks, and ``yes'' to setting the stage for more reforms that we
will face down the road.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is no secret why fewer than 30 percent of Americans
approve of the job that Congress is doing. It is not hard to figure out
why nearly 75 percent of Americans feel as though the country is headed
in the wrong direction, and it is easy to see why so few citizens are
confident that this government will turn things around.
Our elected officials routinely abuse the public trust, promising one
thing and delivering another. They intentionally disguise business as
usual to look like positive reform, and Members of the House have
ignored the rules written in the public interest, and have allowed the
deliberative process at the heart of our democracy to be captured by
special interests.
The result has been a Congress where corrupt lobbyists write the
bills, 15-minute votes are held open for 3 hours and entirely new
legislation is crammed into acts in the dead of night. The American
people know it, and they are tired of the old games. When finally faced
with public awareness and anger over just how corrupt our House has
become, Republicans promised a great deal.
In fact, they opened 2006 with a flurry of promises. My good friend
and colleague, David Dreier, the chairman of the Rules Committee and
Republican ethics reform leader, had this to say on the floor in
February, and I quote, ``We are committed to bold, strong, dynamic
reforms for this institution,'' he said. Adding the quote, ``the
Republican Party has stood for reform ever since I can remember.''
But since then, Mr. Speaker, very little of anything has come from my
Republican friends, even though their party controls the House, the
Senate and the White House. If they were interested in ethics reform,
they would have passed it swiftly. Instead they seem here at the last
throes simply determined to merely run out the clock on the issue of
passing a few deceptive bills here and there while secretly hoping the
whole subject would go away.
We saw this strategy with the first ethics reform act passed by the
House in February, which was a minor rules change that simply prevented
former Members from using the House gym, as if that is the only place
that dishonest business transpires in Washington.
Then in May a broader Republican bill theoretically focused on
preventing future lobbyist abuses was lambasted by commentators of all
stripes for being what it was, a sham. It has been a history of
deliberate inaction, Mr. Speaker, and the same story here today.
As this legislative session comes to a close, it is truly shameful
that bills like this one are all the House is going to be able to
accomplish. Consider the context in which this bill comes to us.
While my colleagues on the other side spent years railing against the
evils of Congressional earmarks, they have been presiding over the
greatest earmark explosion in American history. According to the
Heritage Foundation, earmarks are appropriations bills that increased
tenfold between 1995 and 2005. In the mid-1990s, they accounted for $10
billion in Federal spending. Today it is over $27 billion.
Nonappropriation earmarks have skyrocketed as well. Last year's
transportation reauthorization bill, for example, contains 6,371
earmarks, totaling $25 billion, including the ``Bridge to Nowhere.''
We cannot afford to keep spending in such an irresponsible way, Mr.
Speaker. One look at our skyrocketing national deficit is proof enough
of that. But this is about more than just debt, it is about the future
of democracy itself.
Unchecked earmarks, and many of them for relatives of the persons who
wrote them, or for businesses that they own, are a cause of the culture
of corruption that pervades Washington and undermines our democracy.
They are routinely traded for political favors, exchanged for votes and
used to benefit family members. They are, in the words of
Representative Flake, the currency of corruption in Washington.
Yet, my Republican friends have given us a bill today that is a
nonresponse to the crucial issue, a deceptive bill that is riddled with
loopholes. Just like the previous legislation, this is, once again, a
sham.
This measure is supposed to increase disclosure of which Members are
behind which earmarks. But it is intentionally limited. It leaves
numerous means by which Members can conceal their earmarks. The rules
change proposed to the resolution applies only to reported bills, so a
Member who wanted to avoid disclosing earmarks to the public could
simply include them in the manager's amendment or bring the bill
straight to the House floor without a committee markup, therefore, no
identifiable earmarks. That is a loophole you could drive a truck
through.
If that is not bad enough, the bill defines many types of earmarks
right out of existence. For example, spending on Federal entities can
no longer be classified as an earmark under the bill. That would have
allowed the infamous $200 million ``Bridge to Nowhere'' earmark that
blew up in a scandal last year to avoid disclosure entirely. The $400
million Home Depot ceiling fan giveaway that we heard so much about
would not have counted as a earmark either, just because the resolution
did not include tariff and duty changes in its definition.
Of course, this entire piece of legislation would expire in January.
Let me make that point again. What we are doing here today, when this
passes today, it is only good till the end of the year. How serious a
bill is that?
This is a deeply flawed solution to a serious problem, a temporary
stopgap measure, and I think we won't be writing any more earmarks this
year, which is designed to do little more than get the Republicans
through the November elections.
As always, there is an alternative. More than 6 months ago my
Democrat colleagues and I offered a tough, commonsense report package
that would have corrected many of the most rampant abuses plaguing
Washington, abuses that have diverted the work being done here away
from the good of the people and toward the wants of a few.
Legislation I introduced on behalf of the Democratic leadership in
May bans travel on corporate gifts, bans lobbyist gifts, slows down the
revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street, prohibits lobbyists
writing the bills, addresses many of the broken procedures and rules
here in this House.
It focuses on earmarks, too, in a much more direct and systemic way
than the bill before us does now. In fact, it requires Members to
publicly disclose all district-specific earmark requests that they make
on bills and conference reports. This past May I am proud to say that
16 Republicans joined with the Democrats in support of this bill.
In the end, it failed the House by only two votes. It was deeply
encouraging to see rank-and-file Republicans of conscience challenge
their Republican Party's leadership, to see them back up their pledge
to clean up the House with real action. They will have other chances to
do it, too, because Democrats have not given up this fight.
We have always prided ourselves on delivering what we have promised,
and we are committed to eliminating the corruption that plagues our
Congress today. We won't stop until we get there.
Together, we will give the country a Congress they can be proud of
again.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say in response
to my good friend from New York once again, this is a bipartisan
effort. I know that the Democratic Caucus has talked about the need to
implement this reform. We hope very much, when we come back to majority
status in January of next year, to renew and build on this kind of
reform.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, a hardworking
member of the Commerce Committee, the
[[Page H6599]]
gentleman from Phoenix, Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I compliment him for
his hard work in this effort at earmark reform, and I also compliment
the leaders of this House.
Mr. Speaker, just a year ago, I think no one would have believed that
we would have been standing here now on the verge of adopting very far-
reaching earmark reform. I compliment everybody engaged in this debate,
from my Democrat colleagues to my Republican colleagues, all of the
people involved, including the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, who has engaged in this vigorously.
This is a milestone. This is a step forward for the American people.
This is a day in which we are saying the American people get to know
how their money is spent.
Importantly, when we passed similar language several months ago, the
chairman of the Appropriations Committee said it is wrong to single out
a single committee. This should apply to all committees, and he was
right then, and he is right now. It is important, indeed, I would argue
it is vital that the American people be able to know how every dollar
they send us in taxes gets spent, and this legislation will allow that
to happen.
It says that every earmark and every Member who requested an earmark
must be openly acknowledged in the legislation itself. By shedding the
light of day on the earmarks that move through this Congress, we are
being open and straightforward. Those who have what they consider to be
a good earmark for the country can come to this floor and defend it and
explain it, and the American people can examine it. I believe this is a
tremendous step forward.
I want to caution people listening to the debate. What you will hear
in the debate here today is that this bill isn't right, because it is
not perfect. It doesn't go far enough. The definitions aren't quite
precise. We just heard the minority say it is not a good bill because
there has been an explosion in earmarks. So, somehow, since there has
been an explosion in earmarks, we should not do anything.
That is outrageous. No bill that I have voted on in my career in this
Congress has been perfect. No bill has had every definition exactly
right. This is a tremendous step forward. This is a vote for sunshine.
This is a vote for openness in our government, and I urge my colleagues
to support it.
I compliment our leadership and the chairman of the Rules Committee.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, after all the scandals, after all the
corruption, after all the unethical abuse of earmarks, after all the
public outrage, this is it? This is the best that you can do? With all
due respect to my colleague from Arizona, who just spoke, I don't want
your compliments. I don't want to take credit for this.
This measure before us is not earmark reform or any other kind of
real reform. It is not accountability, and it is not transparency. It
is, at best, a press release. There are so many loopholes in this
measure that you could drive a Mack truck right through it. Unreported
bills, manager's amendments and other amendments are not subject to
this so-called reform.
That is where a great deal of the earmarking abuse occurs, but it is
all exempt. We need to clean this place up. We need to change the
culture of corruption in this House of Representatives. We need a
comprehensive lobbying bill that has teeth in it, that means something.
Let me say to my colleagues, this entire institution has suffered as
a result of the corrupt practices of the Tom DeLays and the Duke
Cunninghams. It has suffered under the 12 years of mismanagement by the
Republican majority here. People have had it. People have lost faith in
this institution.
This chairman of the Rules Committee talks about how the Republican
majority is interested in reining in spending. Federal spending has
gone up 40 percent since George Bush took office. In terms of earmarks,
they are coming late to this game. In 1995, when they took power, there
were about 1,400 earmarks. There are over 14,000 earmarks as of 2005.
You know, the only way to regain the confidence of the American
people is by combating the corruption, by cleaning up this institution,
by implementing real, honest-to-goodness reform.
{time} 1615
This is not it. If you are going to do something, do it right.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to a very
hardworking member of the Committee on Rules, my very, very good friend
from Marietta, Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1000, a resolution
providing for earmark reform in the U.S. House of Representatives. I
want to say that I support this resolution because I take my
responsibility to allocate the hard-earned money of the residents of
Georgia's 11th District very, very seriously.
There are fundamental duties of the Federal Government, tasks that
the American people cannot do individually, but they rely on the
collective strength of our Nation's capital to accomplish. Some of
these tasks are national security, ensuring the safety of our citizens
at home and abroad, and maintaining our national highways and
infrastructure. However, over the years, the Federal Government has
expanded this definition to encompass many extraneous projects that
cannot be defended.
Mr. Speaker, there is a reason earmarks have become such an integral
part of the appropriation and authorization process in Congress. It is
because each individual Member of Congress knows what is needed in
their own districts better than anyone else. It is for this reason that
I fully support this legislation, because it does not outlaw earmarks.
Rather, it represents reform that is long overdue.
Mr. Speaker, I have submitted earmark requests on behalf of my
constituents, but I have always tried to prioritize these projects in
an effort to maintain my credibility as a trustworthy steward of the
taxpayer dollars.
So I rise today not to condemn the earmark process, but rather to
applaud the legislation that inherently reforms it. This legislation
takes a stand for transparency in an effort to curb the current trend
of frivolous Federal spending. Congress always needs to remember to
whom we are ultimately accountable, and because of this legislation,
Congress will be able to restore that full credibility.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui).
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from New York for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, the American people are demanding real reform of
Congress. This bill isn't it.
The second session of the 109th Congress began with Members on both
sides of the aisle deeply concerned that the dignity of this great
institution had been tarnished. Newspapers across the country ran
stories almost every day about the illegal practices of well-connected
lobbyists. Stories discussed the ways in which unethical conduct had
become the cost of doing business in Congress.
We read about the K Street Project. We read about legislation written
in secret by lobbyists and about back-room deals to benefit narrow
special interests. Editorial boards from all 50 States called for
reform.
In May, the House passed a fundamentally flawed approach to reform.
It included some new restrictions on lobbyists, yes, but we showed no
willingness to demand reform of ourselves. That sent a terrible message
to our constituents.
There is a better approach. I have joined many of my colleagues as a
cosponsor of the Honest Leadership Open Government Act. It injects
transparency and accountability into Congress itself. There would be no
more K Street Project. There would be no more meals or gifts from
lobbyists. No more travel on corporate jets. And it would ensure better
legislation. Members would be guaranteed 24 hours to read a bill before
voting on it. And we would end the common practice of last-minute
provisions slipped into conference reports.
[[Page H6600]]
The majority is interested in none of this. The legislation was
rejected in May along party lines. And since then, the House has not
shown any interest in moving ahead with any meaningful reform.
So here we are in the waning days of the 109th Congress debating only
a narrow earmark reform resolution full of exceptions and unlikely to
pass.
Every Member of this House knows that this bill is not what the
American people demanded of us at the beginning of the year. Certainly,
this resolution will not restore the integrity of the institution in
which we serve.
Mr. Speaker, the American people want real reform. They will not be
fooled by fig leaves.
We still have time to act in a unified fashion to restore the dignity
of this House. Unfortunately, this resolution falls far short of that
necessary effort.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 1
minute to the very distinguished majority leader, who has been a great
champion of earmark reform for many, many years, my friend, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from California
(Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding, and
thank him and the Speaker for their tremendous work on this rule
change.
Mr. Speaker, today is an important day for the House as an
institution. There has been much written this year about the practice
of earmarking, which has allowed lawmakers to anonymously insert
spending projects into bills without scrutiny or significant debate. It
is a major source of frustration, I think, for the American people, and
for those of us who believe that we need greater accountability and
transparency in the way Congress works.
Earlier this year, I, along with many of my colleagues, called for
reforms to this earmark process. We need a process where we can
determine what are worthy projects and distinguish those from worthless
pork. These reforms before us will help accomplish that goal so
unworthy projects can be publicly identified, debated and, hopefully,
weeded out.
I think the reforms before us are very straightforward. They specify
that if the House considers a bill which includes earmarks, it must be
accompanied by a list identifying those earmarks as well as the names
of the Members who requested them. The reforms also ensure that in the
case of a conference report, the list includes any earmarks that were
what we call ``air-dropped,'' or in other words, not included in either
the House or Senate bills.
No longer will Members, the media or average taxpayers have to thumb
through pages of legislative and report language looking for earmarks
that are sometimes added at the eleventh hour. This information will be
publicly available for everyone to see.
I think it is simple common sense. If you request a project, you
ought to be willing to put your name on it, and if you aren't willing
to put your name on a project, you shouldn't expect the American people
to pay for it.
Fulfilling a commitment made by Republican leaders earlier this year
to treat everyone equally, these reforms will apply to all committees,
authorizers, appropriators and tax writers alike. The goal here is to
bring earmarking out of the shadows and into the light of public
scrutiny. These reforms will bring sunshine and transparency to the
earmark process, resulting in greater accountability for lawmakers and
greater public confidence in how their taxpayer dollars are spent.
Importantly, it also likely will result in fewer earmarks, building
on the progress already made by leaders such as chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, Jerry Lewis. This year during the
appropriations process, there were 37 percent fewer earmarks than the
year before and the cost of those earmarks has been reduced by some
$7.8 billion.
Earmark reform is just one component of Republicans' larger effort to
promote fiscal discipline and ensure that Congress spends America's
taxpayer dollars wisely.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).
Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.
Former Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan once said, ``The
government being the people's business, it necessarily follows that its
operations should be at all times open to the public view. Publicity,
therefore, is as essential to honest administration as freedom of
speech is to representative government.''
Public scrutiny and oversight is what our earmarking process needs,
and one of the best ways to do this is by implementing meaningful
reforms that bring transparency and accountability to the process.
The Republican leadership has offered a very modest rules amendment,
but I think we should go even further. It is in that spirit that I have
introduced H.R. 1008, a resolution outlining a comprehensive approach
to earmark reform that brings real transparency and publicity to the
earmarking process for appropriations, authorizations and tax benefits.
My comprehensive proposal, H.R. 1008, includes requirements not only
for reporting the Member's name along with the earmark request; it also
requires that earmark requests be submitted to the committee or
committees at least 7 days before an earmark request is scheduled to be
voted upon.
But, most importantly, most importantly, my proposal requires that
information on all earmarks be posted on committee Web sites for public
inspection at least 48 hours prior to the time of the vote, and also
directs the Clerk of the House to establish a public Web site that
provides links to all committee Web sites with information on earmark
requests. By providing easily accessible information on earmarks and
``one-stop shopping'' for American taxpayers, we can bring real
accountability to the earmarking process.
The need to control the growth of earmarks should not be a partisan
issue. This is not about Democrats and Republicans, it is about a good
idea and something good for the American public. We should come
together to pass comprehensive earmark reform that brings real
accountability and transparency to the process.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOORE of Kansas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that the gentleman has some very
interesting, creative ideas. As I said in my opening remarks, the
reform process is an ongoing thing that we are dealing with, and I am
more than happy to look at the proposals that the gentleman has,
especially as we look at our opening day rules package for January of
next year.
Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman to accept
the amendment to his proposal.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to a
strong proponent of the issue of earmark reform, our friend from Mesa,
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the United States Congress is a wonderful and storied
institution. It is with great reverence and pride that each of us who
is elected comes into this body. But with earmarking, we have departed
from the practices and traditions of the People's House.
When working properly, the House of Representatives follows the time-
honored practice of authorization, appropriation and oversight.
Earmarking short circuits this process. Today, we do far too little
authorizing, far too much appropriating and far too little oversight.
When I was first elected, I had visions of participating in the great
debates of our time. It is not that these policy debates haven't
occurred. They have and they do. But I believe it is safe to say that
they are diminishing.
In Congress, policies and priorities are established when money is
attached to them. When the carefully designed process of authorization,
appropriation and oversight is adhered to, these policies and
priorities are given a thorough vetting. But when earmarks are inserted
into bills at the last minute behind closed doors, there is no debate,
deliberation or scrutiny.
When appropriation bills reach the House floor, passage by a lopsided
margin is virtually assured because Members with earmarks are obligated
to
[[Page H6601]]
vote for the entire bill. The scope of debate is substantially narrowed
when even partisan disagreements that would otherwise occur are hushed
as Republicans and Democrats find common cause in protecting their
earmarks.
I am under no illusion that this legislation, which deals only with
the issue of transparency, will solve the problem of earmarking. Too
many in this body have been convinced that they have both the right and
the obligation to personally direct funding to their district. But this
bill does represent an important first step.
Mr. Speaker, we owe this institution more than we are giving it.
Let's pass this bill and give it more of the respect it deserves.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.
Mr. Speaker, this bill represents the death of lobby reform. Over the
last year, as we all know, this House has received a black eye because
of the DeLay scandal, stories about lobbyists paying for golf trips to
Scotland, the Cunningham blatant bribery case, the Abramoff scandal,
and we have been awash in talk of reform. But comprehensive reform
packages have not been allowed to come to this floor. We have not been
allowed by the majority to have votes on them.
But now, 7 weeks before the election, we get a chance to see that the
majority has labored long and produced a mouse, or a fig leaf at best.
My old friend, Archie the Cockroach, said once, ``The trouble with
most people is that they lose their sense of proportion; of what use is
it for a queen bee to fall in love with a bull?'' Think about it a
minute.
The problem with this bill is that there is a huge problem and this
bill proposes a minuscule solution. The answer of the majority
leadership is to require a list of what they call earmarks. But this
package is more notable for what it does not include than it is for
what it does include.
{time} 1630
I would call it the 1 percent solution.
Now, my personal anger about earmarks I think is well known in this
body. The last time I chaired the Appropriations Committee there was
not a single earmark in the Labor-H appropriation bill. Today there are
over 1,200. And 3 years ago the Labor-H Subcommittee used the earmarks
as blackmail by threatening to cut off earmarks for any Member who
refused to vote for an inadequate bill. I did not especially like that
and I made that quite clear. But the point is that the problem is not
earmarks. It is the abuse of the earmark process.
This proposal does nothing to ensure institutional integrity. It is
consumer fraud masquerading as earmark reform. Look at what it does not
cover: It applies only to committee reported bills. It exempts
managers' amendments. That means the famous ``Bridge to Nowhere'' would
be exempted from this bill. On tax earmarks this bill actually makes
the existing law worse. Right now a tax earmark is defined as a special
treatment for 100 or fewer persons. This bill says the only time that
it is going to be counted as a tax earmark is if it affects one entity.
That means you can have a huge tax break for two multinational oil
companies and it isn't even covered in this package.
In the 1986 tax bill, there were 340 separate transition rules
costing over $10 billion. There were special tax breaks for two
Chrysler plants. This bill wouldn't cover it. The only way that that
would be exposed under this bill is if there had only been one tax
break for one of those Chrysler plants.
The tax bill that passed last year that provided special treatment
for ceiling fan imports or for U.S. horse and dog racing or Hollywood
studios that produce the movies in the Gulf, all exempt under this
bill.
There were 190 special provisions in the Pension Protection Act of
2000, costing $180 million in taxpayers' money--virtually all of them
would be exempt under this proposition.
If you want to save taxpayers' dollars, rather than continuing this
silly game of Trivial Pursuit, what you would do is to require that
reconciliation bills can be used only to reduce the deficit rather than
increase it as the majority party has cynically used the reconciliation
process the last 4 years. This bill, indeed, is Trivial Pursuit.
I don't care if you list the Members who sponsor earmarks. I put out
press releases on every one of them. I attended a ceremony last week
where we had a groundbreaking for an expansion of the Mel Laird Medical
Center in my district. I got that earmark. I am proud of it, and I am
proud to stand for it. The problem is what this package doesn't
contain.
This is a joke. It is a fraud. It plays Trivial Pursuit. It focuses
on the minutiae instead of the big problems. That should not be
surprising given the track record of the majority party in this House.
But this House ought to be able to do better.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the majority leader, and I, in my role as chairman of
the Committee on Rules, have made a commitment not only to the
appropriators but to all Members of this body that we will enforce this
rule with respect to unreported measures and amendments, including
managers' amendments, submitted to the Rules Committee. If the House
considers a bill that has not been reported by a committee, the
committee of jurisdiction must comply with the earmark rule and provide
a list of earmarks along with the name of the Member who requested the
earmark. If the House considers a manager's amendment on a bill, the
committee must comply with the earmark rule and provide a list of
earmarks along with the name of the Member who requested the earmark.
By adopting this new rule, we as a body are not only making the
commitment to live under its provisions, but every Member must make a
commitment to adhere to the spirit of this new rule. This is more than
just adding a new rule. It is making a commitment to change the culture
of this institution.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my friend from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. I thank you. Will you tell me how this is going to apply to
the defense appropriations bill that will be coming back to us this
year from conference?
Mr. DREIER. Yes. If I could reclaim my time, the agreement that we
have for implementaton of this rule means that if there is anything
that has a so-called airdrop provision in it, this rule will apply to--
Mr. OBEY. So none of the earmarks presently in the bill will be
required?
Mr. DREIER. So this rule will be implemented immediately.
Mr. OBEY. So none of the Senate earmarks will be included; the Senate
will continue to be anonymous?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, I will tell you
this. I know full well that the United States Senate is watching this
debate very, very closely and they very much are interested in seeing
us comply with this.
Mr. Speaker, at this point I would be happy to yield 2 minutes to my
very good friend from Columbus, Indiana, the chairman of the Republican
Study Committee, Mr. Pence.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I
thank him for his leadership on House Resolution 1000, providing for
earmarking reform in the House of Representatives. I also feel moved to
thank particularly the House majority leader, John Boehner, for his
yeoman's leadership and keeping his word on this issue with Members in
our effort to bring this modest but meaningful reform to the floor of
the Congress.
Under Article I of the Constitution of the United States, the power
of the purse is the power of the House of Representatives. And today we
will not yield that power in any way. The Constitution gives this body
the ability to spend the money of the American people in ways large and
small. House Resolution 1000 simply requires that we earmark the
earmarks.
Mr. Speaker, we actually had a cow farm when I was growing up, and I
know what an earmark is. It is a tag in the ear of a cow that will tell
you whose cow it is. Well, the reality is under the rules that have
developed over generations here in the House, we can add provisions to
legislation, authorizing bills and appropriation bills,
[[Page H6602]]
without adding names. Today by H. Res. 1000 we will simply require that
we earmark the earmarks.
Transparency promotes accountability, and this institution would do
well to embrace this modest but meaningful step toward greater
transparency.
As Jeff Flake, a great leader on this issue, said earlier, it saddens
me to see evidence of the low regard that millions of Americans hold
the institution of the Congress. It is an historic institution filled
with men and women of both parties of goodwill and integrity. By
adopting this modest but meaningful earmarking reform today, we will
take an important step toward restoring public confidence in the
fundamental integrity of our legislative process at the national level.
I urge my colleagues in both parties to say ``yes'' to transparency
and greater accountability, say ``yes'' to earmarking reform.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of giving a response, I
would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
I would simply point out under this provision, when the defense
appropriations bill comes back from the Senate, not a single Senate
earmark will be listed, and in the future only House earmarks will be
listed. The Senate earmarks will not be listed.
I would also point out that if you read the language of this
resolution, it makes quite clear that the tax provisions covered by
this bill are, in fact, fewer than under existing law and also that
same fact applies to trade preferences.
Trade bills are hard enough to pass now. So what happens is they slip
in all kinds of special deals for special commodities in order to get
218 votes.
This bill will not lay a glove on them, and for that matter, it will
not lay a glove on a single appropriations earmark. It doesn't do
anything to any earmark in the House or the Senate. This bill is a
fraud.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, 9 months ago the Speaker said, ``Now is the
time for action'' on real lobbying and ethics reform. At the same time,
the current majority leader said we must act ``because of a growing
perception that the United States Congress is for sale.''
And yet here we are today discussing legislation that will do nothing
to prevent the abuses that have occurred on the Republican Congress'
watch by both parties and both parties' Members. In short, business as
usual continues here in the people's House.
When Members of Congress make millions from land deals tied to
earmarks, you know something is wrong in the people's House. When
Members' spouses are paid six-figure salaries for ``no-show'' lobbying
jobs, you know something is wrong in the people's House. When a mid-
level staffer gets a $2 million buyout from a lobbying firm only to
have the revolving door return him to his old job on the committee, you
know something is wrong in the people's House. And this bill simply
tells all the current players that the House remains open for business.
Business as usual continues.
When the Speaker's gavel comes down, it is intended to open the
people's House, not the auction house. The fact is we have an
institutional problem requiring an institutional solution.
To that end Representatives Van Hollen, Doggett, Delahunt, Bean,
Barrow, and I introduced real earmark reform legislation yesterday to
eliminate the abuses. Our bill prohibits earmarks that personally
benefit Members, their spouses, and immediate family members. It bans
earmarks that benefit lobbyists who chair a Member's leadership PAC. It
prohibits earmarks to any entity or lobbying firm employing the spouse,
family member, or former staffer of the earmark sponsor. Finally, it
eliminates the ``sweetheart'' tax provisions for a single individual or
corporation, and it ends the practice of adding new earmarks into
conference reports in the dead of night.
This is real reform the American people are demanding, and I
challenge my colleagues to let us have a vote on it. But I know they
won't because 12 years ago the Republicans came to Congress to change
Washington and in those 12 years Washington changed them.
It is time for a new direction. It is time for a change. The ``for
sale'' sign still exists on the West Lawn of the people's House.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess it is pretty obvious that we are 54 days
away from an election. I listened to that speech, and the only thing
that I can say is that we have seen a challenge here, both political
parties in this institution, and we have stepped up to the plate, and
we believe that accountability, transparency, and disclosure will
provide an opportunity to address the understandable concerns that have
existed, and I believe that we have a great opportunity with this
legislation to bring about that change.
Let me just respond to Mr. Obey's concern briefly, before I yield to
my colleague, on the issue of bringing back the defense conference
report. When we implement this rule, we will clearly be placing onto
the shoulders of whoever is chairing that conference from the House
side the responsibility of bringing back a conference report that
includes a full listing, full transparency and full disclosure of all
earmarks that were not in that measure when it was passed through
either the House or the Senate. So for that reason we in the House
would not be able to bring up and pass a report that did not have that
full list that we are looking for.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Dallas, our good
friend who has worked very hard on this issue, Mr. Hensarling.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and
I certainly thank him for his leadership in helping bring this rule.
Two hundred and seventy-three thousand dollars to implement ``garden
mosaics'' at a local university, $179,000 to produce hydroponic
tomatoes, $550,000 for a Museum of Glass, $400,000 for an Italian
market in the Bronx, $500,000 for buses at Disneyland.
Mr. Speaker, there are many worthy earmarks, worthy of this
institution, but today there are still too many that do not pass the
smell test, that do not pass the laugh test, and certainly do not pass
the fiscal responsibility test.
Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, we have to decide do we wish to be judged by
the principles on which we stand or the pork that we are able to carry?
For the integrity of our institution and the fiscal future of our
republic, I certainly hope it is the former.
The simple but profound rule that we are debating today will empower
Members to engage in a proper debate as to whether an earmark is truly
worthwhile and the opportunity to challenge its merits if it is not.
This is truly a defining moment for those who claim fealty to fiscal
responsibility. The question, Mr. Speaker, now is will Democrats put
their votes where their mouths are and support this rule? If they do
not, they will once again be exposed for the reckless and wasteful
spenders that they are.
I want to thank the Republican leadership for bringing this rule to
the floor. I want to thank Chairman Lewis for the great progress that
has been made in dealing with earmarks under his watch. And I
personally want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) for his
courage and relentless commitment to fight irresponsible Federal
spending in the area of earmarks, and I urge the adoption of this rule.
{time} 1645
Ms. SLAUGHTER. The world knows who is doing the big spending. We have
the worst deficit we have ever seen. And as far as stepping up to the
plate, the Democrats never get a chance at bat. We have absolutely
nothing we can do, all we can do is vote up or down. We don't know when
the bills were written, we have no impact on them at all. As far as the
deliberative body, it is all on your side. So I urge all of my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, despite the huge scandals that have
worked this town, this Congress has failed to pass a lobbying reform
bill, we failed to pass an ethics reform bill, we failed to deal with
the gift ban, we
[[Page H6603]]
failed to stop the flying on the corporate jets, we failed to shut the
resolving door. There has been a shameful lack of accountability.
Now, I support greater transparency in the earmark process, I support
greater sunshine. But we should get right at the root of the problem
and eliminate the worst abuses outright. Now, Mr. Emanuel and I and
others offered an amendment the other day in the Rules Committee to
stop the inside dealing and to stop the sweetheart deals, and the
Republican leadership said no.
What did that amendment do? It was pretty simple. It said a Member of
Congress can't take Federal taxpayers' dollars and earmark them for an
organization that employs their spouse or their family members. They
said no to that. It says let's not take Federal taxpayer dollars and
steer them to an organization that just employed one of their former
staffers. They said no to that.
Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Not out of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DREIER. If I could yield myself 10 seconds out of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I would be happy to.
Mr. DREIER. I was just going to say that there was no amendment
offered in the Rules Committee whatsoever, so nothing was rejected.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. There was an amendment.
Mr. DREIER. No, there wasn't. I chair the committee, and I will tell
you that there was not an amendment that was offered in the Rules
Committee.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. There was a proposal.
We made some proposals to address that issue.
Mr. DREIER. It wasn't offered in the Rules Committee.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you.
There is a proposal also out there that we have sponsored that I hope
you will address and make in order to this particular piece of
legislation with respect to prohibiting funds from going to somebody
who has an organization, if that person is also the head of a political
action committee of a leadership PAC, some simple rules of the game
that we should all therefore be able to agree to, I hope. If you didn't
take it up in the Rules Committee, maybe we can take it up now today if
we all agree that those are abuses that we should end.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. If the gentleman will yield, and I will give him the
extra time, but let me make clear that this amendment was submitted to
the Rules Committee for consideration. The fact that you would not take
it up is not the fault of Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, we submitted an amendment to the Rules
Committee for its consideration. I am sorry that the chairman decided
not to take up the amendment, but what the amendment did was outline
the very simple prohibitions that we talked about, to prohibit us from
steering Federal taxpayers' dollars to organizations that employed
family members, that employed former staff members, or where monies
were steered through lobbyists and lobbyist organizations that employed
spouses or family members or former staff members.
The key issue here is trying to end the sort of inside dealing and
sweetheart deals that have rocked this town. We have not done that.
What worries me about this piece of legislation is that people are
going to pass it and they are going to go home to their congressional
districts and they are going to tell people: We have cleaned up
Washington; that we have stopped the abuses, that we have done
something about the nexus between lobbying problems and the earmark
process, when in fact we haven't done it.
The earmarks have skyrocketed since the Republicans took control of
Congress, and yet they have also refused to adopt a rule that we
proposed for a pay-as-you-go budget. The President and others complain
about earmarks, but he hasn't vetoed a single bill except the stem cell
bill. We keep hearing about the problems on the spending side, and yet
every one of the bills that has gone through this Congress has been
signed by the President. Again, the only bill he has vetoed is the bill
dealing with stem cell research.
So if we are serious about fiscal accountability, let's adopt the
pay-as-you-go rule that has been proposed by the Democrats, and let's
adopt the measures that I talked about that we submitted to the Rules
Committee that would end the worst abuses. And I still don't understand
why the Rules Committee failed to take up and consider those proposals.
I thank my colleague from New York for the time. Let's send a signal
to the people around this country that we recognize the abuses that
have taken place, that we are going to do something real, let's not
just pretend we are doing something. There is some momentum to do
things here. We are not taking advantage of it. Let's do that.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds to say to my
friend that to call increasing transparency, accountability, and
disclosure as pretend is absolutely outrageous.
There is bipartisan concern about this problem, as stated from my
friend from Wisconsin and from other Members on both sides of the
aisle, and I believe that this measure will allow us to do that.
The proposal that the gentleman is talking about may have been listed
upstairs, but it wasn't offered on the Committee on Rules for us to
consider. And in looking at it, Mr. Speaker, I have got to tell you
that we found that it was the most impractical thing imaginable.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Newport
Beach, Mr. Campbell.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House
for less than a year, not a very long time, but it is long enough to
know that this is real reform.
In the first 90 days after I was elected to this House, I received
70, that is 7-0, requests for various earmarks. A whole lot of those,
frankly, were not appropriate; whether there wasn't a Federal nexus,
whether there wasn't a public benefit, for whatever reason, they
weren't appropriate. Now, I submitted seven of those 70 for
consideration by the Appropriations Committee, and I have made very
public what those seven were. Because if we are going to spend taxpayer
money, we ought to be able to justify it and to stand behind what we
are doing, why we are doing it, and who is doing it. And that is what
this does. It simply says if we are going to spend the taxpayers' money
in this way, and there is nothing inappropriate if there is a Federal
nexus, et cetera, about Members spending money on things that have a
Federal nexus and are appropriate and have a public good in their
district. There is nothing wrong with that process. But you should be
able to shine the light of day on it, to stand behind it, to say this
is what I am doing and this is why I am doing it and this is who is
doing it. And that is what this does.
Now, you could sit there as some of our friends on the other side of
the aisle want to do and try to indicate everything that is
inappropriate. But isn't it better if we just simply say, here it is
and here is the name, so that the person doing it, if they know that
there is anything there, then they won't come forward with it.
Now, I have to tell you this is unlikely to save any money, unlikely
to reduce spending, but what it will do is I think it will add greatly
to what we do spend being spent better.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Austin, Texas (Mr. McCaul).
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. I thank the chairman for his leadership on this
important resolution.
Mr. Speaker, in the past we have seen abusive earmarks in
appropriation bills while the Members responsible hide from the
scrutiny of the American taxpayer. We have also seen earmarks included
in the conference process in the darkness of night. Well, this bill
changes all that. As a former Federal prosecutor in the Public
Integrity Section, I have always said that sunlight is the best
disinfectant.
From now on, our appropriations tax and authorizing earmarks will
have a bright light shined upon them. From now on, all reported bills
and conference reports will include a list of earmarks and the name of
the Member requesting them. Members will also be able to challenge any
``air-dropped earmark.''
This is exactly the transparency and accountability that the House
needs, and it is something that the American
[[Page H6604]]
people have come to expect and deserve. I urge my colleagues to vote
for this important step to restoring integrity to the process.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Wantage, New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to open up
our books to the American people so that everyone in the public can be
fully apprised as to how their hard-earned dollars are spent by the
Federal Government. I rise in support of this bill for reform.
Accountability is not something that should be or could be postponed.
It should be instinctive in all of our work as stewards of the American
taxpayer. It should be reflective, but sadly it is not.
I am encouraged that we are taking up this bill. I believe it is an
important first step forward in accountability. The reforms we consider
today in essence broaden the efforts of our earlier reforms and
lobbying reform package of legislation that we passed earlier. It goes
now to appropriations, authorization, and tax bills.
We must stop the process of loading up authorization bills with pork
the way we loaded up appropriations bills. That infamous Bridge to
Nowhere, that was an appropriations bill. It was an earmark in a bill
authorizing Federal spending giving the congressional imprimatur to the
project.
We must police Federal tax laws better as well. We load up our tax
bills with special tax breaks, making the IRS Code totally
incomprehensible even to the most skilled and practiced CPA. We cannot
begin the process of simplifying the Tax Code until we end the practice
of random tax cut earmarks.
For too long these earmarks have lived a really quiet existence in
the back room, in the dead of night; they slip into language without
even the public's awareness to it. But let me just make this other
point: Not all earmarks are bad. There are local projects that are
worthy of Federal assistance. But worthy projects will be those that
stand up to the light of day in public scrutiny and floor debate. And
as we work to curb spending and government waste, such accountability
is crucial.
So as one of my fellow Members likes to say, and I often quote him,
we must put the focus back on the family budget and not on the Federal
budget. In fact, until we get a handle on all earmarks, all our other
efforts to rein in spending, to reduce the deficit, and to fund true
national priorities like protecting our Nation from terrorism will be
useless.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the
previous question so I can amend the rule to give the House an
opportunity to vote today up or down on a comprehensive reform package.
I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and
extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous
question. That will include the listing of the amendments at the Rules
Committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership in this House
has promised for months it would enact comprehensive ethics and
lobbying reform legislation in this Congress. We all know that it has
not and most likely will not happen before the House adjourns for the
mid-term elections in just 2 weeks. But we still have time and
opportunity to do something today if we will defeat the previous
question.
The amendment provides that, immediately after the House adopts this
rule, it will bring up ethics and lobbying reform legislation that is
identical to the motion to recommit that I offered this past May. That
motion to recommit, which had bipartisan support, came within three
votes of passing.
{time} 1700
This legislation, called the Honest Leadership and Open Government
Act, is a truly comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform initiative. It
takes a tough stand on a number of the problems that have led to the
culture of corruption that has evolved in the 109th Congress.
I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can
bring up legislation and give Members of this House the right to cast a
vote for cleaning up the ethics problems that have plagued this
institution for too long. Time is running out for the 109th Congress.
If we do not act now, there will be no opportunity to show the American
people that we are serious about reform.
Vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule for
this piece of legislation that will only live for two more weeks.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, under the very able leadership of my California
colleague Jerry Lewis we have seen a 37 percent reduction in the number
of earmarks. We have seen either a flat line or real cuts in the
appropriations bills with the exception of our priorities of national
defense and homeland security, and we have seen a very strong
commitment to institutional reform. I take my hat off to Jerry Lewis
for the fine work that he has done.
Mr. Speaker, we are constantly looking at more reform. The Speaker of
the House, the majority leader, I believe that Members on both sides of
the aisle believe that we should pursue greater transparency, greater
disclosure and greater accountability. I have heard Democrats and
Republicans alike say that over the past hour. We have an opportunity
to do just that right now.
We, I am very happy to say, have put into place bold economic
policies that have led to a $58 billion reduction in the deficit over
last year's number.
We today have the lowest unemployment rate on the face of the earth.
There is no other country in the world with an unemployment rate as low
as our unemployment rate, and yet we need to continue to do everything
that we can to try and rein in Federal spending.
I, as a Republican, believe that the reach of government not only
costs money, but it impinges on individual initiative and opportunity.
I believe that as we focus on this kind of reform we will be in a
position where we will be able to improve the quality of life and the
standard of living for our constituents.
Mr. Speaker, vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on
this rule.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the
legislation before us today. This legislation is not real reform; it is
merely an empty shell riddled with loopholes that will allow the
culture of corruption that has infected this House to continue
virtually unchecked.
This bill--for which the text has only been available for less than
12 hours--is simply a poorly masked effort by Republicans to distract
voters from the fact that they have failed to live up to their promises
to pass real ethics and lobbying reform. The only reform they can claim
victory for is banning former Members who are now lobbyists from the
Members' gym. While this is of course an admirable step, it is a baby
step at most.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant--and I
can truly say that this House has never been more in need of a good
dose of sunshine. Over the past few years, we have seen some truly
appalling abuses of power. Legislation has been passed without Members
even knowing what they are voting for; votes have been held open for
record amounts of time; and lobbyists have had more access to
conference negotiations than Members of the conference. This shameful
behavior should not be acceptable to Members of either party, and this
bill is just another example of how Congress has done nothing to stop
it.
I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and to make valid,
meaningful reform a genuine priority for the 109th Congress.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of H. Res. 1000, which will
require disclosure of earmark sponsors in the text of any legislation
considered in the House. This is a common-sense change that should
improve the transparency of the earmarking process and eliminate
questions about who is really behind the funding of thousands of
projects.
I believe securing federal funding for local projects can be an
important role for a member of Congress, so long as the project meets
basic requirements. I use two tests to determine whether to seek
funding. First, I ensure that transportation projects have the support
of the local chief executive, regional planning agency and the
Connecticut Department of Transportation.
Secondly, I apply my ``community meeting'' test. If I can't justify
the funding to constituents, I know it's not a project I should
support.
[[Page H6605]]
Earmarks have funded a broad array of transportation projects in the
Fourth Congressional District, including the Bridgeport Intermodal
Center, the Norwalk Pulse Point Improvement project, and the Stamford
Urban Transitway, and projects promoting urban development in our urban
areas and education.
Unfortunately, projects like Alaska's ``Bridge to Nowhere,'' taint
views of all congressionally-directed funding.
I do not believe adoption of this resolution today lessens the need
for comprehensive lobbying and ethics reform, because today's action
still does not prevent the type of behavior we have witnessed in recent
months. The resolution does provide additional sunlight on the process,
however, which I think we can all agree is a good thing,
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution
to reform the earmark process in Congress.
Not all spending requests are bad. Many of them fund legitimate
public projects.
The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, and Members
of Congress are often in a better position to determine the priorities
of their districts than government employees in Washington.
However, the often secret process that has been used in recent years
to fund earmarks has led to wasteful and unnecessary spending.
The earmark process needs more sunshine on it, and this new rule
provides for that.
This bill will bring greater transparency to the legislative process,
ensuring that Members of Congress are held accountable for their
requests.
By requiring a list of earmarks and their sponsors to accompany every
bill and conference report considered by the House we will deter
wrongful behavior and give the public a better view of what their
elected officials are doing in Washington.
Full disclosure will enable our constituents to decide whether
spending requests are justified and whether they serve the public
interest.
I have long advocated for this important reform and I am glad the
House is acting on it.
Republicans in the House have a strong record of implementing ethics
reform. This rule change governing earmarks represents a great
improvement over the current system and is another example of our
party's leadership on ethics reform.
At this time, I request unanimous consent to place in the Record an
op-ed I wrote on the subject.
I am hopeful that we will continue to implement additional reforms,
including greater public disclosure of lobbying activities, and
continue to uphold the integrity of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad this resolution has been brought to the floor
and urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am inserting in the Record a list of
additional Members who would like to be considered as cosponsors of H.
Res. 1000.
Additional Members include: Mark Green, John Linder, and Charles
Bass.
The material previously referred by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
Previous Question on H. Res. 1003 Rule providing for consideration of
H. Res. 1000
At the end of the resolution add the following new
sections:
``Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
it shall be in order without intervention of any point of
order to consider in the House a bill consisting of the text
specified in Section 3. The bill shall be considered as read
for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) 60 minutes of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.''
Sec. 3. The text referred to in section 2 is as follows:
H.R.--
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Honest
Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
TITLE I--CLOSING THE REVOLVING DOOR
Sec. 101. Extension of lobbying ban for former Members and employees of
Congress and executive branch officials.
Sec. 102. Elimination of floor privileges and access to Members
exercise facilities for former Member lobbyists.
Sec. 103. Disclosure by Members of Congress and senior congressional
staff of employment negotiations.
Sec. 104. Ethics review of employment negotiations by executive branch
officials.
Sec. 105. Wrongfully influencing a private entity's employment
decisions or practices.
TITLE II--FULL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING
Sec. 201. Quarterly filing of lobbying disclosure reports.
Sec. 202. Electronic filing of lobbying disclosure reports.
Sec. 203. Additional lobbying disclosure requirements.
Sec. 204. Disclosure of paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.
Sec. 205. Disclosure of lobbying activities by certain coalitions and
associations.
Sec. 206. Disclosure by registered lobbyists of past executive and
congressional employment.
Sec. 207. Public database of lobbying disclosure information.
Sec. 208. Conforming amendment.
TITLE III--RESTRICTING CONGRESSIONAL TRAVEL AND GIFTS
Sec. 301. Ban on gifts from lobbyists.
Sec. 302. Prohibition on privately funded travel.
Sec. 303. Prohibiting lobbyist organization and participation in
congressional travel.
Sec. 304. Prohibition on obligation of funds for travel by legislative
and executive branch officials.
Sec. 305. Per diem expenses for congressional travel.
TITLE IV--ENFORCEMENT OF LOBBYING RESTRICTIONS
Sec. 401. Office of public integrity.
Sec. 402. Increased civil and criminal penalties for failure to comply
with lobbying disclosure requirements.
Sec. 403. Penalty for false certification in connection with
congressional travel.
Sec. 404. Mandatory annual ethics training for House employees.
TITLE V--OPEN GOVERNMENT
Sec. 501. Fiscal responsibility.
Sec. 502. Curbing abuses of power.
Sec. 503. Ending 2-day work weeks.
Sec. 504. Knowing what the House is voting on.
Sec. 505. Full and open debate in conference.
TITLE VI--ANTI-CRONYISM AND PUBLIC SAFETY
Sec. 601. Minimum requirements for political appointees holding public
safety positions.
Sec. 602. Effective date.
TITLE VII--ZERO TOLERANCE FOR CONTRACT CHEATERS
Sec. 701. Public availability of Federal contract awards.
Sec. 702. Prohibition on award of monopoly contracts.
Sec. 703. Competition in multiple award contracts.
Sec. 704. Suspension and debarment of unethical contractors.
Sec. 705. Criminal sanctions for cheating taxpayers and wartime fraud.
Sec. 706. Prohibition on contractor conflicts of interest.
Sec. 707. Disclosure of Government contractor overcharges.
Sec. 708. Penalties for improper sole-source contracting procedures.
Sec. 709. Stopping the revolving door.
TITLE VIII--PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES
Sec. 801. Presidential libraries.
TITLE IX--FORFEITURE OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS
Sec. 901. Loss of pensions accrued during service as a Member of
Congress for abusing the public trust.
TITLE I--CLOSING THE REVOLVING DOOR
SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF LOBBYING BAN FOR FORMER MEMBERS AND
EMPLOYEES OF CONGRESS AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH
OFFICIALS.
Section 207 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``One-year'' and
inserting ``Two-year'';
(B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``1 year'' and inserting
``2 years'' in both places it appears; and
(C) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``1-year period'' and
inserting ``2-year period;''
(2) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``1 year'' and inserting
``2 years''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``1 year'' and
inserting ``2 years''; and
(3) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``1 year'' and
inserting ``2 years'';
(B) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``1 year'' and
inserting ``2 years'';
(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``1 year'' and inserting
``2 years'';
(D) in paragraph (4), by striking ``1 year'' and inserting
``2 years'';
(E) in paragraph (5)(A), by striking ``1 year'' and
inserting ``2 years''; and
(F) in paragraph (6), by striking ``1-year period'' and
inserting ``2-year period''.
SEC. 102. ELIMINATION OF FLOOR PRIVILEGES AND ACCESS TO
MEMBERS EXERCISE FACILITIES FOR FORMER MEMBER
LOBBYISTS.
(a) Floor Privileges.--(1) Clause 4 of rule IV of the Rules
of the House of Representatives is amended to read as
follows:
[[Page H6606]]
``4. (a) A former Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner; a former Parliamentarian of the House; or a
former elected officer of the House or former minority
employee nominated as an elected officer of the House; or a
head of a department shall not be entitled to the privilege
of admission to the Hall of the House and rooms leading
thereto if he or she--
``(1) is a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign
principal as those terms are defined in clause 5 of rule XXV;
``(2) has any direct personal or pecuniary interest in any
legislative measure pending before the House or reported by a
committee; or
``(3) is in the employ of or represents any party or
organization for the purpose of influencing, directly or
indirectly, the passage, defeat, or amendment of any
legislative proposal.
``(b) The Speaker may promulgate regulations that exempt
ceremonial or educational functions from the restrictions of
this clause.''.
(2) Clause 2(a)(12) of rule IV of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is amended by inserting ``(subject to clause
4)'' before the period.
(b) Exercise Facilities.--(1) The House of Representatives
may not provide access to any exercise facility which is made
available exclusively to Members and former Members of the
House of Representatives to any former Member who is a
lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995
or any successor statute. For purposes of this section, the
term ``Member of the House of Representatives'' includes a
Delegate or Resident Commissioner to the Congress.
(2) The Committee on House Administration shall promulgate
regulations to carry out this section.
SEC. 103. DISCLOSURE BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND SENIOR
CONGRESSIONAL STAFF OF EMPLOYMENT NEGOTIATIONS.
Rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is
amended by redesignating clause 14 as clause 15 and by adding
at the end the following new clause:
``14. (a) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner,
officer, or employee of the House covered by the post
employment restriction provisions of title 18, United States
Code, shall notify the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct that he or she is negotiating or has any arrangement
concerning prospective private employment if a conflict of
interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest may
exist.
``(b) The disclosure and notification under subparagraph
(a) shall be made within 3 business days after the
commencement of such negotiation or arrangement.
``(c) A Member or employee to whom this rule applies shall
recuse himself or herself from any matter in which there is a
conflict of interest for that Member or employee under this
rule and notify the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct of such recusal.
``(d)(1) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
shall develop guidelines concerning conduct which is covered
by this paragraph.
``(2) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall
maintain a current public record of all notifications
received under subparagraph (a) and of all recusals under
subparagraph (c).''.
SEC. 104. ETHICS REVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT NEGOTIATIONS BY
EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS.
Section 208 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1)--
(A) by inserting after ``the Government official
responsible for appointment to his or her position'' the
following: ``and the Office of Government Ethics''; and
(B) by striking ``a written determination made by such
official'' and inserting ``a written determination made by
the Office of Government Ethics, after consultation with such
official,''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``the official
responsible for the employee's appointment, after review of''
and inserting ``the Office of Government Ethics, after
consultation with the official responsible for the employee's
appointment and after review of''; and
(3) in subsection (d)(1)--
(A) by striking ``Upon request'' and all that follows
through ``Ethics in Government Act of 1978.'' and inserting
``In each case in which the Office of Government Ethics makes
a determination granting an exemption under subsection (b)(1)
or (b)(3) to a person, the Office shall, not later than 3
business days after making such determination, make available
to the public pursuant to the procedures set forth in section
105 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, and publish in
the Federal Register, such determination and the materials
submitted by such person in requesting such exemption.''; and
(B) by striking ``the agency may withhold'' and inserting
``the Office of Government Ethics may withhold''.
SEC. 105. WRONGFULLY INFLUENCING A PRIVATE ENTITY'S
EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS OR PRACTICES.
(a) In General.--Chapter 11 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 226. Wrongfully influencing a private entity's
employment decisions by a Member of Congress
``Whoever, being a Senator or Representative in, or a
Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress or an
employee of either House of Congress, with the intent to
influence on the basis of partisan political affiliation an
employment decision or employment practice of any private
entity--
``(1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or
withhold, an official act; or
``(2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the
official act of another;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more
than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding
any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United
States.''.
(b) No Inference.--Nothing in section 226 of title 18,
United States Code, as added by this section, shall be
construed to create any inference with respect to whether the
activity described in section 226 of title 18, United States
Code, was already a criminal or civil offense prior to the
enactment of this Act, including sections 201(b), 201(c), and
216 of title 18, United States Code.
(c) Chapter Analysis.--The chapter analysis for chapter 11
of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``226. Wrongfully influencing a private entity's employment decisions
by a Member of Congress.''.
(d) House Rules.--Rule XXIII of the Rules of the House (as
amended by section 103) is further amended by redesignating
clause 15 as clause 16, and by inserting after clause 14 the
following new clause:
``15. No Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall,
with the intent to influence on the basis of partisan
political affiliation an employment decision or employment
practice of any private entity--
``(1) take or withhold, or offer or threaten to take or
withhold, an official act; or
``(2) influence, or offer or threaten to influence, the
official act of another.''.
TITLE II--FULL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING
SEC. 201. QUARTERLY FILING OF LOBBYING DISCLOSURE REPORTS.
(a) Quarterly Filing Required.--Section 5 of the Lobbying
Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1604) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``Semiannual'' and inserting ``Quarterly'';
(B) by striking ``the semiannual period'' and all that
follows through ``July of each year'' and insert ``the
quarterly period beginning on the first days of January,
April, July, and October of each year''; and
(C) by striking ``such semiannual period'' and insert
``such quarterly period''; and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``semiannual report'' and inserting ``quarterly report'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``semiannual filing
period'' and inserting ``quarterly period'';
(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``semiannual period'' and
inserting ``quarterly period''; and
(D) in paragraph (4), by striking ``semiannual filing
period'' and inserting ``quarterly period''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Definition.--Section 3(10) of the Lobbying Disclosure
Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1602) is amended by striking ``six
month period'' and inserting ``three-month period''.
(2) Registration.--Section 4 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1603) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(3)(A), by striking ``semiannual
period'' and inserting ``quarterly period''; and
(B) in subsection (b)(3)(A), by striking ``semiannual
period'' and inserting ``quarterly period''.
(3) Enforcement.--Section 6 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1605) is amended in paragraph (6) by
striking ``semiannual period'' and inserting ``quarterly
period''.
(4) Estimates.--Section 15 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1610) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``semiannual period''
and inserting ``quarterly period''; and
(B) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``semiannual period''
and inserting ``quarterly period''.
(5) Dollar amounts.--
(A) Section 4 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2
U.S.C. 1603) is amended--
(i) in subsection (a)(3)(A)(i), by striking ``$5,000'' and
inserting ``$2,500'';
(ii) in subsection (a)(3)(A)(ii), by striking ``$20,000''
and inserting ``$10,000'';
(iii) in subsection (b)(3)(A), by striking ``$10,000'' and
inserting ``$5,000''; and
(iv) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ``$10,000'' and
inserting ``$5,000''.
(B) Section 5 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2
U.S.C. 1604) is amended--
(i) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``$10,000'' and
``$20,000'' and inserting ``$5,000'' and ``$10,000'',
respectively; and
(ii) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``$10,000'' both
places such term appears and inserting ``$5,000''.
SEC. 202. ELECTRONIC FILING OF LOBBYING DISCLOSURE REPORTS.
Section 5 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.
1604) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Electronic Filing Required.--A report required to be
filed under this section shall be filed in electronic form,
in addition to any other form that may be required by the
Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of
[[Page H6607]]
the House of Representatives. The Secretary of the Senate and
the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall provide for
public access to such reports on the Internet.''.
SEC. 203. ADDITIONAL LOBBYING DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Disclosure of Contributions and Payments.--Section 5(b)
of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1604(b)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (5), as added by section 204(c), by
striking the period and inserting a semicolon; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) for each registrant (and for any political committee,
as defined in section 301(4) of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(4)), affiliated with such
registrant) and for each employee listed as a lobbyist by a
registrant under paragraph 2(C)--
``(A) the name of each Federal candidate or officeholder,
leadership PAC, or political party committee, to whom a
contribution was made, and the amount of such contribution;
and
``(B) the name of each Federal candidate or officeholder,
or a leadership PAC of such candidate or officeholder, or
political party committee for whom a fundraising event was
hosted, cohosted, or otherwise sponsored, the date and
location of the event, and the total amount raised by the
event;
``(7) a certification that the lobbying firm or registrant
has not provided, requested, or directed a gift, including
travel, to a Member or employee of Congress in violation of
clause 5 of rule XXV of the Rules of the House of
Representatives;
``(8) the date, recipient, and amount of funds contributed
or disbursed by, or arranged by, a registrant or employee
listed as a lobbyist--
``(A) to pay the costs of an event to honor or recognize a
covered legislative branch official or covered executive
branch official;
``(B) to, or on behalf of, an entity that is named for a
covered legislative branch official or covered executive
branch official, or to a person or entity in recognition of
such official;
``(C) to an entity established, financed, maintained, or
controlled by a covered legislative branch official or
covered executive branch official, or an entity designated by
such official; or
``(D) to pay the costs of a meeting, retreat, conference or
other similar event held by, or for the benefit of, 1 or more
covered legislative branch officials or covered executive
branch officials;
except that this paragraph shall not apply to any payment or
reimbursement made from funds required to be reported under
section 304 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 434); and
``(9) the name of each Member of Congress contacted by
lobbyists employed by the registrant on behalf of the
client.''.
(b) Leadership PAC.--Section 3 of the Lobbying Disclosure
Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1602) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(17) Leadership pac.--The term `leadership PAC' means an
unauthorized multicandidate political committee that is
established, financed, maintained, and controlled by an
individual who is a Federal officeholder or a candidate for
Federal office.''.
(c) Full and Detailed Accounting.--Section 5(c)(1) of the
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1604(c)(1)) is
amended by striking ``shall be rounded to the nearest
$20,000'' and inserting ``shall be rounded to the nearest
$1,000''.
(d) Notification of Members.--Section 6 of the Lobbying
Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1605) is amended in
paragraph (2) by striking ``review, and, where necessary''
and inserting ``review and--
``(A) if a report states (under section 5(b)(9) or
otherwise) that a Member of Congress was contacted,
immediately notify that Member of that report; and
``(B) where necessary,''.
SEC. 204. DISCLOSURE OF PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS
LOBBYING.
(a) Disclosure of Paid Efforts to Stimulate Grassroots
Lobbying.--Section 3 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995
(2 U.S.C. 1602) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (7), by adding at the end the following:
``Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate
grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots
lobbying.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(18) Grassroots lobbying.--The term `grassroots lobbying'
means the voluntary efforts of members of the general public
to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal
officials or to encourage other members of the general public
to do the same.
``(19) Paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.--The
term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying'--
``(A) means any paid attempt to influence the general
public, or segments thereof, to engage in grassroots lobbying
or lobbying contacts; and
``(B) does not include any attempt described in
subparagraph (A) by a person or entity directed to its
members, employees, officers or shareholders, unless such
attempt is financed with funds directly or indirectly
received from or arranged by a lobbyist or other registrant
under this Act retained by another person or entity.
``(20) Grassroots lobbying firm.--The term `grassroots
lobbying firm' means a person or entity that--
``(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid
efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such
clients; and
``(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an
aggregate of $50,000 or more for such efforts in any
quarterly period.''.
(b) Registration.--Section 4(a) of the Act (2 U.S.C.
1603(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``45'' and inserting
``20'';
(2) in the flush matter at the end of paragraph (3)(A)--
(A) by striking ``as estimated'' and inserting ``as
included''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following: ``For purposes of
clauses (i) and (ii) the term `lobbying activities' shall not
include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.'';
(3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) Grassroots lobbying firms.--Not later than 20 days
after a grassroots lobbying firm first is retained by a
client to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots
lobbying, such grassroots lobbying firm shall register with
the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of
Representatives.''.
(c) Separate Itemization of Paid Efforts to Stimulate
Grassroots Lobbying.--Section 5(b) of the Act (2 U.S.C.
1604(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by--
(A) inserting after ``total amount of all income'' the
following: ``(including a separate good faith estimate of the
total amount relating specifically to paid efforts to
stimulate grassroots lobbying and, within that amount, a good
faith estimate of the total amount specifically relating to
paid advertising)''; and
(B) striking ``and'' after the semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (4), by--
(A) inserting after ``total expenses'' the following:
``(including a good faith estimate of the total amount
relating specifically to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots
lobbying and, within that total amount, a good faith estimate
of the total amount specifically relating to paid
advertising)''; and
(B) striking the period and inserting a semicolon;
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) in the case of a grassroots lobbying firm, for each
client--
``(A) a good faith estimate of the total disbursements made
for grassroots lobbying activities, and a subtotal for
disbursements made for grassroots lobbying through paid
advertising;
``(B) identification of each person or entity other than an
employee who received a disbursement of funds for grassroots
lobbying activities of $10,000 or more during the period and
the total amount each person or entity received; and
``(C) if such disbursements are made through a person or
entity who serves as an intermediary or conduit,
identification of each such intermediary or conduit,
identification of the person or entity who receives the
funds, and the total amount each such person or entity
received.''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``Subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (2) shall not apply
with respect to reports relating to paid efforts to stimulate
grassroots lobbying activities.''.
(d) Large Grassroots Expenditure.--Section 5(a) of the Act
(2 U.S.C. 1604(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``No later'' and inserting:
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), not
later''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Large grassroots expenditure.--A registrant that is a
grassroots lobbying firm and that receives income of, or
spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate amount of $250,000 or
more on paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying for a
client, or for a group of clients for a joint effort, shall
file--
``(A) a report under this section not later than 20 days
after receiving, spending, or agreeing to spend that amount;
and
``(B) an additional report not later than 20 days after
each time such registrant receives income of, or spends or
agrees to spend, an aggregate amount of $250,000 or more on
paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying for a client,
or for a group of clients for a joint effort.''.
SEC. 205. DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES BY CERTAIN
COALITIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 3 of the Lobbying
Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1602) is amended to read as
follows:
``(2) Client.--
``(A) In general.--The term `client' means any person or
entity that employs or retains another person for financial
or other compensation to conduct lobbying activities on
behalf of that person or entity. A person or entity whose
employees act as lobbyists on its own behalf is both a client
and an employer of such employees.
``(B) Treatment of coalitions and associations.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clauses (ii) and
(iii), in the case of a coalition or association that employs
or retains other persons to conduct lobbying activities, each
of the individual members of the coalition or association
(and not the coalition or association) is the client. For
purposes of section 4(a)(3), the preceding sentence shall not
apply, and the coalition or association shall be treated as
the client.
``(ii) Exception for certain tax-exempt associations.--In
case of an association--
``(I) which is described in paragraph (3) of section 501(c)
of the Internal Revenue Code
[[Page H6608]]
of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such
Code, or
``(II) which is described in any other paragraph of section
501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from
tax under section 501(a) of such Code and which has
substantial exempt activities other than lobbying with
respect to the specific issue for which it engaged the person
filing the registration statement under section 4,
the association (and not its members) shall be treated as the
client.
``(iii) Exception for certain members.--
``(I) In general.--Information on a member of a coalition
or association need not be included in any registration under
section 4 if the amount reasonably expected to be contributed
by such member toward the activities of the coalition or
association of influencing legislation is less than $500 per
any quarterly period.
``(II) Exception.--Subclause (I) shall not apply with
respect to any member who unexpectedly makes aggregate
contributions of more than $500 in any quarterly period, and
the date the aggregate of such contributions first exceeds
$500 in such period shall be treated as the date of first
employment or retention to make a lobbying contact for
purposes of section 4.
``(III) No donor or membership list disclosure.--No
disclosure is required under this Act if it is publicly
available knowledge that the organization that would be
identified is affiliated with the client or has been publicly
disclosed to have provided funding to the client, unless the
organization in whole or in major part plans, supervises or
controls such lobbying activities. Nothing in this paragraph
shall be construed to require the disclosure of any
information about individuals who are members of, or donors
to, an entity treated as a client by this Act or an
organization identified under this paragraph.''.
``(iv) Look-thru rules.--In the case of a coalition or
association which is treated as a client under the first
sentence of clause (i)--
``(I) such coalition or association shall be treated as
employing or retaining other persons to conduct lobbying
activities for purposes of determining whether any individual
member thereof is treated as a client under clause (i), and
``(II) information on such coalition or association need
not be included in any registration under section 4 of the
coalition or association with respect to which it is treated
as a client under clause (i).''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to--
(A) coalitions and associations listed on registration
statements filed under section 4 of the Lobbying Disclosure
Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1603) after the date of the enactment
of this Act, and
(B) coalitions and associations for whom any lobbying
contact is made after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Special rule.--In the case of any coalition or
association to which the amendments made by this Act apply by
reason of paragraph (1)(B), the person required by such
section 4 to file a registration statement with respect to
such coalition or association shall file a new registration
statement within 30 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 206. DISCLOSURE BY REGISTERED LOBBYISTS OF PAST
EXECUTIVE AND CONGRESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT.
Section 4(b)(6) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2
U.S.C. 1603(b)(6)) is amended by striking ``or a covered
legislative branch official'' and all that follows through
``as a lobbyist on behalf of the client,'' and inserting ``or
a covered legislative branch official,''.
SEC. 207. PUBLIC DATABASE OF LOBBYING DISCLOSURE INFORMATION.
(a) Database Required.--Section 6 of the Lobbying
Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1605) is further amended--
(1) in paragraph (7) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (8) by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(9) maintain, and make available to the public over the
Internet, without a fee or other access charge, in a
searchable, sortable, and downloadable manner, an electronic
database that--
``(A) includes the information contained in registrations
and reports filed under this Act;
``(B) directly links the information it contains to the
information disclosed in reports filed with the Federal
Election Commission under section 304 of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434); and
``(C) is searchable and sortable to the maximum extent
practicable, including searchable and sortable by each of the
categories of information described in section 4(b) or
5(b).''.
(b) Availability of Reports.--Section 6 of such Act is
further amended in paragraph (4) by inserting before the
semicolon at the end the following: ``and, in the case of a
report filed in electronic form pursuant to section 5(d),
shall make such report available for public inspection over
the Internet not more than 48 hours after the report is so
filed''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
paragraph (9) of section 6 of such Act, as added by
subsection (a).
SEC. 208. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.
The requirements of this Act shall not apply to the
activities of any political committee described in section
301(4) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.
TITLE III--RESTRICTING CONGRESSIONAL TRAVEL AND GIFTS
SEC. 301. BAN ON GIFTS FROM LOBBYISTS.
(a) In General.--Clause 5(a)(1)(A) of rule XXV of the Rules
of the House of Representatives is amended by inserting
``(i)'' after ``(A)'' and adding at the end the following:
``(ii) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer,
or employee of the House may not knowingly accept a gift from
a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal or from
a nongovernmental organization that retains or employs
registered lobbyists or agents of a foreign principal except
as provided in subparagraphs (2)(B) or (3) of this
paragraph.''.
(b) Rules Committee Review.--The Committee on Rules shall
review the present exceptions to the House gift rule and make
recommendations to the House not later than 3 months after
the date of enactment of this Act on eliminating all but
those which are absolutely necessary to effectuate the
purpose of the rule.
SEC. 302. PROHIBITION ON PRIVATELY FUNDED TRAVEL.
Clause 5(b)(1)(A) of rule XXV of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is amended by inserting ``or from a
nongovernmental organization that retains or employs
registered lobbyists or agents of a foreign principal'' after
``foreign principal''.
SEC. 303. PROHIBITING LOBBYIST ORGANIZATION AND PARTICIPATION
IN CONGRESSIONAL TRAVEL.
(a) In General.--Clause 5 of rule XXV of the Rules of the
House of Representatives is amended by redesignating
paragraphs (e) and (f) as paragraphs (g) and (h),
respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (d) the
following:
``(e) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer,
or employee of the House may not accept transportation or
lodging on any trip that is planned, organized, requested,
arranged, or financed in whole or in part by a lobbyist or
agent of a foreign principal, or in which a lobbyist
participates.
``(f) Before a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner,
officer, or employee of the House may accept transportation
or lodging otherwise permissible under this paragraph from
any person, such individual shall obtain 30 days before such
trip a written certification from such person (and provide a
copy of such certification to the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct) that--
``(1) the trip was not planned, organized, requested,
arranged, or financed in whole, or in part by a registered
lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal and was not
organized at the request of a registered lobbyist or agent of
a foreign principal;
``(2) registered lobbyists will not participate in or
attend the trip; and
``(3) the person did not accept, from any source, funds
specifically earmarked for the purpose of financing the
travel expenses.
The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall make
public information received under this paragraph as soon as
possible after it is received.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Clause 5(b)(3) of rule XXV of
the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended--
(1) by striking ``of expenses reimbursed or to be
reimbursed'';
(2) in subdivision (E), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(3) in subdivision (F), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) a description of meetings and events attended during
such travel, except when disclosure of such information is
deemed by the Member or supervisor under whose direct
supervision the employee works to jeopardize the safety of an
individual or otherwise interfere with the official duties of
the Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or
employee.''.
(c) Public Availability.--Subparagraph (5) of rule XXV of
the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended to read
as follows:
``(e) The Clerk of the House shall make available to the
public all advance authorizations, certifications, and
disclosures filed pursuant to subparagraphs (1) and
subparagraph (3)(H) as soon as possible after they are
received.''.
SEC. 304. PROHIBITION ON OBLIGATION OF FUNDS FOR TRAVEL BY
LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS.
No Federal agency may obligate any funds made available in
an appropriation Act for a flight on a non-governmental
airplane that is not licensed by the Federal Aviation
Administration to operate for compensation or hire, taken as
part of official duties of a United States Senator, a Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner of the House of
Representatives, an officer or employee of the Senate or
House of Representatives, or an officer or employee of the
executive branch.
SEC. 305. PER DIEM EXPENSES FOR CONGRESSIONAL TRAVEL.
Rule XXV of the Rules of the House of Representatives (as
amended by section 304(b) is further amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(h) Not later than 90 days after the date of adoption of
this paragraph and at annual
[[Page H6609]]
intervals thereafter, the Committee on House Administration
shall develop and revise, as necessary, guidelines on what
constitutes `reasonable expenses' or `reasonable
expenditures' for purposes of this rule. In developing and
revising the guidelines, the committee shall take into
account the maximum per diem rates for official Government
travel published annually by the General Services
Administration, the Department of State, and the Department
of Defense.''.
TITLE IV--ENFORCEMENT OF LOBBYING RESTRICTIONS
SEC. 401. OFFICE OF PUBLIC INTEGRITY.
(a) Establishment.--There is established within the Office
of Inspector General of the House of Representatives an
office to be known as the ``Office of Public Integrity''
(referred to in this section as the ``Office''), which shall
be headed by a Director of Public Integrity (hereinafter
referred to as the ``Director'').
(b) Office.--The Office shall have access to all lobbyists'
disclosure information received by the Clerk under the
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 and conduct such audits and
investigations as are necessary to ensure compliance with the
Act.
(c) Referral Authority.--The Office shall have authority to
refer violations of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and the
Department of Justice for disciplinary action, as
appropriate.
(d) Director.--
(1) In general.--The Director shall be appointed by the
Inspector General of the House. Any appointment made under
this subsection shall be made without regard to political
affiliation and solely on the basis of fitness to perform the
duties of the position. Any person appointed as Director
shall be learned in the law, a member of the bar of a State
or the District of Columbia, and shall not engage in any
other business, vocation, or employment during the term of
such appointment.
(2) Staff.--The Director shall hire such additional staff
as are required to carry out this section, including
investigators and accountants.
(e) Audits and Investigations.--
(1) In general.--The Office shall audit lobbying
registrations and reports filed pursuant to the Lobbying
Disclosure Act of 1995 to determine the extent of compliance
or non-compliance with the requirements of such Act by
lobbyists and their clients.
(2) Evidence of non-compliance.--If in the course an audit
conducted pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (1), the
Office obtains information indicating that a person or entity
may be in non-compliance with the requirements of the
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, the Office shall refer the
matter to the United States Attorney for the District of
Columbia.
(f) Conforming Amendment.--Section 8 of the Lobbying
Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1607) is amended by striking
subsection (c).
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated in a separate account such sums as are
necessary to carry out this section.
SEC. 402. INCREASED CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR FAILURE
TO COMPLY WITH LOBBYING DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS.
Section 7 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.
1606) is amended--
(1) by inserting `` (a) Civil Penalty.--'' before
``Whoever'';
(2) by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting ``$100,000''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Criminal Penalty.--
``(1) In general.--Whoever knowingly and wilfully fails to
comply with any provision of this section shall be imprisoned
for not more than 5 years, or fined under title 18, United
States Code, or both.
``(2) Corruptly.--Whoever knowingly, wilfully, and
corruptly fails to comply with any provision of this section
shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or fined
under title 18, United States Code, or both.''.
SEC. 403. PENALTY FOR FALSE CERTIFICATION IN CONNECTION WITH
CONGRESSIONAL TRAVEL.
(a) Civil Fine.--
(1) In general.--Whoever makes a false certification in
connection with the travel of a Member, officer, or employee
of either House of Congress (within the meaning given those
terms in section 207 of title 18, United States Code), under
clause 5 of rule XXV of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, shall, upon proof of such offense by a
preponderance of the evidence, be subject to a civil fine
depending on the extent and gravity of the violation.
(2) Maximum fine.--The maximum fine per offense under this
section depends on the number of separate trips in connection
with which the person committed an offense under this
subsection, as follows:
(A) First trip.--For each offense committed in connection
with the first such trip, the amount of the fine shall be not
more than $100,000 per offense.
(B) Second trip.--For each offense committed in connection
with the second such trip, the amount of the fine shall be
not more than $300,000 per offense.
(C) Any other trips.--For each offense committed in
connection with any such trip after the second, the amount of
the fine shall be not more than $500,000 per offense.
(3) Enforcement.--The Attorney General may bring an action
in United States district court to enforce this subsection.
(b) Criminal Penalty.--
(1) In general.--Whoever knowingly and wilfully fails to
comply with any provision of this section shall be imprisoned
for not more than 5 years, or fined under title 18, United
States Code, or both.
(2) Corruptly.--Whoever knowingly, wilfully, and corruptly
fails to comply with any provision of this section shall be
imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or fined under title
18, United States Code, or both.
SEC. 404. MANDATORY ANNUAL ETHICS TRAINING FOR HOUSE
EMPLOYEES.
(a) Ethics Training.--
(1) In general.--The Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct shall provide annual ethics training to each employee
of the House which shall include knowledge of the Official
Code of Conduct and related House rules.
(2) New employees.--A new employee of the House shall
receive training under this section not later than 60 days
after beginning service to the House.
(b) Certification.--Not later than January 31 of each year,
each employee of the House shall file a certification with
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that the
employee attended ethics training in the last year as
established by this section.
TITLE V--OPEN GOVERNMENT
SEC. 501. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.
(a) Reconciliation.--Clause 10 of rule XVIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(d) It shall not be in order to consider any
reconciliation legislation which has the net effect of
reducing the surplus or increasing the deficit compared to
the most recent Congressional Budget Office estimate for any
fiscal year.''.
(b) Application of Points of Order Under Congressional
Budget Act to All Bills and Joint Resolutions Considered
Under Special Orders of Business.--Rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives is amended by adding at the end
the following new clause:
``7. For purposes of applying section 315 of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the
term `as reported' under such section shall be considered to
include any bill or joint resolution considered in the House
pursuant to a special order of business.''.
SEC. 502. CURBING ABUSES OF POWER.
(a) Limit on Time Permitted for Recorded Electronic
Votes.--Clause 2(a) of rule XX of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is amended by inserting after the second
sentence the following sentence: ``The maximum time for a
record vote by electronic device shall be 20 minutes, except
that the time may be extended with the consent of both the
majority and minority floor managers of the legislation
involved or both the majority leader and the minority
leader.''.
(b) Congressional Integrity.--Rule XXIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives (the Code of Official Conduct)
is amended--
(1) by redesignating clause 14 as clause 16; and
(2) by inserting after clause 13 the following new clauses:
``14. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall
not condition the inclusion of language to provide funding
for a district-oriented earmark, a particular project which
will be carried out in a Member's congressional district, in
any bill or joint resolution (or an accompanying report
thereof) or in any conference report on a bill or joint
resolution (including an accompanying joint statement of
managers thereto) on any vote cast by the Member, Delegate,
or Resident Commissioner in whose Congressional district the
project will be carried out.
``15. (a) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who
advocates to include a district-oriented earmark in any bill
or joint resolution (or an accompanying report) or in any
conference report on a bill or joint resolution (including an
accompanying joint statement of managers thereto) shall
disclose in writing to the chairman and ranking member of the
relevant committee (and in the case of the Committee on
Appropriations to the chairman and ranking member of the full
committee and of the relevant subcommittee)--
``(1) the name of the Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner;
``(2) the name and address of the intended recipient of
such earmark;
``(3) the purpose of such earmark; and
``(4) whether the Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner has a financial interest in such earmark.
``(b) Each committee shall make available to the general
public the information transmitted to the committee under
paragraph (a) for any earmark included in any measure
reported by the committee or conference report filed by the
chairman of the committee or any subcommittee thereof.
``(c) The Joint Committee on Taxation shall review any
revenue measure or any reconciliation bill or joint
resolution which includes revenue provisions before it is
reported by a committee and before it is filed by a committee
of conference of the two Houses, and shall identify whether
such bill or joint resolution contains any limited tax
benefits. The Joint Committee on Taxation shall prepare a
statement identifying any such limited tax benefits, stating
who the beneficiaries are of such benefits, and any
substantially similar introduced measures and the sponsors of
such measures. Any such
[[Page H6610]]
statement shall be made available to the general public by
the Joint Committee on Taxation.''.
(c) Restrictions on Reporting Certain Rules.--Clause 6(c)
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is
amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (1);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (2)
and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(3) a rule or order for consideration of a bill or joint
resolution reported by a committee that makes in order as
original text for purposes of amendment, text which differs
from such bill or joint resolution as recommended by such
committee to be amended unless the rule or order also makes
in order as preferential a motion to amend that is neither
divisible nor amendable but, if adopted will be considered
original text for purposes of amendment, if requested by the
chairman or ranking minority member of the reporting
committee, and such rule or order shall waive all necessary
points of order against that amendment only if it restores
all or part of the text of the bill or joint resolution as
recommended by such committee or strikes some or all of the
original text inserted by the Committee on Rules that was not
contained in the recommended version;
``(4) a rule or order that waives any points of order
against consideration of a bill or joint resolution, against
provisions in the measure, or against consideration of
amendments recommended by the reporting committee unless the
rule or order makes in order and waives the same points of
order against one germane amendment if requested by the
minority leader or a designee;
``(5) a rule or order that waives clause 10(d) of rule
XVIII, unless the majority leader and minority leader each
agree to the waiver and a question of consideration of the
rule is adopted by a vote of two-thirds of the Members
voting, a quorum being present; or
``(6) a rule or order that waives clause 12(a) of rule
XXII.''.
SEC. 503. ENDING 2-DAY WORK WEEKS.
Rule XV of the Rules of the House of Representatives is
amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
``8. It shall not be in order to consider a resolution
providing for adjournment sine die unless, during at least 20
weeks of the session, a quorum call or recorded vote was
taken on at least 4 of the weekdays (excluding legal public
holidays).''.
SEC. 504. KNOWING WHAT THE HOUSE IS VOTING ON.
(a) Bills and Joint Resolutions.--
(1) In general.--Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following
new clause:
``8. Except for motions to suspend the rules and consider
legislation, it shall not be in order to consider in the
House a bill or joint resolution until 24 hours after or, in
the case of a bill or joint resolution containing a district-
oriented earmark or limited tax benefit, until 3 days after
copies of such bill or joint resolution (and, if the bill or
joint resolution is reported, copies of the accompanying
report) are available (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal
holidays except when the House is in session on such a
day).''.
(2) Prohibiting waiver.--Clause 6(c) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, as amended by section
3(a), is further amended--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (5);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (6)
and inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(7) a rule or order that waives clause 8 of rule XIII or
clause 8(a)(1)(B) of rule XXII, unless a question of
consideration of the rule is adopted by a vote of two-thirds
of the Members voting, a quorum being present.''.
(b) Conference Reports.--Clause 8(a)(1)(B) of rule XXII of
the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by
striking ``2 hours'' and inserting ``24 hours or, in the case
of a conference report containing a district-oriented earmark
or limited tax benefit, until 3 days after''.
SEC. 505. FULL AND OPEN DEBATE IN CONFERENCE.
(a) Numbered Amendments.--Clause 1 of rule XXII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by adding at
the end the following new sentence: ``A motion to request or
agree to a conference on a general appropriation bill is in
order only if the House expresses its disagreements with the
House in the form of numbered amendments.''.
(b) Promoting Openness in Deliberations of Managers.--
Clause 12(a) of rule XXII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following
new subparagraph:
``(3) All provisions on which the two Houses disagree shall
be open to discussion at any meeting of a conference
committee. The text which reflects the conferees' action on
all of the differences between the two Houses, including all
matter to be included in the conference report and any
amendments in disagreement, shall be available to any of the
managers at least one such meeting, and shall be approved by
a recorded vote of a majority of the House managers. Such
text and, with respect to such vote, the total number of
votes cast for and against, and the names of members voting
for and against, shall be included in the joint explanatory
statement of managers accompanying the conference report of
such conference committee.''.
(c) Point of Order Against Consideration of Conference
Report Not Reflecting Resolution of Differences as
Approved.--
(1) In general.--Rule XXII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following
new clause:
``13. It shall not be in order to consider a conference
report the text of which differs in any material way from the
text which reflects the conferees' action on all of the
differences between the two Houses, as approved by a recorded
vote of a majority of the House managers as required under
clause 12(a).''.
(2) Prohibiting waiver.--Clause 6(c)(6) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, as added by section
3(c)(3), is further amended by striking ``clause 12(a)'' and
inserting ``clause 12(a) or clause 13''.
TITLE VI--ANTI-CRONYISM AND PUBLIC SAFETY
SEC. 601. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR POLITICAL APPOINTEES
HOLDING PUBLIC SAFETY POSITIONS.
(a) In General.--A public safety position may not be held
by any political appointee who does not meet the requirements
of subsection (b).
(b) Minimum Requirements.--An individual shall not, with
respect to any position, be considered to meet the
requirements of this subsection unless such individual--
(1) has academic, management, and leadership credentials in
one or more areas relevant to such position;
(2) has a superior record of achievement in one or more
areas relevant to such position;
(3) has training and expertise in one or more areas
relevant to such position; and
(4) has not, within the 2-year period ending on the date of
such individual's nomination for or appointment to such
position, been a lobbyist for any entity or other client that
is subject to the authority of the agency within which, if
appointed, such individual would serve.
(c) Political Appointee.--For purposes of this section, the
term ``political appointee'' means any individual who--
(1) is employed in a position listed in sections 5312
through 5316 of title 5, United States Code (relating to the
Executive Schedule);
(2) is a limited term appointee, limited emergency
appointee, or noncareer appointee in the Senior Executive
Service; or
(3) is employed in the executive branch of the Government
in a position which has been excepted from the competitive
service by reason of its policy-determining, policy-making,
or policy-advocating character.
(d) Public Safety Position.--For purposes of this section,
the term ``public safety position'' means--
(1) the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and
Response, Department of Homeland Security;
(2) the Director of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Department of Homeland Security;
(3) each regional director of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security;
(4) the Recovery Division Director of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security;
(5) the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security;
(6) the Assistant Secretary for Public Health Emergency
Preparedness, Department of Health and Human Services;
(7) the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Environmental Protection Agency; and
(8) any position (not otherwise identified under any of the
preceding provisions of this subsection) a primary function
of which involves responding to a direct threat to life or
property or a hazard to health, as identified by the head of
each employing agency in consultation with the Office of
Personnel Management.
Beginning not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the head of each agency shall maintain
on such agency's public website a current list of all public
safety positions within such agency.
(e) Coordination With Other Requirements.--The requirements
set forth in subsection (b) shall be in addition to, and not
in lieu of, any requirements that might otherwise apply with
respect to any particular position.
(f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``agency'' means an Executive agency (as
defined by section 105 of title 5, United States Code);
(2) the terms ``limited term appointee'', ``limited
emergency appointee'', and ``noncareer appointee'' have the
respective meanings given them by section 3132 of such title
5;
(3) the term ``Senior Executive Service'' has the meaning
given such term by section 2101a of such title 5;
(4) the term ``competitive service'' has the meaning given
such term by section 2102 of such title 5; and
(5) the terms ``lobbyist'' and ``client'' have the
respective meanings given them by section 3 of the Lobbying
Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1602).
SEC. 602. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This title shall apply with respect to any appointment made
after the end of the 30-
[[Page H6611]]
day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this
Act.
TITLE VII--ZERO TOLERANCE FOR CONTRACT CHEATERS
SEC. 701. PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF FEDERAL CONTRACT AWARDS.
(a) Amendment.--The Office of Federal Procurement Policy
Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.) is amended by inserting after
section 19 the following new section:
``SEC. 19A. PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF CONTRACT AWARD
INFORMATION.
``Not later than 14 days after the award of a contract by
an executive agency, the head of the executive agency shall
make publicly available, including by posting on the Internet
in a searchable database, the following information with
respect to the contract:
``(1) The name and address of the contractor.
``(2) The date of award of the contract.
``(3) The number of offers received in response to the
solicitation.
``(4) The total amount of the contract.
``(5) The contract type.
``(6) The items, quantities, and any stated unit price of
items or services to be procured under the contract.
``(7) With respect to a procurement carried out using
procedures other than competitive procedures--
``(A) the authority for using such procedures under section
303(c) of title III of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253(c)) or
section 2304(c) of title 10, United States Code; and
``(B) the number of sources from which bids or proposals
were solicited.
``(8) The general reasons for selecting the contractor.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents contained in
section 1(b) of such Act is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 19 the following new item:
``Sec. 19A. Public availability of contract award information.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall
apply to contracts entered into more than 90 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 702. PROHIBITION ON AWARD OF MONOPOLY CONTRACTS.
(a) Paragraph (3) of section 303H(d) of title III of the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41
U.S.C. 253h(d)) is amended to read as follows:
``(3)(A) The regulations implementing this subsection shall
prohibit the award of monopoly contracts.
``(B) In this subsection, the term `monopoly contract'
means a task or delivery order contract in an amount
estimated to exceed $10,000,000 (including all options)
awarded to a single contractor.
``(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), a monopoly contract
may be awarded if the head of the agency determines in
writing that--
``(i) for one of the reasons set forth in section 303(c), a
single task or delivery order contract is in the best
interest of the Federal Government; or
``(ii) the task orders expected under the contract are so
integrally related that only a single contractor can
reasonably perform the work.''.
(b) Section 303H(d)(1) of such Act is amended by striking
``The head'' and inserting ``Subject to paragraph (3), the
head''.
(c) Subsection (e) of section 303I of such Act (41 United
States Code 253i) is amended to read as follows:
``(e) Multiple Awards.--Section 303H(d) applies to a task
or delivery order contract for the procurement of advisory
and assistance services under this section.''.
SEC. 703. COMPETITION IN MULTIPLE AWARD CONTRACTS.
Title III of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.) is amended by
inserting after section 303M the following new section:
``SEC. 303N. COMPETITION IN MULTIPLE AWARD CONTRACTS.
``(a) Regulations Required.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this section, the Federal
Acquisition Regulation shall be revised to require
competition in the purchase of goods and services by each
executive agency pursuant to multiple award contracts.
``(b) Content of Regulations.--(1) The regulations required
by subsection (a) shall provide, at a minimum, that each
individual purchase of goods or services in excess of
$100,000 that is made under a multiple award contract shall
be made on a competitive basis unless a contracting officer
of the executive agency--
``(A) waives the requirement on the basis of a
determination that--
``(i) one of the circumstances described in paragraphs (1)
through (4) of section 303J(b) applies to such individual
purchase; or
``(ii) a statute expressly authorizes or requires that the
purchase be made from a specified source; and
``(B) justifies the determination in writing.
``(2) For purposes of this subsection, an individual
purchase of goods or services is made on a competitive basis
only if it is made pursuant to procedures that--
``(A) require fair notice of the intent to make that
purchase (including a description of the work to be performed
and the basis on which the selection will be made) to be
provided to all contractors offering such goods or services
under the multiple award contract; and
``(B) afford all contractors responding to the notice a
fair opportunity to make an offer and have that offer fairly
considered by the official making the purchase.
``(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), notice may be provided
to fewer than all contractors offering such goods or services
under a multiple award contract described in subsection
(c)(2)(A) if notice is provided to as many contractors as
practicable.
``(4) A purchase may not be made pursuant to a notice that
is provided to fewer than all contractors under paragraph (3)
unless--
``(A) offers were received from at least three qualified
contractors; or
``(B) a contracting officer of the executive agency
determines in writing that no additional qualified
contractors were able to be identified despite reasonable
efforts to do so.
``(5) For purposes of paragraph (2), fair notice means
notice of intent to make a purchase under a multiple award
contract posted, at least 14 days before the purchase is
made, on the website maintained by the General Services
Administration known as FedBizOpps.gov (or any successor
site).
``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `individual purchase' means a task order,
delivery order, or other purchase.
``(2) The term `multiple award contract' means--
``(A) a contract that is entered into by the Administrator
of General Services under the multiple award schedule program
referred to in section 309(b)(3);
``(B) a multiple award task order contract that is entered
into under the authority of sections 2304a through 2304d of
title 10, United States Code, or sections 303H through 303K;
and
``(C) any other indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity
contract that is entered into by the head of an executive
agency with two or more sources pursuant to the same
solicitation.
``(d) Applicability.--The revisions to the Federal
Acquisition Regulation pursuant to subsection (a) shall take
effect not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this section and shall apply to all individual
purchases of goods or services that are made under multiple
award contracts on or after the effective date, without
regard to whether the multiple award contracts were entered
into before, on, or after such effective date.''.
SEC. 704. SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT OF UNETHICAL CONTRACTORS.
(a) Civilian Agency Contractors.--Title III of the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C.
251 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 303N, as
added by section 703, the following new section:
``SEC. 303O. SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT OF UNETHICAL
CONTRACTORS.
``(a) In General.--No prospective contractor may be awarded
a contract with an agency unless the contracting officer for
the contract determines that such prospective contractor has
a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.
``(b) Definition.--No prospective contractor shall be
considered to have a satisfactory record of integrity and
business ethics if it--
``(1) has exhibited a pattern of overcharging the
Government under Federal contracts;
``(2) has exhibited a pattern of failing to comply with the
law, including tax, labor and employment, environmental,
antitrust, and consumer protection laws; or
``(3) has an outstanding debt with a Federal agency in a
delinquent status.''
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such Act is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 303N, as added by section 703, the
following new item:
``Sec. 303O. Suspension and debarment of unethical contractors.''.
SEC. 705. CRIMINAL SANCTIONS FOR CHEATING TAXPAYERS AND
WARTIME FRAUD.
(a) Prohibition.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1039. Criminal sanctions for cheating taxpayers and
wartime fraud
``(a) Prohibition.--
``(1) In general.--Whoever, in any matter involving a
Federal contract for the provision of goods or services,
knowingly and willfully--
``(A) executes or attempts to execute a scheme or artifice
to defraud the United States;
``(B) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick,
scheme, or device a material fact;
``(C) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statements or representations, or makes or uses any
materially false writing or document knowing the same to
contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or entry; or
``(D) materially overvalues any good or service with the
specific intent to excessively profit from war, military
action, or relief or reconstruction activities;
shall be fined under paragraph (2), imprisoned not more than
10 years, or both.
``(2) Fine.--A person convicted of an offense under
paragraph (1) may be fined the greater of--
``(A) $1,000,000; or
``(B) if such person derives profits or other proceeds from
the offense, not more than twice the gross profits or other
proceeds.
``(b) Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.--There is
extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under
this section.
[[Page H6612]]
``(c) Venue.--A prosecution for an offense under this
section may be brought--
``(1) as authorized by chapter 211 of this title;
``(2) in any district where any act in furtherance of the
offense took place; or
``(3) in any district where any party to the contract or
provider of goods or services is located.''.
(2) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter
47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``1039. Criminal Sanctions for Cheating Taxpayers and Wartime Fraud.''.
(d) Civil Forfeiture.--Section 981(a)(1)(C) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``1039,'' after
``1032,''.
(e) Criminal Forfeiture.--Section 982(a)(2)(B) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``or 1030'' and
inserting ``1030, or 1039''.
(f) Money Laundering.--Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting the following:
``, section 1039 (relating to Criminal Sanctions for Cheating
Taxpayers and Wartime Fraud,'' after ``liquidating agent of
financial institution),''.
SEC. 706. PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTOR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
(a) Prohibition.--An agency may not enter into a contract
for the performance of a function relating to contract
oversight with any contractor with a conflict of interest.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``function relating to contract oversight''
includes the following specific functions:
(A) Evaluation of a contractor's performance.
(B) Evaluation of contract proposals.
(C) Development of statements of work.
(D) Services in support of acquisition planning.
(E) Contract management.
(2) The term ``conflict of interest'' includes cases in
which the contractor performing the function relating to
contract oversight, or any related entity--
(A) is performing all or some of the work to be overseen;
(B) has a separate ongoing business relationship, such as a
joint venture or contract, with any of the contractors to be
overseen;
(C) would be placed in a position to affect the value or
performance of work it or any related entity is doing under
any other Government contract;
(D) has a reverse role with the contractor to be overseen
under one or more separate Government contracts; and
(E) has some other relationship with the contractor to be
overseen that could reasonably appear to bias the
contractor's judgment.
(3) The term ``related entity'', with respect to a
contractor, means any subsidiary, parent, affiliate, joint
venture, or other entity related to the contractor.
(c) Contracts Relating to Inherently Governmental
Functions.--An agency may not enter into a contract for the
performance of inherently governmental functions for contract
oversight (as described in subpart 7.5 of part 7 of the
Federal Acquisition Regulation).
(d) Effective Date and Applicability.--This section shall
take effect on the date of enactment of this Act and shall
apply to--
(1) contracts entered into on or after such date;
(2) any task or delivery order issued on or after such date
under a contract entered into before, on, or after such date;
and
(3) any decision on or after such date to exercise an
option or otherwise extend a contract for the performance of
a function relating to contract oversight regardless of
whether such contract was entered into before, on, or after
the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 707. DISCLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR OVERCHARGES.
(a) Quarterly Report to Congress.--
(1) The head of each Federal agency or department shall
submit to the chairman and ranking member of each committee
described in paragraph (2) on a quarterly basis a report that
includes the following:
(A) A list of audits or other reports issued during the
applicable quarter that describe contractor costs in excess
of $1,000,000 that have been identified as unjustified,
unsupported, questioned, or unreasonable under any contract,
task or delivery order, or subcontract.
(B) The specific amounts of costs identified as
unjustified, unsupported, questioned, or unreasonable and the
percentage of their total value of the contract, task or
delivery order, or subcontract.
(C) A list of audits or other reports issued during the
applicable quarter that identify significant or substantial
deficiencies in any business system of any contractor under
any contract, task or delivery order, or subcontract.
(2) The report described in paragraph (1) shall be
submitted to the Committee on Government Reform of the House
of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and other committees of
jurisdiction.
(b) Submission of Individual Audits.--The head of each
Federal agency or department shall provide, within 14 days
after a request in writing by the chairman or ranking member
of any of the committees described in subsection (a)(2), a
full and unredacted copy of any audit or other report
described in subsection (a)(1).
SEC. 708. PENALTIES FOR IMPROPER SOLE-SOURCE CONTRACTING
PROCEDURES.
Section 303 of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act (41 U.S.C. 253) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (g), (h), and (i) as
subsections (h), (i), and (j), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following new
subsection:
``(g) Any official who knowingly and intentionally violates
Federal procurement law in the preparation or certification
of a justification for a sole-source contract, in the award
of a sole-source contract, or in directing or participating
in the award of a sole-source contract, shall be subject to
administrative sanctions up to and including termination of
employment.''.
SEC. 709. STOPPING THE REVOLVING DOOR.
(a) Elimination of Loopholes That Allow Former Federal
Officials to Accept Compensation From Contractors or Related
Entities.--
(1) Paragraph (1) of section 27(d) of the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 423(d)(1)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``or consultant'' and inserting
``consultant, lawyer, or lobbyist'';
(B) by striking ``one year'' and inserting ``two years'';
and
(C) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``personally made for
the Federal agency--'' and inserting ``participated
personally and substantially in--''.
(2) Paragraph (2) of section 27(d) of such Act (41 U.S.C.
423(d)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `contractor'
includes any division, affiliate, subsidiary, parent, joint
venture, or other related entity of the contractor.''.
(b) Prohibition on Award of Government Contracts to Former
Employers.--Section 27 of such Act (41 U.S.C. 423) is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) Prohibition on Involvement by Certain Former
Contractor Employees in Procurements.--A former employee of a
contractor who becomes an employee of the Federal government
shall not be personally and substantially involved with any
Federal agency procurement involving the employee's former
employer, including any division, affiliate, subsidiary,
parent, joint venture, or other related entity of the former
employer, for a period of two years beginning on the date on
which the employee leaves the employment of the
contractor.''.
(c) Requirement for Federal Procurement Officers to
Disclose Job Offers Made to Relatives.--Section 27(c)(1) of
such Act (41 U.S.C. 423(c)(1)) is amended by inserting after
``that official'' the following: ``or for a relative of that
official (as defined in section 3110 of title 5, United
States Code),''.
(d) Additional Criminal Penalties.--Paragraph (1) of
section 27(e) of such Act (41 U.S.C. (e)(1)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(1) Criminal penalties.--Whoever engages in conduct
constituting a violation of--
``(A) subsection (a) or (b) for the purpose of either--
``(i) exchanging the information covered by such subsection
for anything of value, or
``(ii) obtaining or giving anyone a competitive advantage
in the award of a Federal agency procurement contract; or
``(B) subsection (c) or (d);
shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years or fined as
provided under title 18, United States Code, or both.''.
(e) Regulations.--Section 27 of such Act (41 U.S.C. 423) is
further amended by adding at the end of the following new
subsection:
``(j) Regulations.--The Director of the Office of
Government Ethics, in consultation with the Administrator,
shall--
``(1) promulgate regulations to carry out and ensure the
enforcement of this section; and
``(2) monitor and investigate individual and agency
compliance with this section.''.
TITLE VIII--PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES
SEC. 801. PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES.
(a) In General.--Section 2112 of title 44, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(h)(1) Any organization that is established for the
purpose of raising funds for creating, maintaining,
expanding, or conducting activities at a Presidential
archival depository or any facilities relating to a
Presidential archival depository, shall submit to the
Administration, the Committee on Government Reform of the
House of Representatives, and the Committee on Governmental
Affairs of the Senate on a quarterly basis, by not later than
the applicable date specified in paragraph (2), information
with respect to every contributor who, during the designated
period--
``(A) with respect to a Presidential archival depository of
a President who currently holds the Office of President or
for which the Archivist has not accepted, taken title to, or
entered into an agreement to use any land or facility, gave
the organization a contribution or contributions (whether
monetary or in-kind) totaling $100 or more for the quarterly
period; or
``(B) with respect to a Presidential archival depository of
a President who no longer holds the Office of President and
for which the Archivist has accepted, taken title to, or
entered into an agreement to use any land or facility, gave
the organization a contribution or contributions (whether
monetary or
[[Page H6613]]
in-kind) totaling $100 or more for the quarterly period.
``(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the applicable date--
``(A) with respect to information required under paragraph
(1)(A), shall be April 15, July 15, October 15, and January
15 of each year and of the following year as applicable to
the fourth quarterly filing; and
``(B) with respect to information required under paragraph
(1)(B), shall be April 15, July 15, October 15, and January
15 of each year and of the following year as applicable to
the fourth quarterly filing.
``(3) As used in this subsection, the term `information'
means the following:
``(A) The amount or value of each contribution made by a
contributor referred to in paragraph (1) in the quarter
covered by the submission.
``(B) The source of each such contribution, and the address
of the entity or individual that is the source of the
contribution.
``(C) If the source of such a contribution is an
individual, the occupation of the individual.
``(D) The date of each such contribution.
``(4) The Archivist shall make available to the public
through the Internet (or a successor technology readily
available to the public) as soon as is practicable after each
quarterly filing any information that is submitted in
accordance with paragraph (1).
``(5)(A) It shall be unlawful for any person who makes a
contribution described in paragraph (1) to knowingly and
willfully submit false material information or omit material
information with respect to the contribution to an
organization described in such paragraph.
``(B) The penalties described in section 1001 of title 18,
United States Code, shall apply with respect to a violation
of subparagraph (A) in the same manner as a violation
described in such section.
``(6)(A) It shall be unlawful for any organization
described in paragraph (1) to knowingly and willfully submit
false material information or omit material information under
such paragraph.
``(B) The penalties described in section 1001 of title 18,
United States Code, shall apply with respect to a violation
of subparagraph (A) in the same manner as a violation
described in such section.
``(7)(A) It shall be unlawful for a person to knowingly and
willfully--
``(i) make a contribution described in paragraph (1) in the
name of another person;
``(ii) permit his or her name to be used to effect a
contribution described in paragraph (1); or
``(iii) accept a contribution described in paragraph (1)
that is made by one person in the name of another person.
``(B) The penalties set forth in section 309(d) of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(d))
shall apply to a violation of subparagraph (A) in the same
manner as if such violation were a violation of section
316(b)(3) of such Act.
``(8) The Archivist shall promulgate regulations for the
purpose of carrying out this subsection.''.
(b) Applicability.--Section 2112(h) of title 44, United
States Code (as added by subsection (a))--
(1) shall apply to an organization established for the
purpose of raising funds for creating, maintaining,
expanding, or conducting activities at a Presidential
archival depository or any facilities relating to a
Presidential archival depository before, on or after the date
of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) shall only apply with respect to contributions (whether
monetary or in-kind) made after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
TITLE IX--FORFEITURE OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS
SEC. 901. LOSS OF PENSIONS ACCRUED DURING SERVICE AS A MEMBER
OF CONGRESS FOR ABUSING THE PUBLIC TRUST.
(a) Civil Service Retirement System.--Section 8332 of title
5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(o)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
subchapter, the service of an individual finally convicted of
an offense described in paragraph (2) shall not be taken into
account for purposes of this subchapter, except that this
sentence applies only to service rendered as a Member
(irrespective of when rendered). Any such individual (or
other person determined under section 8342(c), if applicable)
shall be entitled to be paid so much of such individual's
lump-sum credit as is attributable to service to which the
preceding sentence applies.
``(2)(A) An offense described in this paragraph is any
offense described in subparagraph (B) for which the following
apply:
``(i) Every act or omission of the individual (referred to
in paragraph (1)) that is needed to satisfy the elements of
the offense occurs while the individual is a Member.
``(ii) Every act or omission of the individual that is
needed to satisfy the elements of the offense directly
relates to the performance of the individual's official
duties as a Member.
``(iii) The offense is committed after the date of
enactment of this subsection.
``(B) An offense described in this subparagraph is only the
following, and only to the extent that the offense is a
felony under title 18:
``(i) An offense under section 201 of title 18 (bribery of
public officials and witnesses).
``(ii) An offense under section 219 of title 18 (officers
and employees acting as agents of foreign principals).
``(iii) An offense under section 371 of title 18
(conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States) to
the extent of any conspiracy to commit an act which
constitutes an offense under clause (i) or (ii).
``(3) An individual convicted of an offense described in
paragraph (2) shall not, after the date of the final
conviction, be eligible to participate in the retirement
system under this subchapter or chapter 84 while serving as a
Member.
``(4) The Office of Personnel Management shall prescribe
any regulations necessary to carry out this subsection. Such
regulations shall include--
``(A) provisions under which interest on any lump-sum
payment under the second sentence of paragraph (1) shall be
limited in a manner similar to that specified in the last
sentence of section 8316(b); and
``(B) provisions under which the Office may provide for--
``(i) the payment, to the spouse or children of any
individual referred to in the first sentence of paragraph
(1), of any amounts which (but for this clause) would
otherwise have been nonpayable by reason of such first
sentence, but only to the extent that the application of this
clause is considered necessary given the totality of the
circumstances; and
``(ii) an appropriate adjustment in the amount of any lump-
sum payment under the second sentence of paragraph (1) to
reflect the application of clause (i).
``(5) For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) the term `Member' has the meaning given such term by
section 2106, notwithstanding section 8331(2); and
``(B) the term `child' has the meaning given such term by
section 8341.''.
(b) Federal Employees' Retirement System.--Section 8411 of
title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(l)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
chapter, the service of an individual finally convicted of an
offense described in paragraph (2) shall not be taken into
account for purposes of this chapter, except that this
sentence applies only to service rendered as a Member
(irrespective of when rendered). Any such individual (or
other person determined under section 8424(d), if applicable)
shall be entitled to be paid so much of such individual's
lump-sum credit as is attributable to service to which the
preceding sentence applies.
``(2) An offense described in this paragraph is any offense
described in section 8332(o)(2)(B) for which the following
apply:
``(A) Every act or omission of the individual (referred to
in paragraph (1)) that is needed to satisfy the elements of
the offense occurs while the individual is a Member.
``(B) Every act or omission of the individual that is
needed to satisfy the elements of the offense directly
relates to the performance of the individual's official
duties as a Member.
``(C) The offense is committed after the date of enactment
of this subsection.
``(3) An individual finally convicted of an offense
described in paragraph (2) shall not, after the date of the
conviction, be eligible to participate in the retirement
system under this chapter while serving as a Member.
``(4) The Office of Personnel Management shall prescribe
any regulations necessary to carry out this subsection. Such
regulations shall include--
``(A) provisions under which interest on any lump-sum
payment under the second sentence of paragraph (1) shall be
limited in a manner similar to that specified in the last
sentence of section 8316(b); and
``(B) provisions under which the Office may provide for--
``(i) the payment, to the spouse or children of any
individual referred to in the first sentence of paragraph
(1), of any amounts which (but for this clause) would
otherwise have been nonpayable by reason of such first
sentence, but only to the extent that the application of this
clause is considered necessary given the totality of the
circumstances; and
``(ii) an appropriate adjustment in the amount of any lump-
sum payment under the second sentence of paragraph (1) to
reflect the application of clause (i).
``(5) For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) the term `Member' has the meaning given such term by
section 2106, notwithstanding section 8401(20); and
``(B) the term `child' has the meaning given such term by
section 8341.''.
____
Summary of Amendments Submitted to the Rules Committee for H. Res.
1000--Providing for Earmarking Reform in the House of Representatives
Emanuel (IL)--1. Establishes a new point of order against
any reported bill or conference report which contains an
earmark that would: personally benefit a Member, Member's
spouse, or immediate family member; benefit a registered
lobbyist or former registered lobbyist who serves as chairman
of the leadership political action committee of the Member
requesting the earmark; benefit any entity that employs the
spouse or immediate family member of the earmark's sponsor;
benefits any entity that employs or is represented by a
former employee of the earmark's sponsor, or is represented
by a lobbying firm that employs any spouse or close relative
of the earmark's sponsor. Applies the point of order to any
bill containing an earmark which amends the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to benefit one individual, corporation or
entity. Applies the point of
[[Page H6614]]
order to any conference report containing earmarks that were
not contained in the House or Senate-passed versions of the
matter committed to conference.
King, Steve (IA)--2. Prohibits the consideration of any
bill or conference report unless: (1) the bill or conference
report is made available on the internet for at least 48
hours prior to its consideration; (2) any amendment made in
order under a rule is made available on the internet within
one hour after the rule is filed; (3) any amendment under an
open rule is made available on the internet immediately after
being offered, in a format that is searchable and sortable.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The question is on ordering
the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of H. Res. 1003, if ordered; and
motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 6033.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218,
nays 194, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 448]
YEAS--218
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--194
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--20
Baca
Bishop (UT)
Cannon
Case
Culberson
Davis (FL)
Evans
Forbes
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kolbe
Lynch
McHenry
McKinney
McMorris Rodgers
Ney
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Loretta
Strickland
{time} 1725
Mr. HONDA and Mr. RANGEL changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. FRANKS of Arizona, YOUNG of Alaska, MILLER of Florida, and
ROGERS of Michigan changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 245,
noes 171, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 449]
AYES--245
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doggett
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
English (PA)
Eshoo
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Holt
Hooley
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
[[Page H6615]]
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Melancon
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Sanders
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Waters
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wu
NOES--171
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonilla
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doyle
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Markey
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Rogers (KY)
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherwood
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Stupak
Sweeney
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wicker
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--17
Baca
Baker
Bishop (UT)
Case
Culberson
Davis (FL)
Evans
Forbes
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kolbe
Marshall
Ney
Peterson (MN)
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Strickland
{time} 1733
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to H. Res. 1003,
H. Res. 1000, as amended, is adopted.
The text of H. Res. 1000, as amended, is as follows:
H. Res. 1000
Resolved,
SECTION 1. EARMARKING REFORM IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
(a) In the House of Representatives, it shall not be in
order to consider--
(1) a bill reported by a committee unless the report
includes a list of earmarks in the bill or in the report (and
the names of Members who submitted requests to the committee
for earmarks included in such list); or
(2) a conference report to accompany a bill unless the
joint explanatory statement prepared by the managers on the
part of the House and the managers on the part of the Senate
includes a list of earmarks in the conference report or joint
statement (and the names of Members who submitted requests to
the committee for earmarks included in such list) that were
not committed to the conference committee by either House,
not in a report specified in paragraph (1), and not in a
report of a committee of the Senate on a companion measure.
(3) In order to be cognizable by the Chair, a point of
order raised under paragraph (1) may be based only on the
failure of a report of a committee to include a list required
by paragraph (1).
(b) In the House of Representatives, it shall not be in
order to consider--
(1) a bill carrying a tax measure reported by the Committee
on Ways and Means as to which the Joint Committee on Taxation
has--
(A) identified a tax earmark pursuant to subsection (e),
unless the report on the bill includes a list of tax earmarks
in the bill or report (and the names of Members who submitted
requests to the committee for tax earmarks included in such
list); or
(B) failed to provide an analysis under subsection (e); or
(2) a conference report to accompany a bill carrying a tax
measure as to which the Joint Committee on Taxation has--
(A) identified a tax earmark pursuant to subsection (e),
unless the joint explanatory statement prepared by the
managers on the part of the House and the managers on the
part of the Senate includes a list of tax earmarks in the
conference report or joint statement (and the names of
Members who submitted requests to the committee for tax
earmarks included in such list) that were not committed to
the conference committee by either House, not in a report
specified in paragraph (1), and not in a report of a
committee of the Senate on a companion measure; or
(B) failed to provide an analysis under subsection (e).
(3) A point of order under paragraph (1) or (2) may not be
cognizable by the Chair if the Joint Committee on Taxation
has provided an analysis under subsection (e) and has not
identified a tax earmark.
(c)(1) In the House of Representatives, it shall not be in
order to consider a rule or order that waives the application
of subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2).
(2) A point of order that a rule or order waives the
application of subsection (b)(2)(A) may not be cognizable by
the Chair if the Joint Committee on Taxation has provided an
analysis under subsection (e) and has not identified a tax
earmark.
(3) In order to be cognizable by the Chair, a point of
order that a rule or order waives the application of
subsection (b)(2)(A) must specify the precise language of the
rule or order and any pertinent analysis by the Joint
Committee on Taxation contained in the joint statement of
managers.
(d)(1) As disposition of a point of order under subsection
(a) or (b), the Chair shall put the question of consideration
with respect to the proposition that is the subject of the
point of order.
(2) As disposition of a point of order under subsection (c)
with respect to a rule or order relating to a conference
report, the Chair shall put the question of consideration as
follows: ``Shall the House now consider the resolution
notwithstanding the assertion of [the maker of the point of
order] that the object of the resolution introduces a new
earmark or new earmarks?''.
(3) The question of consideration under this subsection
(other than one disposing of a point of order under
subsection (b)) shall be debatable for 15 minutes by the
Member initiating the point of order and for 15 minutes by an
opponent, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening
motion except one that the House adjourn.
(e) The Joint Committee on Taxation shall review any bill
containing a tax measure that is being reported by the
Committee on Ways and Means or prepared for filing by a
committee of conference of the two Houses, and shall identify
whether such bill contains any tax earmarks. The Joint
Committee on Taxation shall provide to the Committee on Ways
and Means or the committee of conference a statement
identifying any such tax earmarks or declaring that the bill
or joint resolution does not contain any tax earmarks, and
such statement shall be included in the report on the bill or
joint statement of managers, as applicable. Any such
statement shall also be made available to any Member of
Congress by the Joint Committee on Taxation immediately upon
request.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
(a) For the purpose of this resolution, the term
``earmark'' means a provision in a bill or conference report,
or language in an accompanying committee report or joint
statement of managers--
(1) with respect to a general appropriation bill, or
conference report thereon, providing or recommending an
amount of budget authority for a contract, loan, loan
guarantee, grant, or other expenditure with or to a non-
Federal entity, if--
(A) such entity is specifically identified in the report or
bill; or
(B) if the discretionary budget authority is allocated
outside of the statutory or administrative formula-driven or
competitive bidding process and is targeted or directed to an
identifiable entity, specific State, or Congressional
district; or
(2) with respect to a measure other than that specified in
paragraph (1), or conference report thereon, providing
authority, including budget authority, or recommending the
exercise of authority, including budget authority, for a
contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or
other expenditure with or to a non-Federal entity, if--
(A) such entity is specifically identified in the report or
bill;
(B) if the authorization for, or provision of, budget
authority, contract authority loan authority or other
expenditure is allocated outside of the statutory or
administrative formula-driven or competitive bidding process
and is targeted or directed to an identifiable entity,
specific State, or Congressional district; or
(C) if such authorization for, or provision of, budget
authority, contract authority, loan authority or other
expenditure preempts statutory or administrative State
allocation authority.
[[Page H6616]]
(b)(1) For the purpose of this resolution, the term ``tax
earmark'' means any revenue-losing provision that provides a
Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to
only one beneficiary (determined with respect to either
present law or any provision of which the provision is a
part) under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in any year for
which the provision is in effect;
(2) for purposes of paragraph (1)--
(A) all businesses and associations that are members of the
same controlled group of corporations (as defined in section
1563(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) shall be
treated as a single beneficiary;
(B) all shareholders, partners, members, or beneficiaries
of a corporation, partnership, association, or trust or
estate, respectively, shall be treated as a single
beneficiary;
(C) all employees of an employer shall be treated as a
single beneficiary;
(D) all qualified plans of an employer shall be treated as
a single beneficiary;
(E) all beneficiaries of a qualified plan shall be treated
as a single beneficiary;
(F) all contributors to a charitable organization shall be
treated as a single beneficiary;
(G) all holders of the same bond issue shall be treated as
a single beneficiary; and
(H) if a corporation, partnership, association, trust or
estate is the beneficiary of a provision, the shareholders of
the corporation, the partners of the partnership, the members
of the association, or the beneficiaries of the trust or
estate shall not also be treated as beneficiaries of such
provision;
(3) for the purpose of this subsection, the term ``revenue-
losing provision'' means any provision that is estimated to
result in a reduction in Federal tax revenues (determined
with respect to either present law or any provision of which
the provision is a part) for any one of the two following
periods--
(A) the first fiscal year for which the provision is
effective; or
(B) the period of the 5 fiscal years beginning with the
first fiscal year for which the provision is effective; and
(4) the terms used in this subsection shall have the same
meaning as those terms have generally in the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, unless otherwise expressly provided.
(c) For the purpose of this resolution--
(1) government-sponsored enterprises, Federal facilities,
and Federal lands shall be considered Federal entities;
(2) to the extent that the non-Federal entity is a State,
unit of local government, territory, an Indian tribe, a
foreign government or an intergovernmental international
organization, the provision or language shall not be
considered an earmark unless the provision or language also
specifies the specific purpose for which the designated
budget authority is to be expended;
(3) the term ``budget authority'' shall have the same
meaning as such term is defined in section 3 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 622); and
(4) an obligation limitation shall be treated as though it
is budget authority.
____________________