[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 86 (Thursday, May 24, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H5738-H5747]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2317, LOBBYING TRANSPARENCY ACT OF
2007 AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2316, HONEST LEADERSHIP
AND OPEN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 2007
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 437 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 437
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the
bill (H.R. 2317) to amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995
to require registered lobbyists to file quarterly reports on
contributions bundled for certain recipients, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of
rule XXI. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in
the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution, the Speaker
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House
resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2316) to
provide more rigorous requirements with respect to disclosure
and enforcement of lobbying laws and regulations, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10
of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the
Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All
points of order against the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute are waived except those arising under clause
9 or 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII,
no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B
of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such amendment
may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may
be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall
be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment,
and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All
points of order against such amendments are waived except
those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 3. During consideration of H.R. 2317 or H.R. 2316
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of either bill to such time as may be
designated by the Speaker.
Sec. 4. Subparagraph (3)(Q) of clause 5(a) of rule XXV is
amended to read as follows:
``(Q) Free attendance at an event permitted under
subparagraph (4).''.
{time} 1140
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All
time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only.
General Leave
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
[[Page H5739]]
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 2317,
the Lobbying Transparency Act of 2007, and H.R. 2316, the Honest
Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.
The resolution provides that H.R. 2317 is to be considered under a
closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by
the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule waives all points of order
against the bill and its consideration, except for those arising under
clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.
The resolution also provides for consideration of H.R. 2316, the
Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, under a structured
rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on the Judiciary. The rule waives all points of order against the bill
and its consideration, except those arising under clauses 9 or 10 of
rule XXI.
The rule makes in order and provides the appropriate waivers for five
amendments, three by Democratic Members and two by Republican Members.
Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for the Honest Leadership and Open
Government Act of 2007 and the Lobbying Transparency Act as well and
this rule.
The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act continues the new
direction charted by this new Congress and builds upon the strongest
ethics reforms ever adopted in the United States Congress.
Last November, the Congress was reinvigorated by the election of a
large number of new Members, who were sent here by the American people
to fight for reform and change and to sweep aside a previous Congress
that was defined by scandal and corruption.
On the first day of this new Congress, the new reform-minded Members,
under the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rules Committee Chair
Louise Slaughter, ushered in the broadest ethics and lobbying revisions
since the Watergate era. The ethics watchdog group Public Citizen
called the new ethics rules sweeping in scope and a signal that the
Democratic majority in the House appears committed to serious lobbying
and ethics reform.
Those new rules include a ban on gifts from lobbyists and
organizations that employ lobbyists, a ban on trips that are privately
funded by lobbyists and organizations that employ lobbyists,
prohibition on Members and staff flying on private corporate jets, an
end to the K Street Project, and a new requirement that all earmarks
with congressional sponsors be disclosed to the public.
Then 3 weeks after the adoption of that very broad and aggressive
ethics reform rules package, the House acted again on ethics reform and
stripped the congressional pensions of Members of Congress who commit
any of a number of crimes during their tenure, including bribery,
conspiracy and perjury.
This new Congress took that direct action to change the culture of
Congress at a time when Members of the previous Congress were pleading
guilty to living off gifts they had received from lobbyists in exchange
for votes and earmarks. Through our bold and expanding ethics package,
this new Congress is tackling the cozy relationships between lobbyists
and lawmakers.
Next, Mr. Speaker, these bills that we will consider today, the one
for open government and honest leadership and transparency in lobbying,
and this rule, provide rigorous new requirements for lobbyist
disclosure and enforcement of lobbying laws and regulations.
Mr. Speaker, we don't adopt reforms for reform's sake alone. We adopt
these reforms and we fight for change because it matters to our
constituents and our neighbors back home.
For over a year I have been sitting down with seniors trying to work
through the disaster of Medicare part D that was crafted in the last
Congress. Fortunately, this bill adds a House rule prohibiting Members
and senior staff from negotiating future employment or salaries and
requires public recusal of Members on any matters where there may be a
conflict of interest.
You see, Mr. Speaker, that Medicare part D that is so costly and
confusing to our seniors and puts all the benefit on the side of HMOs
and Big Pharma, and puts all of the burden on our seniors, was crafted
by a Member of Congress who, shortly thereafter, after he helped write
the Medicare drug bill, went on to become the head lobbyist for PhRMA
in what I think was a crass violation of the public trust. Fortunately,
this bill will tackle that problem.
This bill also makes it a Federal crime for Members and senior staff
to influence employment decisions or practices of private entities for
partisan political gain. Some people have called this the K Street
Project. The K Street Project was an initiative by the Republican Party
to pressure Washington lobbying firms to hire Republicans in top
positions and to reward loyal GOP lobbyists with access to influential
officials.
The bill also requires quarterly instead of semiannual disclosure of
lobbying reports. It requires in the age of the Internet for lobbying
reports to be filed electronically and be made available in a free,
searchable, downloadable database within 48 hours of being filed.
It also requires the Clerk of the House to post travel disclosures on
the Internet. This follows the scandals of Jack Abramoff. We must allow
greater transparency into the trips and financial holdings of Members
of Congress. Former Members of Congress took lavish trips to Scotland
with a lobbyist that had minimal disclosure, and these new provisions
will bring more such light to congressional disclosure forms.
Through this legislation we will also increase civil and criminal
penalties for failure to comply with lobbying disclosure requirements.
And it does much, much more.
Mr. Speaker, we must continue to fight for high ethical standards in
government to end the culture of corruption in Washington so that our
neighbors and folks we represent know they can count on us to stand up
for them against powerful special interests and trust that
congressional Members work in the public interest.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my
appreciation to my very good new friend from Tampa (Ms. Castor) for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and to congratulate her on her
statement that she has just provided. But, Mr. Speaker, I rise to
reluctantly oppose this rule.
This bill has lots of problems, and I understand the problems on the
other side of the aisle. I am very happy to see the distinguished Chair
of the Committee on the Judiciary, my very good friend John Conyers,
here.
It was just a year ago, it was just a year ago this month, that we
were on the floor with our own lobbying bill, and we faced many of the
same problems and challenges that Chairman Conyers and others in the
Democratic leadership are facing at this moment. Trying to address the
concerns that our colleagues have on this issue is a challenge, a very
challenging thing, and they have discovered the lesson that I learned
long ago, and that is reform is very hard work. It is a constant work
in progress.
I was reminded by one of my staff members that I had said at one
point as we moved ahead with a reform bill, which I am happy to say we
passed in the last Congress, I said, when we are done with that reform,
what we need to do is work on more reform.
This is, again, a constant work in progress, and will continue to be.
And I believe it is part of our responsibility to constantly look at
ways in which we can reform and improve the operations of this
institution.
{time} 1150
But if the bill that this House passed in the last Congress was
described as a ``sham,'' it is very unfortunate, and Mr. Conyers and
Ms. Castor and others were there when I was describing this, the very
distinguished chair of the Committee on Rules no fewer than seven times
when we, a year ago this month, were debating this measure, described
the bill I had, H.R. 4975, as a ``sham'' bill.
I have to say, as I listen to my friend from Tampa (Ms. Castor) talk
about
[[Page H5740]]
this bill, she was going through the fact that we will have disclosure
on the Internet of travel, and she went through basically the
provisions included in H.R. 4975; it is basically the same bill. But,
unfortunately, there are a number of important provisions included in
H.R. 4975 that are not included in this measure. I find that to be
somewhat troubling.
For instance, while starting out with a 2-year restriction on
lobbying after Congress, the majority left that provision on the
cutting room floor. They recognized, as we did, that the economics of
attracting and retaining good staff, they don't work with that kind of
restriction. But instead of retaining a provision which passed the
House last year and would provide everyone with a degree of
transparency about who was and was not under the lobbying restriction,
and I am going to offer an amendment to add that back which I hope will
be able to improve the bill. But this bill, as we have it, is not
nearly to the level of what the new majority described as a sham in the
last Congress.
While this bill provides important new criminal penalties for
lobbying violations, it includes nothing, absolutely nothing, Mr.
Speaker, to make enforcement more rigorous.
I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to add a provision
which again was included in the bill that we had passed out of this
House last year which would allow the House inspector general to
randomly audit lobbying disclosure filings and forward cases of
wrongdoing to the Department of Justice for prosecution.
The majority's answer to that proposal was, no, we don't want
enforcement of our bill. Enforcement is always a challenge. We deal
with that with the issue of illegal immigration and a wide range of
things. It is easy to put all kinds of great ideas out there, but if
there is no enforcement, it has no teeth and no chance of success. That
is something that is very lacking in this bill. We had it in our
lobbying reform bill that passed last year, and I offered it as an
amendment at the Rules Committee. Unfortunately, my colleagues in the
majority on the Rules Committee rejected it.
Mr. Speaker, last year, Mr. Castle added a provision on the floor
requiring lobbyists to take ethics training. Is that provision in this
bill? Nope, it's not.
Did the majority make Mr. Castle's amendment in order to consider
that? Nope, they didn't.
My colleague, Dr. Gingrey, a former member of the Rules Committee,
added an amendment on the floor dealing with the personal leadership of
PAC funds. That was not included in the bill, and his amendment was not
made in order. Last year, with bipartisan support on the floor, we
amended our bill, H.R. 4975, to say that Members who have leadership
PACs cannot transfer those dollars into their own account for personal
use, which is what can happen today. It is not allowed for principal
campaign committee accounts, but that loophole which allows Members to
transfer money from their leadership PAC for personal use is still
going to be allowed. And the attempt to even offer an amendment to
close that horrendous loophole was denied.
That is to say nothing of the other creative ideas that were
summarily rejected by the Rules Committee majority last evening.
Mr. Speaker, if the bill which I sponsored last year was a sham, and
as I said the chairman of the Rules Committee, although last night she
said she never said it, seven times it is in the Congressional Record
when she was offering her motion to recommit, if it was a sham, then
this bill can only be characterized at this moment as being ``sub-
sham,'' and our efforts to raise it to the level of a mere sham were
rebuffed, unfortunately, in the Rules Committee.
Which brings me to the rule for this bill, Mr. Speaker. For all of
the criticism the Republicans take for the way we administered the
House, and we hear that constantly up in the Rules Committee and down
here on the floor, it is notable this bill makes in order fewer
amendments than we did when we considered our bill last year.
The rule for H.R. 4975, our lobbying bill, made in order nine
amendments. This year, only five amendments were made in order. And
while it gives Mr. Van Hollen an up-or-down vote on his so-called
bundling disclosure bill, it doesn't attach it to the lobbying bill
going to the Senate, making it much more difficult to ultimately reach
passage.
Mr. Speaker, this rule and these bills are not unlike many of the so-
called reforms instituted in this Congress, which means all show and no
substance whatsoever.
For instance, our Democratic friends take credit for adopting and
supposedly improving Republican earmark disclosure reforms. As Mr.
Flake found out just last week, when it comes to actually trying to
enforce those rules, the Rules Committee eliminated every avenue for a
Member to bring this question before the House. On top of that, Mr.
Flake had several amendments addressing lobbying for earmarks. Mr.
Speaker, none of those amendments were made in order.
In the end, there is little in this bill that is truly objectionable.
My friend from Tampa went through and outlined the provisions included
in H.R. 4975 that passed this House a year ago this month with
bipartisan support. Again, there is little that is truly objectionable.
There is very little that is in this bill that is beyond what we had in
the last Congress; and, unfortunately, it doesn't include or even
provide an opportunity to provide amendments to include many of the
items that were so important in this effort.
This bill takes no risk, reaches no heights, and falls short of the
lofty promises made by my newly minted majority colleagues.
Unfortunately, the rule is unacceptable in its current form, Mr.
Speaker, and I am going to urge its defeat.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to
the ethics reformer of Ohio and my colleague on the Rules Committee,
Ms. Sutton.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for her
leadership on this issue and for yielding me the time.
Today I rise in favor of the rule and in favor of the Honest
Leadership and Open Government Act. On my first day in office
representing Ohio's 13th District, under the leadership of the new
Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, I stood on the floor of the House in support of
a new ethics rules package, a rules package that put an end to the K
Street Project, that ended gifts and perks and trips, and that made a
historic move towards cleansing the inner workings of government.
This rules package was extraordinary in its scope and its breadth,
but it was only the beginning. In our fight against the climate of
excess that flourished under recent Republican leadership of this body,
it is clear we must take further action. We must continue to eradicate
the pay-to-play culture that has pervaded and all too often undermined
lawmaking in the Congress.
We must expose and eliminate the strings and the coziness that have
resulted in policies by the special interests for the special
interests. We must end the culture of corruption so we remain focused
and truly tend to the people's business.
When I ran to represent Ohio's 13th District, I made it clear that I
wanted to go to Congress to change the way business was being done and
to restore the public trust. Safeguarding the public trust is not a
part-time job. It must always remain uppermost in our minds. It
requires the observation of current rules, and it requires legislative
action to cure problems that persist.
Today we take the next step to bring the cleansing light of day to
political financial contributions and to reduce the potential for shady
lobbying practices.
{time} 1200
This bill focuses on sanitizing the relationship that lobbyists have
with Congress. It gives the American people the ability to follow the
money. It increases the number of times per year that lobbyists must
file disclosure reports, and it requires electronic filing of these
reports, making it available to the American public on the Internet. To
increase public disclosure, we will shed needed light on the money
trail from lobbyists to Capitol Hill.
This bill also requires lobbyists to certify that they have not
provided elected Members of Congress with gifts or travel forbidden by
the rules of the
[[Page H5741]]
House. This is another means to ensure that the past practice of
special interests using gifts and perks to woo legislators is truly
coming to an end.
When lobbying laws and congressional rules are violated, the American
people suffer. They suffer in policy, and they suffer in spirit. They
are cheated out of their right to proper representation. The action we
are taking today provides for greater punishment for the violation of
these laws by those who are willing to betray the public trust.
When Americans went to the polls last November, they sent a clear
message that they're concerned about the state of government. I have
long believed that what people truly want from their Representative is
someone who understands their concerns and who will strive to do all
that they can on their behalf. The American people want to know that we
are here for them, not for lobbyists, not for special interests, not
for self-interests. They deserve nothing less.
Today, thanks to an amendment made in order by this rule, we also
take action to bring much-needed transparency to the practice of
lobbyists' bundling of campaign contributions. The American people
deserve to know the source of campaign contributions, as well as the
sometimes lengthy and roundabout paths that these campaign
contributions travel before they are placed into the hands of
candidates.
Our bill gives the American people a window into the lobbying
practices and fund-raising activities by requiring the disclosure of
bundled contributions collected by lobbyists for candidates.
This Democratic Congress is working to restore and ensure the trust
of our constituents. One step was the elimination of soft money, the
next step the House rules package. We can't stop there.
In closing I just want to say, as a new member of Congress, Mr.
Speaker, how very honored I am to have been given the awesome
opportunity and responsibility to represent the people of the
thirteenth district of Ohio. Every day, I cherish the trust that they
have placed in me to do all that I can on their behalf. I know that
others in this body feel just as strongly as I do about their own
constituents. We must pass this bill to restore the hope and live up to
the promise that those we have been sent to serve have placed in us.
Our constituents must know and it must be true, that it is they that
are always uppermost in our hearts and minds as we carry out our
responsibilities. I am pleased to support this rule, this bill, and the
amendment to disclose the bundling of campaign contributions. I
respectfully urge my colleagues to join in passing them.
I urge the passage of the rule, the bill and the amendment on
bundling.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we're all reformers today, and at this time
I'm very happy to yield 2 minutes to a great reformer from Cherryville,
North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for
yielding.
The Speaker and I are on opposite sides of most issues, so I take
great pleasure in the rare instance that we can find some common
ground. The rule on this bill is one of those rare occasions. In fact,
Speaker Pelosi and I completely agree when it comes to her public
statements on the need for an open debate on lobbying reform. ``We urge
you to immediately bring to the floor, under an open rule that permits
unrestricted amendments and debate on the wide-ranging reform
provisions contained in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act
of 2006.''
Madam Speaker, those were your words on February 9 of last year, but,
Madam Speaker, I'm hearing a different tune these days. Your words are
different than your actions. Very different, I might say.
We should be debating this bill today under an open rule that you
urged that permits unrestricted amendments and debates. Unfortunately
we won't.
There were 48 amendments offered to the Rules Committee. Only five
were allowed to be offered here on the floor today. I submitted one of
those 43 amendments that the Democrat leadership didn't want to hear
on, didn't want to have a debate on, and my amendment would require
Members of Congress to make an accurate disclosure of their financial
holdings, including their personal residence. We've seen in recent
Washington scandals the results of this loophole that allows Members to
hide ownership of properties. This is a bad thing, and we should close
that loophole.
Unfortunately, the Democrat leadership didn't allow us to have this
debate here today on that important amendment. They're allowing it to
stay open.
Another quick point. The American people should realize that we're
debating essentially a watered-down version, as my colleague from
California said, of the lobbying bill that Republicans offered last
Congress. Only eight Democrats voted for that tougher bill to reform
rogue lobbying practices; 192 voted no.
Mr. Speaker, does the Democrat hypocrisy know no bounds? Does it? At
the time, they said the bill didn't go far enough. We realize they're
singing a different tune, a tone-deaf tune, Mr. Speaker, and I urge the
defeat of this rule so we can have an open debate on lobbying reform.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I am very honored to yield as much time as
he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the
chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Castor) who is floor manager for this important bill.
And I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for the
great work she, and I include the former chairman of the Rules
Committee, they have done in trying to bring about reform in the House
of Representatives and in the Congress as a whole. I mean it. I was up
there yesterday, and I was one of the ones that took exception to
calling Mr. Dreier of California's H.R. 4975 a sham bill. It was not a
sham bill, and we have taken many of the things out of that bill and
have brought them to H.R. 2316 which we're observing.
So we think that we all agree on both sides of the aisle that we have
one big problem. The Congress has a black eye in terms of ethics, and
we want to correct it. We're agreed? Okay. We check that one off.
Now, how do we correct it? Well, the one way that you will never
correct it in the 110th Congress is to vote down this rule this
afternoon, because if you vote down this rule this afternoon, there
will be nothing to meet the Senate bill, which has already passed in
January. They have been waiting for February, March, April, end of May,
and now all of us who are concerned about fighting corruption, fighting
for better ethics, fighting for transparency, fighting for basic
disclosure now say on that side, let's vote down the rule. And do what
I would ask? What do you have in mind that we haven't done now?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very dear friend for yielding,
and I would simply say the reason we're calling for a ``no'' vote on
the rule is that we should allow us to get to what I, as we now know,
affectionately describe what the former minority leadership called the
sham level. We need to at least get up to the level, and I'm very
appreciative of the remarks that my friend has offered characterizing,
I think correctly, my bill.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank my friend for helping me out there, because what
we will have done, and there are some in the media that are predicting
that this is what's going to happen, that we're going to abandon all of
the work that we have put into this measure. And I'm looking still
after a number of decades for the Member who can concede that he's
voted on the perfect bill in the legislative process.
But if we abandon this at this course, months behind schedule, we're
sending a perfectly obvious message to the American people; namely,
that this is the sham that is working on the Congress.
We've got to get this rule going. I'm happy that our colleague, the
former chairman of Rules, said nothing about the amendments that have
been granted by the committee in which he worked so hard over the
years. We've got amendments. Some are Republican amendments, some are
Democratic amendments, but for goodness sake, let's keep our promises
to the American people.
We campaigned on this. We said we can improve the transparency and
the rules regulating lobbyists, regulating bundling, regulating
reporting, increasing the penalties. We've said all of this
[[Page H5742]]
and put it in in as perfect form as we can do here.
{time} 1210
We need now to get something to go to conference. I pledge to be open
to suggestions, as I have all along the way. We've got to keep our
promises, and the promises start with voting the rule to begin the
debate. Now, you may have differences in the debate but certainly not
on moving forward from this elementary process.
I thank the gentlelady, the floor manager, for allowing me to bring
these matters up at this point.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to a former member of the
Rules Committee, our good friend from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. I thank my friend and former chairman, Mr. Dreier, for
yielding.
I rise in strong opposition to this rule to H.R. 2316. The Honest
Leadership and Open Government Act I am not opposed to. It's the rule
that I am opposed to. When you have 48 amendments and five of them are
made in order, this is not open government. This is not open process.
I want to particularly, to my colleagues, mention the fact that I had
one of those 43 amendments which were not made in order. And I think if
we really wanted meaningful reform in an open government, that this
amendment clearly would have been made in order, we would have had an
opportunity on the floor of this House to debate it.
No, it's not in the Senate version. If it doesn't get in the House
version, then, clearly, it's not going to come out of conference.
What this amendment basically says is that Members, either
Republicans or Democrats, House or Senate, in a leadership position
that formed these things known as leadership PACs, cannot convert that
money at any time, but especially when they leave this place, to their
personal use.
Now we did that, or a former Congress, I think, back in the early
1990s, said Members cannot retire from this body and go home with seven
figures worth of money in their campaign accounts. For those who are
not paying attention, seven figures is over $1 million.
A lot of Members, back then in the early 1990s, decided since they
were not going to be able to do that after a date certain, they retired
so they could go home and spend that money and buy a new vacation home
or fancy automobile or whatever.
Since then, what's happened is Members have formed these leadership
PACs. It's not just leadership Members; in fact, any Member can form a
leadership PAC. So I am not saying that the money that they use out of
those PACs is improperly or dishonestly spent, but the temptation is
there.
I want to give you an example of just one. I have 10 listed in my
official remarks. I am not here to embarrass anybody. But there was one
PAC called Searchlight PAC that, in 2006, raised $2 million. Do you
know how much of that money was spent on helping another Member run for
a Federal office in that particular PAC's party? $300,000. That means
$1.7 million of that PAC's money was spent in some personal way. I
don't know if it was dishonest, but we have to stop this sort of thing.
Really, I am shocked that this amendment was not made in order.
Listen to this letter that was sent to Speaker Hastert last year when
my former Chairman Dreier worked on lobbying ethics reform. Here is the
letter. ``The House of Representatives is supposed to be a marketplace
of ideas, and any debate in open government must not restrict the
discussion of serious proposals . . . I am calling on you to use your
authority as Speaker to direct the Rules Committee to report an
unrestricted rule on lobby reform.'' Signed then-Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi.
Ms. Pelosi obviously has changed her mind this time around. This rule
says loud and clear that this House no longer is a marketplace for
ideas; there is no room in this House for full and unrestricted debate
on open government. That's why I am standing in opposition, not to the
bill, but to the rule. We could have made this bill so much better if
we had allowed these amendments, such as mine, to be made in order.
I ask my colleagues, as former Chairman Dreier said, to oppose this
rule.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the leader on the issue
of earmark reform, the gentleman from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. This bill is referred
to as the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. I am pained to say
there is precious little of either of it in this bill.
The previous speaker mentioned that the voters were aware of the
needs that existed here in Congress, and the majority party paid the
price in November. I fully agree with that. I wasn't quiet on that
subject in the last Congress.
I was overjoyed to see that the Democrats came in in January, and not
that they came in in January; but when they did, they actually enacted
earmark reform that I felt was a little stronger than what we had done
a few months previous. Having said that, then we go to where we are
today where we rolled back a lot of those protections that were there
or simply ignored them.
The rules that you put in place are only as good as your willingness
to enforce them. We just heard this past week that the earmark rules
simply are going to be ignored. If a bill comes to the floor, and if it
is certified to have no earmarks, we have no recourse, even though
there might be earmarks, and have been in a few of the bills already
this year. Now we have heard that the plan is to take the appropriation
bills through the House process and into the conference process without
any earmarks, and simply air drop the earmarks during the conference
process.
This is not more sunlight. This is actually keeping earmarks secret
until it's too late to do anything about it. No amendments can be
offered during the conference process, so it will be impossible for
anybody to challenge any of what will be thousands and thousands and
thousands of earmarks in the bill.
This is not better. This is far worse than we have had before.
Let me just speak specifically to this legislation and some of the
failings. I offered an amendment which would get rid of the so-called
Abramoff exemption. Few people are probably aware, but public
universities, or lobbyists who represent public universities, or State
and local governments, are not required under this legislation, are not
bound by the same rules that people who lobby for a private institution
are.
So what, in effect, you are saying, well, let's just take the final
four of the basketball tournament that we just had in the NCAA. There
was a game between Xavier University and Ohio State. If you were a
lobbyist for Xavier University, you couldn't take a Member to the game.
But if you were a lobbyist for Ohio State University, you could treat
your Member of Congress, your favorite Member or anybody you wanted to,
to a $400 ticket. That's the difference.
Now, are we to assume that if you are lobbying for a private
institution, that you are somehow inherently suspect, but if you are
lobbying for a public institution, you are not? That's the dichotomy
here.
This amendment was not sprung on the majority as some kind of a
gotcha amendment. I took this to the Democrat leadership earlier this
year and said, please, can we work together and get rid of this
loophole? But we didn't.
The amendment was offered in good faith, and it was rejected. Why are
we doing this? Why do we allow, right now, if Jack Abramoff were still
around, he could still, under these current rules that we are going to
enact today, Jack Abramoff could treat Members at the Capital Grille to
a big steak dinner. We shouldn't be doing this.
The Jack Abramoff incident is what precipitated a lot of these
reforms. I'm glad it did. But the problem is, Jack Abramoff represented
public institutions, State and local government, territories. I believe
he collected about $6.7 million from the government of Saipan. With
that, he could continue to do what he did before under these rules, and
we should put a stop to it.
{time} 1220
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H5743]]
Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to clarify this once
again, if I might.
So a private institution is not allowed to provide any kind of meal
or support, tickets or things like that, but a public institution is
able to?
Mr. FLAKE. That is correct. Let me take the example from right at
home where I am. The University of Phoenix can take me to dinner, but
they can't buy even a cheeseburger. But Arizona State University right
next door can buy me a seven-course meal. They can fly me wherever.
There are no gift rule problems there. So private institutions are
treated differently than public institutions.
Mr. DREIER. So that won't be changed under this bill that we are
considering right now. Am I correct in concluding that?
Mr. FLAKE. That is correct. It would have been a very simple
amendment simply to get rid of what I call the Abramoff exemption, but
that amendment was rejected by the Rules Committee for no reason. Like
I said, it wasn't a ``gotcha'' amendment. This was offered to the
Democratic leadership earlier this year. They simply don't want to
change the rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
simply say to my friend, the example of allowing a public institution
to provide meals and tickets and all kinds of things while a private
institution cannot do that underscores the fact that this issue needs
to be addressed in a broad bipartisan way.
Now, in the exchange that I had with the distinguished Chair of the
Committee on the Judiciary upstairs, he was happy to give it back over
to us at the Rules Committee. We should have had an original
jurisdiction hearing on a wide range of these issues that have not been
addressed. In the last Congress, we held four original jurisdiction
hearings on this issue. This year there have been none.
So I think that the point that my friend from Mesa is making, very
correctly, is that he made a bipartisan attempt to the new majority
leadership to try and address this and was rebuffed.
Everyone has recognized, I believe, certainly on our side of the
aisle, and we did so when we were in the majority, that the issue of
reform needs to be done in a bipartisan way. I know that on the
Judiciary Committee, Mr. Smith, the ranking member, has worked with
Chairman Conyers; but there are many of the rest of us who have been
involved in this issue of reform who I believe should have been
consulted, especially in light of a number of provisions that were
included; and, in fact, one provision which is absolutely outrageous,
no hearing whatsoever, it was literally snuck into this bill, dealing
with the question of Members attending charitable events. No hearing,
no consideration whatsoever. A piecemeal attempt to do this.
Now, Mr. Speaker, on the 29th of March, nearly 2 months ago, the
minority leader, Mr. Boehner, sent a letter to the Speaker asking that
she deal with these important questions which impact every single
Member of this institution with a bipartisan panel. Mr. Speaker, I am
saddened to inform the House that Minority Leader Boehner has gotten no
response to that letter that was sent nearly 2 months ago. So that is
why we are concerned about this process.
Yes, the bill itself is one which included so much of what I was
proud to include in H.R. 4975; does not get to that level. But I am
urging opposition to this rule, as is Mr. Flake, as was Dr. Gingrey and
others of my colleagues, so that we can try and improve this in a
bipartisan way.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my
colleague from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, for over five years I have attempted to
close a gaping loophole in the Lobby Disclosure Act that has permitted
various lobbyists to form over 800 stealth or hidden coalitions to
avoid the requirements of the act. That effort had been met with
nothing but indifference. Finally we now have a new Congress and a new
direction.
Under the legislation Mr. Conyers offers today, we incorporate the
provisions of that Stealth Lobbyist Disclosure Act. Here is how it
works: A lobbyist for an unpopular cause, like those who would avoid
their taxes by renouncing their American citizenship and moving abroad,
or by those who would deny climate change, instead of indicating who
they actually represent, those lobbyists claim they represent a
``coalition'' of two or more individuals and avoid any indication of
the true parties in interest.
When deep-pocketed interests spend big money to influence public
policy, the public has a right to know. Even a little light can do a
lot of good. If wealthy interests want legislators to sing their tune,
the public has a right to know who is paying the piper.
Of course, President Harry Truman said, ``The buck stops here.'' But
with stealth lobbying we don't know where ``here'' is or whose buck it
is.
This stealth lobbyist disclosure provision helps close this loophole.
The bill amends the definition of ``client'' to require the disclosure
of the members of a coalition or association so that a small number of
people or corporations can no longer operate under a shell group and
destroy the intent of our lobby disclosure laws. Combining ``wealth''
with ``stealth'' is a recipe for unaccountable government.
After years of indifference, we have a new Congress dedicated to open
government and the pursuit of the public interest. This rule and this
legislation should be approved.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is
remaining on each side? And then I would like to ask my colleague, she
indicated she was the last speaker a few minutes ago, and then Mr.
Doggett joined us.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Capuano). The gentleman from California
has 8\1/2\ minutes; the gentlewoman from Florida has 11\3/4\ minutes.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time until
the gentleman has closed for his side.
Mr. DREIER. So the gentlewoman is the last speaker?
Ms. CASTOR. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is on her feet and so I
would actually like to engage her in a colloquy, if I might, and ask
some questions. I would be more than happy to yield to my friend from
Tampa.
I am very concerned about the ramifications of this measure, and I
talked about the concern that I have over this issue of charitable
events, and that this item was in a piecemeal way stuck into this rule,
and I raised the issue of the letter.
Mr. Speaker, I submit for printing in the Record a copy of the letter
that was sent by Mr. Boehner to my California colleague Speaker Pelosi.
Mr. Speaker, the reason I do that is that there has been no response to
this nearly 2-month-old letter; and I hope that maybe someone on the
Speaker's staff will read the Congressional Record and see this request
for a truly bipartisan approach to this issue.
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 29, 2007.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House, U.S. Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi: The American people have every right
to expect the highest ethical standards here in the people's
House. Yet, less than three months into the 110th Congress it
has become clear that House ethics rules are hopelessly
broken. Members on both sides of the aisle are understandably
frustrated because they know you can't ``clean up Congress''
with confusing rules that are as difficult to comply with as
they are to enforce.
It is equally clear that until the ethics rules are
repaired through a genuinely bipartisan process, they will
continue to lack the credibility needed to ensure broad
compliance, effective enforcement and widespread public
acceptance.
As you know, sweeping changes to House ethics rules imposed
at the start of this Congress were drafted in secret by the
incoming Majority without consulting either the Minority or
the staff of the nonpartisan Ethics Committee. The new rules
were then rammed through the House with no opportunity to
carefully analyze the proposals or to improve them in any
way. The consequences of this ill-considered approach are now
being felt by Members and staff on both sides of the aisle:
A staffer may attend an evening reception hosted by a
corporation and consume shrimp, champagne, sliced filet and
canapes . . . but may not accept a slice of pizza or a $7 box
lunch provided by the very same
[[Page H5744]]
corporation at a policy briefing the next day. [see Ethics
Committee ``pink sheet'', Feb 6, 2007 (pp. 4-5)]
Although Members and staff may play in a $1,000 per person
charity golf tournament to benefit a local scholarship fund,
they are prohibited from similarly helping the American Red
Cross raise funds for Katrina victims by playing in its golf
tournament--solely because the Red Cross employs lobbyists.
[see Ethics Committee ``pink sheet'', Jan 19, 2007 (p. 7)]
In order to go on a ``first date'' with someone who happens
to be a lobbyist, a staffer must agree to pay for his or her
full share of the lunch or dinner, as well as anything else
of value, such as a movie, concert or ballgame. [see Ethics
Committee ``pink sneet'', Feb 6, 2007 (p.2)]
A Member may accept $200 tickets for the Final Four from
Ohio State (public university), but not $20 tickets to a
preseason game from Xavier University (private university).
[see Gifts & Travel, House Ethics Committee, April 2000 (p.
37)]
A Member may accept a $15 t-shirt or $20 hat from the Farm
Bureau, but not a $12 mug or mouse pad. Similarly, a $4 latte
is OK--but a $4 sandwich is not. [see Ethics Committee ``pink
sheet'', Feb 6, 2007 (p. 5)]
A Member who has his own airplane is prohibited from flying
it for any purpose--official, campaign or personal--even at
his own expense. [see Ethics Committee letter to Rep. Stevan
Pearce, Feb 16, 2007]
A staffer invited to a post-season barbecue for her
daughter's soccer team may not attend once she learns that it
will be held in the home of a player whose father is a
lobbyist. [see Ethics Committee ``pink sheet'', Feb 6, 2007
(p. 2)]
Although a Member may not accept dinner from a lobbyist who
uses his own funds or those of his firm, he may accept dinner
from the very same lobbyist using a credit card provided by
his state or local government clients. [see clause 5(a)(3)(O)
of House Rule XXV]
A corporate executive who is not a lobbyist may not use his
expense account to take a Member out to dinner, but may--in
many cases--take the same Member to dinner using his personal
funds. [see Ethics Committee ``pink sheet'', Feb 6, 2007 (p.
3)]
A Member may not take a privately-funded trip if a lobbyist
accompanies him to and from Washington; but the same Member
may spend five days in Brussels discussing global warming
with environmental group lobbyists--as long as none of them
are on the same flights to and from the meeting. [see Ethics
Committee ``pink sheet'', March 14, 2007 (p. 2)]
It's no surprise that Members deeply committed to following
the rules are confused and concerned by the current state of
disarray in the House.
Making matters worse, the chaos inflicted on Members and
staff by careless (or worse) Democrat rule writers has now
infected the legislative process as well. For example,
confusion over the proper application of congressional
earmark rules has made it possible for Democratic leaders to
certify as ``earmark free'' a multi-billion dollar Continuing
Resolution that any knowledgeable observer will confirm was
laden with them.
Moreover, the failure of the House Ethics Committee to
provide official guidance to Members seeking to comply with
newly adopted earmark ``conflict of interest'' rules until
after the deadline fix submission of earmark requests had
expired has unnecessarily disrupted the FY08 appropriations
process by delaying for more than a month processing of many
Member earmark requests, and complicated efforts to make the
earmark process more transparent.
This latter incident underscores the folly of Democrats
rushing to unilaterally impose complicated and contradictory
new rules on the House, and then denying an entirely
reasonable joint request by the Chairman and Ranking
Republican of the Ethics Committee for the additional
resources the panel needs to carry out its added
responsibilities to Members.
Sadly, Democrat leaders straining to legitimize their
campaign rhetoric have instead left Members--on both sides of
the aisle--more vulnerable than ever to violating rules that
are hard to define, riddled with logical inconsistencies, and
utterly unlikely to prevent the sort of abuses that have
properly sparked so much public outrage.
After all, few of the ``Culture of Corruption'' violations
by Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney--or alleged violations by
William Jefferson and Alan Mollohan--would have been
prevented had the recently passed ethics changes been in
effect last year.
Rather, the principled path to a more ethical Congress is
through clearcut, common sense rules that are widely
communicated and firmly enforced. And, as you and your fellow
Democrat leaders argued so persuasively during the last
Congress, the process of developing those rules must be
transparent and genuinely bipartisan.
To that end, I ask that you join me in appointing a
bipartisan working group tasked with analyzing House ethics
rules--and recommending fair, sensible and understandable
revisions that working group members believe would improve
both compliance and enforcement.
As with the Livingston-Cardin ethics task force in 1997,
the working group should be led by co-chairs and evenly
divided between majority and minority members. I propose that
it consist of six to eight members, including a member of the
ethics committee from each party (but neither its chairman
nor ranking minority member), one elected leader from each
party, and one or two additional Members from each side of
the aisle.
I further propose that we direct the working group to
report back its recommendations no later than July 1, 2007 to
allow time for the House to consider its proposed revisions
to the Rules of the House prior to the August recess.
Madam Speaker, I have been encouraged by recent public
statements made by you and members of your staff noting your
desire to correct evident problems with several of the new
rules. Thus, I hope you will commit to work constructively
with me to ensure that any revisions to the Code of Conduct
and other House rules are imbued with the sort of credibility
that you have often pointed out can only result from a
thoroughly bipartisan effort.
Sincerely,
John A. Boehner,
Republican Leader.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask my colleague from Tampa to describe a
term that is in this bill.
Now, one of the questions out there is that Members of Congress are
often approached by people and considered for employment beyond their
service in this institution. Now, in H.R. 4975, we were very specific
in saying that when negotiation for compensation, and those are the
exact words that we used in H.R. 4975, are included in the bill, then
there has to be a letter to the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct stating that that negotiating process has begun. So we had that
exact term of ``negotiating for compensation.'' Those are the three
words that we had in there.
Now, I would like to inquire of my friend from Tampa why it was in
this measure that they went from ``negotiation for compensation'' to
simply ``negotiation.'' And the reason I say that is a very sincere
one.
The question naturally comes to mind, now, the gentlewoman from Tampa
is new here and obviously not prepared to leave at this point. But
there are people, Mr. Speaker, who may have been here for a while and
people have decided they wanted to approach them.
Is it negotiation if it is simply said to that person, ``Gosh, we'd
like you to consider going to work for us''? And so I am wondering if
my friend might define this term ``negotiation'' for us. And I am happy
to yield to the distinguished manager of this rule.
Ms. CASTOR. Well, my interest, Mr. Speaker, is keeping this
legislation on track. The American people spoke loud and clear in
November. They called on us to fight for reform and change.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I might reclaim my time. And I do so to
simply say, I was posing a question to my colleague, not asking for a
campaign speech on what the American people sent us to do here in
November. The fact is, Democrats and Republicans alike are committed to
reform. I am very proud of the record we have had on reform, and I am
honored to have had it praised by the distinguished Chair of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
The question that I have is a very specific one: Why in this
legislation did we go from the utilization of three words,
``negotiation for compensation,'' to this open-ended question of simply
``negotiation''?
I would be happy to further yield to my friend to elucidate us on
that.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank my colleague very much. I recall the sessions I
have had with seniors back home in Florida trying to work through the
morass of Medicare part D.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time. My question, and
I will pose it again to my colleague from Tampa. The issue of
negotiation for Members of Congress, the debate that we are having now
is not about the message that was sent last November, it is not about
Medicare part D. It is a question about the issue of lobbying and
ethics reform in this institution. And obviously my colleague doesn't
really have an answer to this question.
What it does do is it underscores the fact that it is absolutely
essential that we deal with this issue in a responsible, bipartisan way
to try to bring about some kind of resolution in here. And so I am
very, very troubled with the way that this has been handled in a
piecemeal way.
[[Page H5745]]
{time} 1230
And so, Mr. Speaker, it is true that the effort is a valiant one. I
congratulate and praise those who have been involved in it. And as I
said in my opening remarks, it's very clear that reform is a work in
progress. And we need to do more on the issue of reform. It's just that
this bill is nowhere near the level of the bill that was passed under
the Republican Congress. And I will say, I hope very much this
institution will pass a bill that is even better than the one that I
was privileged to author in the 109th Congress. And I believe that we
could do better than we did in the 109th Congress. It's just that this
measure, after all of this talk of reform, after all of this talk about
the message sent last November, falls short of where we were in the
last Congress, and that's why we are very troubled by this.
Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question, so that when we succeed in defeating the previous
question, I will be able to make in order an amendment that was offered
that specifically provides greater disclosure and transparency and
accountability which, again, are the three buzz words that are used
around here: transparency, disclosure and accountability.
If, in fact, a Member is asking for an earmark, if a Member has been
asked for an earmark by a lobbyist, under the amendment that I hope
that we will be able to make in order, that Mr. Flake has propounded
and unfortunately it was rejected by the Rules Committee, it would
simply require that lobbying entity to disclose the fact that they
have, in fact, made that in order.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to, just before
the vote on the previous question, have printed in the Congressional
Record a detailed explanation of the amendment that would require that
lobbyists who make a request of a Member, that they call for an earmark
to be made, that that information be made public. I believe that that,
in and of itself, is a very, very modest but responsible thing that
needs to be done in this effort to ensure greater transparency and
disclosure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DREIER. So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the
previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the Honest Leadership and
Open Government Act and the Lobbying Transparency Act and this rule.
Citizens deserve open and honest leadership. We must stay on track with
lobbying reform. And after the scandals in past years, we will continue
the fight for reform and change so that the American people trust that
Members of Congress are making decisions that benefit our communities
and our country, and not some powerful special interest with undue
influence.
Unfortunately, there has been a price to pay for the culture of
corruption. You can see it when you gas up at the pump. Big Oil has
gotten millions and billions in tax breaks, while people that we
represent pay higher gas prices. And in Florida, the big oil companies
have been granted a right to drill off our beautiful coastline.
You can see it when our seniors are pushed into privatized Medicare.
The HMOs get a slush fund, and seniors pay more for health care.
You can see it when students and their families pay more for student
loans because of sweetheart deals. The special interests get tax
breaks, and our kids pay off higher debt.
Mr. Speaker, today we will keep our promise to the American people to
fight for change and reform. When our neighbors and the folks back home
send us to Washington, they rightly expect their representatives to act
in the public interest and not in the interest of well-paid lobbyists
with undue influence.
I urge my colleagues to build on the strongest ethics reform ever
adopted in the Congress, what we started on day one in this new
Congress.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of H.R. 2316, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, and H.R.
2317, the Lobbying Transparency Act.
As the Jack Abramoff scandal made abundantly clear, the way that
business has been conducted in Washington during the past few years
needs to change. Congress already has taken important steps to reduce
the influence of lobbyists, and the legislation that we are considering
today will implement additional necessary reforms. These reforms
include closing the revolving door between the legislative branch and
post-employment lobbying, increased reporting requirements, including
for bundled campaign contributions, and greater public access to
lobbying reports and disclosure information.
The issue of openness in government is critical to our democracy. The
American people should have faith that their representatives in
Congress are responding to their needs and not acting in the interests
of those trying to buy influence.
I also want to commend Chairman Conyers and the Judiciary Committee
for including language in the bill to clarify that H.R. 2316 does not
infringe upon the first amendment or prohibit any activities currently
protected by the free speech, free exercise, or free association
clauses.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2316, the
Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, as well as H.R. 2317, the
Lobbying Transparency Act.
When the new Democratic Congress convened on January 4, our first
action was the approval of a sweeping package of changes to restore the
integrity and fiscal responsibility of the House of Representatives.
While these reforms represented the most significant ethics and
lobbying revisions in decades, we promised that this would be just the
first step in ending the cozy relationships between Congress and
special interest lobbyists. Today we take the next important step.
The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act H.R. 2316 mandates
quarterly disclosure of lobbying reports; ends the K Street Project of
Members and staff influencing employment decisions of private entities
for partisan political gain; increases disclosure of lobbyists'
contributions to lawmakers; and establishes an online, searchable
public database of lobbyist disclosure information.
One of the most important provisions of this lobbying reform package
is the Lobbying Transparency Act, H.R. 2317. This legislation requires
a registered lobbyist who also serves as a fundraiser to disclose the
campaign checks that he or she solicits or ``bundles.''
When lobbyists also act as campaign fundraisers, a possible conflict
of interest arises, making it all the more necessary to allow for
greater public awareness as to their actions and treatment.
Reforming the way that lobbyists and Members of Congress do business
is the right thing to do not only because it will help to restore the
trust of the American people in their institution of Congress, but also
because doing so has a very real impact in putting the power back into
the hands of the public.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2316 and H.R.
2317.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Dreier is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 437 Offered by Rep. Dreier of California
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment printed in section 4 shall be in
order to H.R. 2316 as though printed as the last amendment in
part B of the report of the Committee on Rules if offered by
Representative Flake of Arizona or his designee. That
amendment shall be debatable for 30 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 4 is as
follows:
Page 13, line 3, strike ``Section 5(b)'' and insert ``(a)
Gifts.--Section 5(b)''.
Page 13, insert after line 18 the following:
(b) Requests for Congressional Earmarks.--Section
5(b)(2)(A) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.
1604(b)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``bill numbers'' and
inserting the following: ``bill numbers, requests for
Congressional earmarks (as defined in clause 9(d) of rule XXI
of the Rules of the House of Representatives for the One
Hundred Tenth Congress),''.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
[[Page H5746]]
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the indulgence of the Chair to ask
unanimous consent if I could reclaim my time. I didn't realize that my
very distinguished colleague from Kentucky was here, and he had a very
important question that he wanted to pose on this, and I'd ask
unanimous consent to be able to reclaim my time and yield to the
gentleman from Kentucky.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Capuano). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from California?
Ms. CASTOR. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to my
colleagues for their consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question on House
Resolution 437 will be followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House
Resolution 437, if ordered; ordering the previous question on House
Resolution 438; and the adoption of House Resolution 438, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 195, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 415]
YEAS--224
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--195
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Cardoza
Cooper
Davis, Jo Ann
DeGette
Emerson
Engel
Hunter
Jones (OH)
Lewis (GA)
McMorris Rodgers
Oberstar
Radanovich
Rohrabacher
{time} 1259
Messrs. SOUDER, McCOTTER, NEUGEBAUER and RAMSTAD changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
[[Page H5747]]
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida changed her 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.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 197, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 416]
YEAS--224
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--197
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kaptur
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Cardoza
Davis, Jo Ann
DeGette
Emerson
Engel
Hunter
Jones (OH)
Lewis (GA)
McMorris Rodgers
Oberstar
Radanovich
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are less than 2 minutes remaining on the vote.
{time} 1308
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.
____________________