[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.

                          ____________________