[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 86 (Thursday, May 24, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H5749-H5755]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   LOBBYING TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2007

  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 437, I call 
up 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, and ask for its 
immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2317

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Lobbying Transparency Act of 
     2007''.

     SEC. 2. QUARTERLY REPORTS BY REGISTERED LOBBYISTS ON 
                   CONTRIBUTIONS BUNDLED FOR CERTAIN RECIPIENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 5 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act 
     of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1604) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(d) Quarterly Reports on Contributions Bundled For 
     Certain Recipients.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 45 days after the end of 
     the quarterly period beginning on the first day of January, 
     April, July, and October of each year, each registered 
     lobbyist who bundles 2 or more contributions made to a 
     covered recipient in an aggregate amount exceeding $5,000 for 
     such covered recipient during such quarterly period shall 
     file a report with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk 
     of the House of Representatives containing--
       ``(A) the name of the registered lobbyist;
       ``(B) in the case of an employee, his or her employer; and
       ``(C) the name of the covered recipient to whom the 
     contribution is made, and to the extent known the aggregate 
     amount of such contributions (or a good faith estimate 
     thereof) within the quarter for the covered recipient.
       ``(2) Exclusion of certain information.--In filing a report 
     under paragraph (1), a registered lobbyist shall exclude from 
     the report any information described in paragraph (1)(C) 
     which is included in any other report filed by the registered 
     lobbyist with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of 
     the House of Representatives under this Act.
       ``(3) Requiring submission of information prior to filing 
     reports.--Not later than 25 days after the end of a period 
     for which a registered lobbyist is required to file a report 
     under paragraph (1) which includes any information described 
     in such section with respect to a covered recipient, the 
     registered lobbyist shall transmit by certified mail to the 
     covered recipient involved a statement containing--
       ``(A) the information that will be included in the report 
     with respect to the covered recipient; and
       ``(B) the source of each contribution included in the 
     aggregate amount referred to in paragraph (1)(C) which the 
     registered lobbyist bundled for the covered recipient during 
     the period covered by the report and the amount of the 
     contribution attributable to each such source.
       ``(4) Definition of registered lobbyist.--For purposes of 
     this subsection, the term `registered lobbyist' means a 
     person who is registered or is required to register under 
     paragraph (1) or (2) of section 4(a), or an individual who is 
     required to be listed under section 4(b)(6) or subsection 
     (b).
       ``(5) Definition of bundled contribution.--For purposes of 
     this subsection, a registered lobbyist `bundles' a 
     contribution if--
       ``(A) the contribution is received by a registered lobbyist 
     for, and forwarded by a registered lobbyist to, the covered 
     recipient to whom the contribution is made; or
       ``(B) the contribution will be or has been credited or 
     attributed to the registered lobbyist through records, 
     designations, recognitions or other means of tracking by the 
     covered recipient to whom the contribution is made.
       ``(6) Other definitions.--In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `contribution' has the meaning given such 
     term in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     431 et seq.), except that such term does not include a 
     contribution in an amount which is less than $200;
       ``(B) the terms `candidate', `political committee', and 
     `political party committee' have the meaning given such terms 
     in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et 
     seq.);
       ``(C) the term `covered recipient' means a Federal 
     candidate, an individual holding Federal office, a leadership 
     PAC, or a political party committee; and
       ``(D) the term `leadership PAC' means, with respect to an 
     individual holding Federal office, an unauthorized political 
     committee which is associated with such individual, except 
     that such term shall not apply in the case of a political 
     committee of a political party.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to the second quarterly period 
     described in section 5(d)(1) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act 
     of 1995 (as added by subsection (a)) which begins after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and each succeeding 
     quarterly period.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 437, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill, modified 
by the amendment printed in part A of House Report 110-167, is adopted 
and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 2317

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Lobbying Transparency Act of 
     2007''.

     SEC. 2. QUARTERLY REPORTS BY REGISTERED LOBBYISTS ON 
                   CONTRIBUTIONS BUNDLED FOR CERTAIN RECIPIENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 5 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act 
     of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1604) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(d) Quarterly Reports on Contributions Bundled For 
     Certain Recipients.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 45 days after the end of 
     the quarterly period beginning on the first day of January, 
     April, July, and October of each year, each registered 
     lobbyist who bundles 2 or more contributions made to a 
     covered recipient in an aggregate amount exceeding $5,000 for 
     such covered recipient during such quarterly period shall 
     file a report with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk 
     of the House of Representatives containing--
       ``(A) the name of the registered lobbyist;
       ``(B) in the case of an employee, his or her employer; and
       ``(C) the name of the covered recipient to whom the 
     contribution is made, and to the extent known the aggregate 
     amount of such contributions (or a good faith estimate 
     thereof) within the quarter for the covered recipient.
       ``(2) Exclusion of certain information.--In filing a report 
     under paragraph (1), a registered lobbyist shall exclude from 
     the report any information described in paragraph (1)(C) 
     which is included in any other report filed by the registered 
     lobbyist with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of 
     the House of Representatives under this Act.
       ``(3) Requiring submission of information prior to filing 
     reports.--Not later than 25 days after the end of a period 
     for which a registered lobbyist is required to file a report 
     under paragraph (1) which includes any information described 
     in such section with respect to a covered recipient, the 
     registered lobbyist shall

[[Page H5750]]

     transmit by certified mail to the covered recipient involved 
     a statement containing--
       ``(A) the information that will be included in the report 
     with respect to the covered recipient;
       ``(B) the source of each contribution included in the 
     aggregate amount referred to in paragraph (1)(C) which the 
     registered lobbyist bundled for the covered recipient during 
     the period covered by the report and the amount of the 
     contribution attributable to each such source; and
       ``(C) a notification that the covered recipient has the 
     right to respond to the statement to challenge and correct 
     any information included before the registered lobbyist files 
     the report under paragraph (1).''.
       ``(4) Definition of registered lobbyist.--For purposes of 
     this subsection, the term `registered lobbyist' means a 
     person who is registered or is required to register under 
     paragraph (1) or (2) of section 4(a), or an individual who is 
     required to be listed under section 4(b)(6) or subsection 
     (b).
       ``(5) Definition of bundled contribution.--For purposes of 
     this subsection, a registered lobbyist `bundles' a 
     contribution if--
       ``(A) the contribution is received by a registered lobbyist 
     for, and forwarded by a registered lobbyist to, the covered 
     recipient to whom the contribution is made; or
       ``(B) the contribution will be or has been credited or 
     attributed to the registered lobbyist through records, 
     designations, recognitions or other means of tracking by the 
     covered recipient to whom the contribution is made.
       ``(6) Other definitions.--In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `contribution' has the meaning given such 
     term in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     431 et seq.), except that such term does not include a 
     contribution in an amount which is less than $200;
       ``(B) the terms `candidate', `political committee', and 
     `political party committee' have the meaning given such terms 
     in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et 
     seq.);
       ``(C) the term `covered recipient' means a Federal 
     candidate, an individual holding Federal office, a leadership 
     PAC, or a political party committee; and
       ``(D) the term `leadership PAC' means, with respect to an 
     individual holding Federal office, an unauthorized political 
     committee which is associated with such individual, except 
     that such term shall not apply in the case of a political 
     committee of a political party.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to the second quarterly period 
     described in section 5(d)(1) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act 
     of 1995 (as added by subsection (a)) which begins after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and each succeeding 
     quarterly period.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, the moment has come in this very important session of 
Congress that we examine the lobbying and bundling provisions that have 
been of such interest and debate for the past several months.
  This measure, the Lobbying Transparency Act, will more effectively 
regulate, but does not ban, the practice of registered lobbyists 
bundling together the large numbers of campaign contributions to 
candidates for Federal office. This is a practice that has already 
taken root in Presidential campaigns.
  In essence, the bill requires a registered lobbyist who bundles two 
or more contributions made to a candidate to file quarterly reports 
with the House Clerk and Secretary of the Senate.
  I want to begin by paying tribute to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. 
Chris Van Hollen, for the enormous amount of work not only in this 
Congress but in the previous Congress that he has put forward on behalf 
of this measure.
  Under the bill, the bundled contribution is limited to contributions 
which the lobbyist physically receives and forwards to the candidate, 
or which are credited to the lobbyist through a specific tracking 
system put in place by the candidate. In order to better ensure that a 
registered lobbyist does not inaccurately report contributions 
involving a candidate, the measure further requires the lobbyist to 
send the candidate a proposed statement first. This allows the 
candidate or the political action committee to correct any errors.
  This legislation reflects considerable input on Members of the House 
of Representatives both on the Judiciary Committee and off the 
Judiciary Committee.

                              {time}  1330

  It reflects the considered judgment of many Members not even on the 
Judiciary Committee. We've worked with the public interest groups 
around the clock to craft a workable piece of legislation that provides 
for the disclosure of large-scale bundling in a way that provides clear 
and enforceable legal requirements.
  The American people have been waiting for this. We've talked about 
this for a considerable period of time, and many people now have 
realized that the House of Representatives has taken a very important 
step in moving this measure forward.
  Most significantly, the measure does not include the provision that 
would have counted as bundled any contribution arranged by a lobbyist. 
After careful consideration, we've concluded that as the Senate 
provision is written, it was too vague to be effectively enforced.
  And so I rise today to let you know of my firm conviction that we 
ultimately need to move to assist the public financing of campaigns, 
and I don't mean somewhere in the nebulous future; I'm talking about as 
soon as we can. But until we do, I remain persuaded that the 
legislation today represents an extremely important step forward toward 
that reform when coupled with the other lobbying reform measure that is 
before us.
  This is not the perfect bill. I'm still looking for a Member that has 
ever passed the perfect piece of legislation. But I draw to my 
colleagues' attention this measure and ask that they examine it 
carefully and recognize the importance and significance of this 
measure.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, this bill addresses the issue of the disclosure of 
campaign contributions bundled together by lobbyists. The Judiciary 
Committee addressed this issue in the last Congress when we adopted an 
amendment by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) by a vote of 
28-4.
  As a principal supporter of these provisions, Mr. Van Hollen signed 
the following statement in last year's committee report: ``At the 
markup, we were able to develop a bipartisan provision concerning the 
areas of Judiciary Committee jurisdiction, principally the Lobbying 
Disclosure Act.''
  So I'm glad to see a provision brought to the floor today that is so 
similar to what we did last year. However, I do find it ironic that we 
are bringing this bill to the floor with little advance notice.
  Yesterday we received notice that this bill would come up less than 
an hour before the Rules Committee was to start. That hardly gave us a 
fair opportunity to offer amendments to the bill.
  Madam Speaker, this bill and the other bill that we consider today on 
lobbying reform are supposed to be about open government, but the 
process by which this bill has been rushed to the floor shows how this 
House sometimes lacks a fair and open process.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  When we went to the Rules Committee, my dear friend Lamar Smith and 
myself, there were 48 amendments already filed when we got there. I 
don't know how many were ultimately considered.
  Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield as much time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the one Member 
who has worked longer and harder than anyone else on this matter, a 
former member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, let me begin by congratulating the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee Mr. Conyers, and the ranking member 
Mr. Smith, on all their work on this particular issue, and I want to 
thank them and the other members of the Judiciary Committee for 
reporting this bill out by unanimous vote, a unanimous bipartisan vote. 
And I also want to thank the other cosponsors of this legislation, 
including Mr. Meehan and others.
  Madam Speaker, in the last election I think the American people sent 
Congress a very strong and unambiguous message, that it's time to 
change the way Washington does business. They said loud and clear that 
the status quo on Capitol Hill is unacceptable. The

[[Page H5751]]

American people want this Congress to hold the Bush administration 
accountable, and they want Congress to hold itself accountable.
  They grew weary of a Congress that used the power of the majority to 
benefit narrow special interests at the expense of the public interest, 
and that's why on the very opening day of this new Congress, under the 
leadership of Speaker Pelosi, we immediately enacted a series of 
important reforms, gift bans, travel limitation, and greater 
transparency of the earmark process.
  The lobbying reform bills that are before us today are the next 
important steps along the path to greater openness and transparency, 
and I think we would all agree that with greater openness to the public 
comes greater accountability for this institution.
  Let's be clear. Lobbyists come before this body to advocate issues on 
behalf of their clients, and they serve a valid and important service 
of providing information and expertise on complex issues that we face. 
However, we know a number of recent scandals have demonstrated that 
lobbyists, some of them like Jack Abramoff, have been able to exercise 
undue influence in shaping the legislative agenda and the policies that 
come out of the Congress.
  This bill, the Lobbying Transparency Act, deals with the role of 
lobbyists in the campaign fund-raising process. It requires registered 
lobbyists to disclose certain contributions that they bundle on behalf 
of candidates and political committees.
  This bill involves simply the disclosure of information that the 
public has a right to know, and a vote against this bill is a vote to 
deny that public important information that they can use to judge the 
legislative process.
  I think we all agree that Members of Congress are sent here to 
represent the public interest. We're not here to represent narrow 
special interests, and we should have a very simple test, a very simple 
standard in considering whether we're going to vote for or against 
legislation, and that test is, does that legislation advance the public 
interest. And the answer on this bill is unequivocally yes.
  Let's fulfill our promise to restore the public trust by serving the 
public interest. I urge adoption of this legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, at this time I have no other 
speakers on this particular bill. So I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a distinguished member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I will take my time now to 
applaud and thank both the chairman of the full committee Mr. Conyers, 
and the ranking member of the full committee, my colleague from Texas, 
Mr. Smith, and our former colleague Mr. Van Hollen for having a 
partnership between H.R. 2317 and H.R. 2316.
  I think the first point I'd like to make is that as I have spent a 
lot of time in this first session, first couple of months, with a lot 
of visitors who have come to this Capitol, I've watched them look in 
awe, visit with their Member of Congress, and appreciate this most 
powerful law-making body that cherishes democracy and values integrity.

                              {time}  1340

  I know that visitors have a great sense of respect for their 
individual Members of Congress. I want you to know that that respect is 
well deserved. Your Member is hard-working. They cherish not only the 
democratic values of this Nation, but they pride themselves in 
promoting integrity and promoting your interests over their interests.
  But sometimes we need a little cleanup. It does not mean that the 
whole body has disregarded the question of integrity and the question 
of ensuring your interests be put forth. But we have had some bumps in 
the road.
  So we have projected two legislative initiatives that will separate 
out the interests at work of lobbyists. That is part of the Democratic 
process, but it will also provide an opportunity for voices to be 
heard, the right of the protections of the first amendment.
  As it relates to the concept of bundling, which sounds like a very 
interesting and difficult word, that is the course of putting a number 
of financial contributions together. We will have a system that will 
work, that everyone who is here to put forward the interests of the 
American people, will, in fact, know that that is the first priority.
  But we have a system that does not promote public finance. I would 
like to see us have a complete system of public financing. That means 
the taxpayers will contribute toward the presidential candidates, and 
they would not be able to opt out Federal congressional candidates, 
Senate and House. That will be a system dominated by the people.
  But we don't have that system. So we have good-thinking people who 
want to contribute, and we have good people, good-thinking people who 
would receive. Let us not taint all of them.
  But I rise to support these two initiatives, because they provide the 
open-door transparency that we need. I want to thank Chairman Conyers, 
first of all, for accepting my amendment that clearly stated that those 
advocacy groups that wanted to be heard, the right of the protections 
of the First Amendment.
  Nothing in this bill denies any first amendment protection for 
expression or association. I know the leadership of Chairman Conyers on 
the issue of civil liberties, in complete, but I wanted to reaffirm 
this fact so that we know for sure, any Member coming to the floor to 
vote for this, they know their university or they know their place of 
faith, or they know the Boy Scouts or the Girl Scouts, or they know 
their various civil rights organizations will still have the 
opportunity to convey their voice with the assurance of first amendment 
protection.
  I also want to thank Mr. Van Hollen for working with me to include 
language that I hope all Members will appreciate, and that is, as I 
stated earlier, that Members come here with the greatest sense of 
integrity and respect for their duty to the American people. So we 
provided a provision that instructs lobbyists to give notice to the 
Member of the list of items that they are going to file. That Member 
cannot, if you will, stop the list from being filed, but the Member 
will have the opportunity, the Member of Congress, to be able to read 
the list and make sure that it is accurate as it is being filed.
  We will not stop the time from ticking, if you will, for the filing 
process, but we will make the system work better and provide for the 
participation by all of the impacted parties. The congressional Member 
will be allowed to receive the notice of this filing and have the 
opportunity to correct it, to make sure it is consistent with his or 
her files.
  These are difficult times, because we all realize our ultimate 
responsibility is to the American people. We must put them over self. 
But my amendment in this bill, I believe, will help the open-door 
transparency proceed, family and I ask my colleagues to support it.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2317, the ``Lobbying 
Transparency Act of 2007.'' I rise in support of legislation that will 
help bring about the most open government and the most honest 
leadership in the history of the Congress. Most of the credit for this 
achievement goes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Maryland, 
Mr. Van Hollen, for his tenacity in shepherding this legislation 
through the gamut that is the House legislative process.
  In particular, Madam Speaker, I wish to commend Mr. Van Hollen and 
the Rules Committee for agreeing to incorporate my friendly amendment 
to H.R. 2316. Let me describe the bill and explain why I believe the 
incorporation of the Jackson-Lee amendment improves the bill to the 
point where it warrants the support of the members of this body.
  H.R. 2316 requires registered lobbyists to provide quarterly reports 
to the House clerk and secretary of the Senate regarding the 
``bundled'' contributions totaling more than $5,000 in a quarter that 
they provide to a covered recipient.
  ``Bundled contributions'' are contributions that are received by a 
registered lobbyist and forwarded to a covered recipient, or 
contributions that are otherwise credited or attributed to a lobbyist 
through records, designations or other means of tracking, such as 
placing the lobbyist's name on a check's memo line or using another 
symbol. The bill's definition of ``covered recipients'' applies to 
federal candidates, federal officeholders, leadership political action 
committees or political party committees.
  The required reports would disclose the name of the lobbyist, the 
name of his or her

[[Page H5752]]

employer, and the name of the covered recipient to whom the 
contributions were given, as well as the amount of the contributions 
made or a good-faith estimate thereof. The report would be due within 
45 days of the end of the quarterly period. These reports would not 
include certain information that is included in other required 
disclosure reports. Within 25 days of the end of a quarterly reporting 
period, the registered lobbyist is to send a notification by certified 
mail to a covered recipient outlining the information that will be 
included in the lobbyists' report, and the source of each contribution.
  For all its good intentions, for many members these provisions are 
problematic. There is a legitimate concern that the information the 
lobbyist might report to the Clerk or Secretary of the Senate may be 
inaccurate or incomplete which may later be disclosed to the public 
causing untold problems or embarrassment to the covered recipient. The 
amendment that I offered, and which has been incorporated into the 
bill, assuages that concern.
  The Jackson-Lee amendment requires that the statement which a covered 
registered lobbyist must provide to the recipient also shall include a 
notification that the recipient has the right to respond to the 
statement to challenge and correct any information included before the 
registered lobbyist files the report with the Clerk of the House or 
Secretary of the Senate.
  The inclusion of this provision will reduce the likelihood that the 
recipient will be unduly prejudiced by the disclosure of inaccurate 
information by giving the recipient notice and opportunity to identify, 
and the lobbyist the opportunity to correct, inaccurate information 
regarding bundled contributions.
  In sum, H.R. 2317 now will help ensure that the salutary objectives 
of the legislation are achieved without reaping the unintended 
consequence of prejudicing a recipient--whether he or she be an office 
holder or candidate for federal office--by the disclosure of inaccurate 
or incomplete information.
  Madam Speaker, all of us favor open government. All of us favor 
honest leadership. And all of us are in favor of transparency of 
process. But we also believe in fundamental fairness. And that includes 
fairness to those who seek to exercise their First Amendment rights to 
freedom of speech and of association, and to petition their government 
for a redress of grievances.
  That is why I offered, and the Judiciary Committee, approved my 
amendment during markup that provides a rule of construction that 
nothing in H.R. 2316 is intended or is to be construed to prohibit any 
expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any 
activities protected by the free speech, free exercise, or free 
association clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.
  The Jackson-Lee amendment incorporated in H.R. 2317 is intended to 
ensure fair treatment to elected office holders and candidates for 
federal office.
  Again, let me thank Mr. Van Hollen for his fine work in crafting this 
legislation. Let me also thank the members of the Rules Committee 
incorporating my amendment into H.R. 2317. I urge all members to 
support this legislation. It will be another step in the right 
direction toward fulfilling our promise to the American people to drain 
the swamp and return open government, honest leadership, and 
transparency to the legislative process.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2316, the ``Honest 
Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.'' With the adoption of this 
legislation, we begin to make good on our pledge to ``drain the swamp'' 
and end the ``culture of corruption'' that pervaded the 109th Congress.
  It is critically important that we adopt the reforms contained in 
H.R. 2316 because Americans are paying for the cost of corruption in 
Washington with skyrocketing prices at the pump, spiraling drug costs, 
and the waste, fraud and no-bid contracts in the Gulf Coast and Iraq 
for administration cronies.
  The cozy relationship between Congress and special interests we saw 
during the 109th resulted in serious lobbying scandals, such as those 
involving Republican super lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In this scandal, a 
former congressman pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit fraud--
accepting all-expense-paid trips to play golf in Scotland and accepting 
meals, sports and concert tickets, while providing legislative favors 
for Abramoff's clients.
  But that is not all. Under the previous Republican leadership of the 
House, lobbyists were permitted to write legislation, 15-minute votes 
were held open for hours, and entirely new legislation was sneaked into 
signed conference reports in the dead of night.
  The American people registered their disgust at this sordid way of 
running the Congress last November and voted for reform. Democrats 
picked up 30 seats held by Republicans and exit polls indicated that 74 
percent of voters cited corruption as an extremely important or a very 
important issue in their choice at the polls.
  Ending the culture of corruption and delivering ethics reform is one 
of the top priorities of the new majority of House Democrats. That is 
why as our first responsibility in fulfilling the mandate given the new 
majority by the voters, Democrats are offering an aggressive ethics 
reform package. We seek to end the excesses we witnessed under the 
Republican leadership and to restore the public's trust in the Congress 
of the United States.
  Madam Speaker, federal lobbying is a multi-billion dollar industry, 
and spending to influence members of Congress and executive branch 
officials has increased greatly in the last decade. While the Lobbying 
Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA) is one of the main laws to promote 
transparency and accountability in the federal lobbying industry and 
represents the most comprehensive overhaul of the laws regulating 
lobbying practices in 50 years prior to 1995, it falls far short of a 
complete solution, as even recognized by its staunchest supporters, 
during congressional hearings on the issue.
  The need for further reform was highlighted by a major study of the 
federal lobbying industry published in April 2006 by the Center for 
Public Integrity, which found that since 1998, lobbyists have spent 
nearly $13 billion to influence members of Congress and other 
federal officials on legislation and regulations. The same study found 
that in 2003 alone, lobbyists spent $2.4 billion, with expenditures for 
2004 estimated to grow to at least $3 billion. This is roughly twice as 
much as the already vast amount that was spent on federal political 
campaigns in the same time period.

  The LDA contains a number of measures to help prevent inappropriate 
influence in the lobbying arena and promote sunshine on lobbying 
activities. However, according to the Center's study, compliance with 
these requirements has been less than exemplary. For example, the 
report found: during the last 6 years, 49 out of the top 50 lobbying 
firms have failed to file one or more of the required forms; nearly 
14,000 documents that should have been filed are missing; almost 300 
individuals, companies, or associates have lobbied without ng 
registered; more than 2,000 initial registrations were filed after the 
legal deadline; and in more than 2,000 instances, lobbyists never filed 
the required termination documents at all.
  Under the LDA, the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House 
must notify in writing any lobbyist or lobbying firm of noncompliance 
with registration and reporting requirements, and they must also notify 
the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia of the noncompliance if 
the lobbyist or lobbying firm fails to respond within 60 days of its 
notification. It appears that until very recently, however, these cases 
of noncompliance were not being referred to the Department of Justice 
for enforcement. It is also clear that the infractions that are 
actually being investigated by the Secretary or the Clerk do not 
coincide with the extent of noncompliance, and it is entirely unknown 
whether enforcement actions are being effectively pursued by the 
Department of Justice. Clearly, further reform is needed.
  Madam Speaker, I commend Chairman Conyers and the members of the 
Judiciary Committee for their excellent work in preparing this lobbying 
reform package. The reforms contained in the package are tough but not 
nearly too tough for persons elected to represent the interests of the 
600,000 constituents in their congressional districts. Indeed, similar 
bipartisan lobbying and government reform proposals were debated and 
passed by the House and Senate in 2006 but the Congress failed to 
reconcile the two versions.
  Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 2316 because it closes the ``Revolving 
Door,'' requires full public disclosure of lobbying activities, 
provides tougher enforcement of lobbying restrictions, and requires 
increased disclosure.
  H.R. 2316 closes the ``Revolving Door'' by retaining the current 1-
year ban on lobbying by former members and senior staff and requires 
them to notify the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct within 3 
days of engaging in any negotiations or reaching any agreements 
regarding future employment or salary. The members' notification will 
be publicly disclosed.
  The bill also requires members and senior staff to recuse themselves 
during negotiations regarding future employment from any matter in 
which there is a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict.
  Madam Speaker, this legislation also ends the ``K Street Project,'' 
made notorious during the 12 years of Republican control of Congress. 
Members and senior staff are prohibited from influencing employment 
decisions or practices of private entities for partisan political gain. 
Violators of this provision will be fined or imprisoned for a term of 
up to 15 years.
  Second, H.R. 2316 requires full public disclosure of lobbying 
activities by strengthening lobbying disclosure requirements. It does 
this by mandating quarterly, rather than semiannual, disclosure of 
lobbying reports. It covers more lobbyists by reducing the contribution 
thresholds from $5,000 to $2,500 in income

[[Page H5753]]

from lobbying activities and from $20,000 to $10,000 in total lobbying 
expenses. It also reduces the contribution threshold of any 
organization other than client that contributes to lobbying activities 
to $5,000 ($10,000 under current law).
  Third, the legislation increases disclosure of lobbyists' 
contributions to lawmakers and entities controlled by lawmakers, 
including contributions to members' charities, to pay the cost of 
events or entities honoring members, contributions intended to pay the 
cost of a meeting or a retreat, and contributions disclosed under FECA 
relating to reports by conduits.
  Fourth, the bill requires the House Clerk to provide public Internet 
access to lobbying reports within 48 hours of electronic filing and 
requires that the lobbyist/employing firm provide a certification or 
disclosure report attesting that it did not violate House/Senate gift 
ban rules. And it makes it a violation of the LDA for a lobbyist to 
provide a gift or travel to a member/officer or employee of Congress 
with knowledge that the gift or travel is in violation of House/Senate 
rules.
  Transparency is increased by the requirements in the bill that 
lobbyists disclose past Executive and Congressional employment and that 
lobbying reports be filed electronically and maintained in a 
searchable, downloadable database. For good reason, the bill also 
requires disclosure of lobbying activities by certain coalitions but 
expressly exempts 501(c) and 527 organizations.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, H.R. 2316 increases civil penalties for 
violation of the Lobby Disclosure Act from $50,000 to $100,000 and adds 
a criminal penalty of up to 5 years for knowing and corrupt failure to 
comply. Finally, the bill requires members to prohibit their staff from 
having any official contact with the member's spouse who is a 
registered lobbyist or is employed or retained by such an individual 
and establishes a public database of member Travel and Personal 
Financial Disclosure Forms.
  Madam Speaker, it is wholly fitting and proper that at the beginning 
of this new 110th Congress, the Members of this House, along with all 
of the American people, paid fitting tribute to the late President 
Gerald R. ``Jerry'' Ford, a former leader in this House, who did so 
much to heal our Nation in the aftermath of Watergate. Upon assuming 
the presidency, President Ford assured the Nation: ``My fellow 
Americans, our long national nightmare is over.'' By his words and 
deeds, President Ford helped turn the country back on the right track. 
He will be forever remembered for his integrity, good character, and 
commitment to the national interest.
  This House today faces a similar challenge. To restore public 
confidence in this institution we must commit ourselves to being the 
most honest, most ethical, most responsive, most transparent Congress 
in history. We can end the nightmare of the last 6 years by putting the 
needs of the American people before those of the lobbyists and special 
interests. To do that, we can start by adopting H.R. 2316.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time.
  I urge my colleagues to step up to the plate this afternoon, the day 
before we go out into recess, to join with your Committee on the 
Judiciary in their bipartisan support for this bundling bill. It's 
necessary that we continue to bring sunlight on the workings of the 
lobbying organizations and the fundraising as it affects the 
congressional product.
  It's important, as a part of the promise that we have made to the 
American people, that we work to restore their confidence in us, and 
this will be accomplished, in part, by what we do here on the floor of 
the House of Representatives on this day. I hope we will keep that 
commitment by passing this very important measure before us, H.R. 2317, 
the Lobbying Transparency Act of 2007.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill.
  I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation, and I am glad to see that 
this House is following in the footsteps of the Senate in crafting some 
of the most important lobbying reforms in a generation.
  Madam Speaker, there is an often cited quote from Supreme Court 
Justice Louie Brandeis. He said: ``Sunlight is the best disinfectant.''
  In the spirit of that principle, the law already requires that 
lobbyists disclose their direct contributions to Members of Congress.
  But that is hardly the full picture of the relationship between 
lobbyists, Members and campaign contributions.
  In a practice known as bundling, lobbyists call up their clients and 
fellow colleagues and pool checks to hand over to Members.
  Sometimes this will happen at fundraisers, where a lobbyist comes in 
with an envelope full of bundled checks.
  Sometimes lobbyists will pledge to raise a certain amount for a 
campaign, and their progress is tracked through a coding system--for 
example, getting donors to write a name or number on the memo line of a 
check.
  In either scenario, lobbyists are likely bundling contributions that 
far exceed their individual contribution.
  I believe that it is more important to know how much a lobbyist is 
bundling for a Member of Congress than how much he is contributing 
directly.
  Lobbyists, like every other citizen, are limited in their individual 
giving, but are unlimited in how much they can collect and forward to a 
campaign.
  Without passing this bill, and requiring lobbyists to report their 
bundled contributions, this Congress and the American public will 
remain in the dark.
  The Van Hollen bill shines sunlight on the practice of bundling.
  In their lobbying bill, the Senate addressed bundling, setting a high 
bar for the House.
  This proposal meets that high bar.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 2316 and 2317--bills 
that significantly reform the lobbyist-lawmaker relationship for the 
better. By opening the lobbying process to greater oversight, we will 
reaffirm our commitment to accountability and transparency in Congress. 
Although I am deeply frustrated that stronger reform measures were 
abandoned, I believe this pair of bills represents an essential step 
toward a more honest and open government.
  Earlier this year, my colleague Greg Walden and I reintroduced H.R. 
1136, the ``Ethics Reform Act of 2007,'' with provisions that tighten 
lobbyist disclosure and reporting. I am pleased to see similar 
provisions--such as quarterly disclosure requirements, electronic 
filing, and a public database of disclosure data--in H.R. 2316.
  I am also pleased to see increased gift restrictions, tightened 
reporting requirements, and stiffened noncompliance penalties included 
in these bills. These are critical components of effective lobbying 
reform whose adoption will help to clearly delineate an appropriate 
boundary between lobbyists and lawmakers.
  However, I must also voice a deep concern: these bills do not go far 
enough. The Senate easily passed--by 96-2--a more stringent bill which 
included stricter penalties and tighter lobbying restrictions on 
Members of Congress and their families. The House, in contrast, 
weakened the lobbyist, ``cool-off'' period in H.R. 2316. We can, and 
must, do better. With the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, I look forward 
to improving these bills in conference.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I, too, urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation and yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 437, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


            Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Smith of Texas

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I am in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Smith of Texas moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2317 to 
     the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       In section 5(d)(6)(C) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 
     1995, as proposed to be added by section 2(a) of the bill, 
     insert after ``leadership PAC,'' the following: ``a 
     multicandidate political committee described in section 
     315(a)(4) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441a(a)(4)),''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the reading). Is there objection to 
dispensing with the reading?
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I 
believe I may have to object, because we are just seeing the motion for 
the first time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.

[[Page H5754]]

  The Clerk will continue to read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, the base bill addresses the same 
bundling issue that the Judiciary Committee dealt with in a bipartisan 
fashion last year. Mr. Van Hollen, the principal supporter of these 
provisions, signed on to that compromise.
  I offer this motion to recommit because there is a difference between 
what was covered by the Van Hollen amendment that was adopted in 
committee last Congress and what is contained in this legislation 
authored by Mr. Van Hollen in this Congress, a very big difference.
  This legislation does not require that bundled contributions to 
political action committees, often referred to as PACs, be disclosed. 
Why are PACs omitted from the disclosure requirements in this 
legislation?
  As has been recently reported in the BNA Money & Politics Report, 
``Democrats' new-found majority status has made them the biggest 
recipients of campaign money from lobbyists and others, a fact that 
could increase their wariness about passing strict new rules.''
  ``For example, a new analysis posted on the politicalmoneyline.com 
Web site, and based on Federal Election Commission reports, found that 
in the first quarter of 2007, Federal political action committees, that 
is the PACs this legislation exempts, reported giving all Federal 
candidates $27 million, of which almost $17 million, or 62 percent, 
went to Democrats, and only 38 percent went to Republicans. The 
Democrats' newfound fundraising prowess could cause them to have second 
thoughts about such proposals as increased disclosure of bundled 
contributions arranged by lobbyists, some observers said.''

                              {time}  1350

  It appears these observers were correct. The majority has let the 
color of money dampen their desire for more openness and reform. The 
loophole in this bill that exempts bundled contributions to PACs is big 
enough to ride a Democratic donkey through.
  If we are requiring the disclosure of bundled contributions to 
political party committees, those same disclosure rules should also 
apply to contributions to PACs. Party committees represent all members 
of that party affiliation. PACs, on the other hand, represent more 
narrow, special interests. Why should the former be exposed to more 
sunshine, but not the latter?
  The fact that PACs give more money to Democrats is not a serious 
answer. Time and again the majority party finds itself presenting 
legislation that picks favorites, when what the American people want is 
more honesty and more accountability. This motion to recommit would 
achieve that by including bundled contributions to PACs under the same 
provisions that cover Federal candidates, other PACs, and political 
party committees.
  I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit so that we 
can have a more open and honest government. To put it another way, what 
was good for the Democrats last year should be good for the Democrats 
this year.
  Madam Speaker, the American people want and deserve a government that 
operates in the sunlight and not in the shadows.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Members of the House, recommit motions too frequently 
here have become procedural tactics that are not based on the work that 
we have done in the committee up until now. And I rise to oppose the 
provision because it raises conveniently a new issue not discussed in 
our hearings and not even raised in the markup. I don't think that it 
is really going to be helpful to the bundling law at all.
  As I understand this motion to recommit, this is a broad new 
provision that would make the bill even more complex and difficult to 
administer. We have had that problem with this measure in the other 
body, and we certainly don't want to bring that kind of strategy into 
the measure before us now. It would seem to sweep into its reach 
entities that are not public or official.
  This would include political action committees created by the 
following organization. It would include the National Rifle 
Association, the Right to Life Organization, even the Congressional 
Black Caucus. It would include Emily's List. It would seem to me that 
this would really confuse the bill, and I urge my Members, at this late 
date, under this strategy, to oppose the amendment.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van 
Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I also urge my 
colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit.
  During the earlier discussion, Mr. Smith talked about how the bill 
that we passed last year out of the Judiciary Committee was a 
bipartisan bill. In fact, it was a bipartisan vote in the Judiciary 
Committee. But what he failed to mention, and in the spirit of 
bipartisanship earlier I thought I wouldn't raise, was when that 
amendment that was attached in the Judiciary Committee got to the Rules 
Committee, the Rules Committee took it out. So the lobbying reform bill 
that the Republicans brought to the floor of the House stripped out the 
amendment that Mr. Smith, number one, claims bipartisanship on right 
now.
  Number two, the measure that we have brought before us today is, in 
fact, broader than the amendment that the Judiciary Committee voted on 
last year and, in fact, captures more bundling activity. It doesn't 
just capture very narrow bundling activities, it is broader, and, in 
fact, would capture a lot more of the bundling and disclose a lot more 
than the bill that Mr. Smith referred to. So, in fact, it is a very 
important step forward in terms of the public's right to know.
  Finally, the purpose of dealing with the registered lobbyists is 
registered lobbyists register for a reason. They are paid to try and 
influence legislation before Congress. They are paid to try and 
influence Members of Congress with respect to legislation. So the whole 
purpose of this is to go get at that nexus. Registered lobbyists don't 
register to go lobby a PAC. They don't go register to lobby the NRA PAC 
or to go lobby an environmental PAC or go lobby a right-to-life PAC.
  So this is drawn to get at the issue that we are trying to get out in 
this Congress, which is to change the way we do business here and to 
make sure that we address the nexus between registered lobbyists and 
the legislative process. That is the focus. This takes us out of that 
focus, so I urge that we oppose this particular motion to recommit.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that these 
organizations aren't the objects of a bundling activity, the National 
Rifle Association, the right-to-life, and others. This is a poison pill 
amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 192, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 419]

                               YEAS--228

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler

[[Page H5755]]


     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     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
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--192

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castor
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     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
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Campbell (CA)
     Cardoza
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeGette
     Emerson
     Engel
     Hunter
     Jones (OH)
     Lewis (GA)
     McMorris Rodgers
     Oberstar
     Radanovich

                              {time}  1426

  Messrs. MURTHA, HOYER, WELCH of Vermont, TIERNEY, ELLISON, BERRY, 
ROSS, DINGELL, McNERNEY, SNYDER, BOUCHER, TAYLOR, Mrs. McCARTHY of New 
York, and Ms. SLAUGHTER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. BONNER, SESTAK, ROHRABACHER, McKEON, TIAHRT, FRANKS of 
Arizona, TERRY, CANNON, MURPHY of Connecticut, ISRAEL, SHUSTER, SMITH 
of Washington, HALL of New York, KUCINICH, CUELLAR, MARSHALL, DeFAZIO, 
MORAN of Virginia, GOHMERT, COHEN, KLEIN of Florida, BARROW, MITCHELL, 
ELLSWORTH, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Mrs. CUBIN changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.