Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 86 (Thursday, May 24, 2007)

[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.

[[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.