[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18296-18317]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR EARMARKING REFORM IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1003 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1003

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution, House 
     Resolution 1000, amended by the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Rules now printed 
     in the resolution, is hereby adopted.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a very important reform that is 
a bipartisan reform. It is bipartisan because it is an issue that I am 
happy to say, as we have moved down the road towards reform, has 
enjoyed strong bipartisan support. In fact, it was a key provision in 
the House-passed Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act, which 
did enjoy bipartisan support, not as strong as I would have liked, but 
it did enjoy bipartisan support.
  Specifically, Mr. Speaker, with this new rule, Member-directed 
spending to projects in their district, or earmarks, will no longer be 
anonymous. It is very simple.
  We all know, as it stands now, there are no disclosure requirements 
in appropriations, tax bills or authorizing legislation. Earmarks can 
be buried in the text of bills that often number into the thousands of 
pages. There is no easy way to account for how many earmarks are in a 
bill or who is sponsoring them.
  This new rule requires sponsors of earmarks to be listed in committee 
reports. Conference reports must also have a list of earmarks that are 
``air-dropped'' or brought into an agreement in the conference report 
itself. It is just that simple.
  We are blowing away the fog of anonymity so the public can have a 
clear picture of what the projects are, how much they cost, and who is 
sponsoring them. It is just a very simple case of transparency.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a victory for fiscal responsibility and a 
victory for spending taxpayer dollars more wisely.
  As an enforcement mechanism, this new rule also provides for a 
question of consideration when a bill or conference report does not 
contain a list of earmarks. The question of consideration is debatable 
for 30 minutes, 15 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. Speaker, if a Member feels strongly enough about a proposed 
earmark, they will have to attach their name to it. That is all we are 
asking. And they need to be prepared to make their case in full view of 
their colleagues, their constituents, and the American people as a 
whole.
  Mr. Speaker, the earmark reform bill will build on the reforms that 
have already been implemented by the Appropriations Committee, and I 
take my hat off to the Appropriations Committee for the very bold and 
dynamic reforms that they have made. They have reduced the number of 
earmarks already by 37 percent. Overall spending on Member projects was 
reduced by $7.8 billion below last year's level.
  Over the last 2 years, Member project spending has decreased by over 
$10 million, and I want to especially express my appreciation to my 
very dear friend, Jerry Lewis, who has so ably chaired the 
Appropriations Committee and has stepped up to the plate and taken on 
this issue of reform and done it with great success because of the fact 
that he has been able to rein in Federal spending. It doesn't get a lot 
of attention, but he has been very successful in doing that.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to make very clear that our focus is not 
solely on appropriations. This was one of the requests that Chairman 
Lewis made of us as we were proceeding with this work.
  For this reform to be effective, it must be comprehensive, and that 
was the commitment that the Speaker of the House and our leadership 
team made to our Members. So let me point out that this earmark reform 
applies across the board. It doesn't just apply to some committees. It 
covers all committees, all appropriations, all tax, all authorizing 
legislation, anything that moves through this House through regular 
order.
  Mr. Speaker, we have taken great care to clearly and precisely state 
what constitutes a tax, an appropriation, or an authorizing earmark. 
And the good news is that there is more agreement than disagreement on 
those definitions. Yet clearly there is no magic bullet. There is not 
going to be one definition that will be perfect and please everybody. 
But at the end of the day, we have to come together. We have to come 
together, Mr. Speaker, and move this process forward. If there is an 
earmark in a bill, it belongs on a list. It is just that simple.

                              {time}  1600

  If there is an earmark, we need to see it. Now, is this new 
disclosure going to completely end the practice of earmarking? I 
certainly hope not. I don't want it to, because I believe that 
earmarking is part of our constitutional responsibility. But it will 
shine a spotlight on earmarks without grinding the legislative process 
to a halt.

[[Page 18297]]

  Let me make very clear that the larger goal of this new rule is to 
make a profound and lasting change in how this institution handles 
earmarks and spends taxpayer dollars. The goal is to increase 
transparency, disclosure and accountability, and the goal is to pull 
back the curtain on earmarks for the public, because I believe, Mr. 
Speaker, that they have a right to know.
  For this earmark reform to be both meaningful and lasting, everyone, 
from committee chairmen on down, must make a good-faith effort to 
comply with the spirit of the new rule. Our leadership, and certainly 
the Rules Committee, has made such a commitment, and we are determined 
to make this work.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that while this is an 
important milestone in the path toward reform, we have not reached the 
goal line. In fact, I don't believe that we will ever reach the 
absolute goal line because reform is a continuous process. It gains 
momentum from Members who never let up and never settle for the status 
quo.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for reforming 
earmarks, and ``yes'' to setting the stage for more reforms that we 
will face down the road.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is no secret why fewer than 30 percent of Americans 
approve of the job that Congress is doing. It is not hard to figure out 
why nearly 75 percent of Americans feel as though the country is headed 
in the wrong direction, and it is easy to see why so few citizens are 
confident that this government will turn things around.
  Our elected officials routinely abuse the public trust, promising one 
thing and delivering another. They intentionally disguise business as 
usual to look like positive reform, and Members of the House have 
ignored the rules written in the public interest, and have allowed the 
deliberative process at the heart of our democracy to be captured by 
special interests.
  The result has been a Congress where corrupt lobbyists write the 
bills, 15-minute votes are held open for 3 hours and entirely new 
legislation is crammed into acts in the dead of night. The American 
people know it, and they are tired of the old games. When finally faced 
with public awareness and anger over just how corrupt our House has 
become, Republicans promised a great deal.
  In fact, they opened 2006 with a flurry of promises. My good friend 
and colleague, David Dreier, the chairman of the Rules Committee and 
Republican ethics reform leader, had this to say on the floor in 
February, and I quote, ``We are committed to bold, strong, dynamic 
reforms for this institution,'' he said. Adding the quote, ``the 
Republican Party has stood for reform ever since I can remember.''
  But since then, Mr. Speaker, very little of anything has come from my 
Republican friends, even though their party controls the House, the 
Senate and the White House. If they were interested in ethics reform, 
they would have passed it swiftly. Instead they seem here at the last 
throes simply determined to merely run out the clock on the issue of 
passing a few deceptive bills here and there while secretly hoping the 
whole subject would go away.
  We saw this strategy with the first ethics reform act passed by the 
House in February, which was a minor rules change that simply prevented 
former Members from using the House gym, as if that is the only place 
that dishonest business transpires in Washington.
  Then in May a broader Republican bill theoretically focused on 
preventing future lobbyist abuses was lambasted by commentators of all 
stripes for being what it was, a sham. It has been a history of 
deliberate inaction, Mr. Speaker, and the same story here today.
  As this legislative session comes to a close, it is truly shameful 
that bills like this one are all the House is going to be able to 
accomplish. Consider the context in which this bill comes to us.
  While my colleagues on the other side spent years railing against the 
evils of Congressional earmarks, they have been presiding over the 
greatest earmark explosion in American history. According to the 
Heritage Foundation, earmarks are appropriations bills that increased 
tenfold between 1995 and 2005. In the mid-1990s, they accounted for $10 
billion in Federal spending. Today it is over $27 billion.
  Nonappropriation earmarks have skyrocketed as well. Last year's 
transportation reauthorization bill, for example, contains 6,371 
earmarks, totaling $25 billion, including the ``Bridge to Nowhere.''
  We cannot afford to keep spending in such an irresponsible way, Mr. 
Speaker. One look at our skyrocketing national deficit is proof enough 
of that. But this is about more than just debt, it is about the future 
of democracy itself.
  Unchecked earmarks, and many of them for relatives of the persons who 
wrote them, or for businesses that they own, are a cause of the culture 
of corruption that pervades Washington and undermines our democracy. 
They are routinely traded for political favors, exchanged for votes and 
used to benefit family members. They are, in the words of 
Representative Flake, the currency of corruption in Washington.
  Yet, my Republican friends have given us a bill today that is a 
nonresponse to the crucial issue, a deceptive bill that is riddled with 
loopholes. Just like the previous legislation, this is, once again, a 
sham.
  This measure is supposed to increase disclosure of which Members are 
behind which earmarks. But it is intentionally limited. It leaves 
numerous means by which Members can conceal their earmarks. The rules 
change proposed to the resolution applies only to reported bills, so a 
Member who wanted to avoid disclosing earmarks to the public could 
simply include them in the manager's amendment or bring the bill 
straight to the House floor without a committee markup, therefore, no 
identifiable earmarks. That is a loophole you could drive a truck 
through.
  If that is not bad enough, the bill defines many types of earmarks 
right out of existence. For example, spending on Federal entities can 
no longer be classified as an earmark under the bill. That would have 
allowed the infamous $200 million ``Bridge to Nowhere'' earmark that 
blew up in a scandal last year to avoid disclosure entirely. The $400 
million Home Depot ceiling fan giveaway that we heard so much about 
would not have counted as a earmark either, just because the resolution 
did not include tariff and duty changes in its definition.
  Of course, this entire piece of legislation would expire in January. 
Let me make that point again. What we are doing here today, when this 
passes today, it is only good till the end of the year. How serious a 
bill is that?
  This is a deeply flawed solution to a serious problem, a temporary 
stopgap measure, and I think we won't be writing any more earmarks this 
year, which is designed to do little more than get the Republicans 
through the November elections.
  As always, there is an alternative. More than 6 months ago my 
Democrat colleagues and I offered a tough, commonsense report package 
that would have corrected many of the most rampant abuses plaguing 
Washington, abuses that have diverted the work being done here away 
from the good of the people and toward the wants of a few.
  Legislation I introduced on behalf of the Democratic leadership in 
May bans travel on corporate gifts, bans lobbyist gifts, slows down the 
revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street, prohibits lobbyists 
writing the bills, addresses many of the broken procedures and rules 
here in this House.
  It focuses on earmarks, too, in a much more direct and systemic way 
than the bill before us does now. In fact, it requires Members to 
publicly disclose all district-specific earmark requests that they make 
on bills and conference reports. This past May I am proud to say that 
16 Republicans joined with the Democrats in support of this bill.

[[Page 18298]]

  In the end, it failed the House by only two votes. It was deeply 
encouraging to see rank-and-file Republicans of conscience challenge 
their Republican Party's leadership, to see them back up their pledge 
to clean up the House with real action. They will have other chances to 
do it, too, because Democrats have not given up this fight.
  We have always prided ourselves on delivering what we have promised, 
and we are committed to eliminating the corruption that plagues our 
Congress today. We won't stop until we get there.
  Together, we will give the country a Congress they can be proud of 
again.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say in response 
to my good friend from New York once again, this is a bipartisan 
effort. I know that the Democratic Caucus has talked about the need to 
implement this reform. We hope very much, when we come back to majority 
status in January of next year, to renew and build on this kind of 
reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, a hardworking 
member of the Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Phoenix, Arizona 
(Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I compliment him for 
his hard work in this effort at earmark reform, and I also compliment 
the leaders of this House.
  Mr. Speaker, just a year ago, I think no one would have believed that 
we would have been standing here now on the verge of adopting very far-
reaching earmark reform. I compliment everybody engaged in this debate, 
from my Democrat colleagues to my Republican colleagues, all of the 
people involved, including the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, who has engaged in this vigorously.
  This is a milestone. This is a step forward for the American people. 
This is a day in which we are saying the American people get to know 
how their money is spent.
  Importantly, when we passed similar language several months ago, the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee said it is wrong to single out 
a single committee. This should apply to all committees, and he was 
right then, and he is right now. It is important, indeed, I would argue 
it is vital that the American people be able to know how every dollar 
they send us in taxes gets spent, and this legislation will allow that 
to happen.
  It says that every earmark and every Member who requested an earmark 
must be openly acknowledged in the legislation itself. By shedding the 
light of day on the earmarks that move through this Congress, we are 
being open and straightforward. Those who have what they consider to be 
a good earmark for the country can come to this floor and defend it and 
explain it, and the American people can examine it. I believe this is a 
tremendous step forward.
  I want to caution people listening to the debate. What you will hear 
in the debate here today is that this bill isn't right, because it is 
not perfect. It doesn't go far enough. The definitions aren't quite 
precise. We just heard the minority say it is not a good bill because 
there has been an explosion in earmarks. So, somehow, since there has 
been an explosion in earmarks, we should not do anything.
  That is outrageous. No bill that I have voted on in my career in this 
Congress has been perfect. No bill has had every definition exactly 
right. This is a tremendous step forward. This is a vote for sunshine. 
This is a vote for openness in our government, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  I compliment our leadership and the chairman of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, after all the scandals, after all the 
corruption, after all the unethical abuse of earmarks, after all the 
public outrage, this is it? This is the best that you can do? With all 
due respect to my colleague from Arizona, who just spoke, I don't want 
your compliments. I don't want to take credit for this.
  This measure before us is not earmark reform or any other kind of 
real reform. It is not accountability, and it is not transparency. It 
is, at best, a press release. There are so many loopholes in this 
measure that you could drive a Mack truck right through it. Unreported 
bills, manager's amendments and other amendments are not subject to 
this so-called reform.
  That is where a great deal of the earmarking abuse occurs, but it is 
all exempt. We need to clean this place up. We need to change the 
culture of corruption in this House of Representatives. We need a 
comprehensive lobbying bill that has teeth in it, that means something.
  Let me say to my colleagues, this entire institution has suffered as 
a result of the corrupt practices of the Tom DeLays and the Duke 
Cunninghams. It has suffered under the 12 years of mismanagement by the 
Republican majority here. People have had it. People have lost faith in 
this institution.
  This chairman of the Rules Committee talks about how the Republican 
majority is interested in reining in spending. Federal spending has 
gone up 40 percent since George Bush took office. In terms of earmarks, 
they are coming late to this game. In 1995, when they took power, there 
were about 1,400 earmarks. There are over 14,000 earmarks as of 2005.
  You know, the only way to regain the confidence of the American 
people is by combating the corruption, by cleaning up this institution, 
by implementing real, honest-to-goodness reform.

                              {time}  1615

  This is not it. If you are going to do something, do it right.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to a very 
hardworking member of the Committee on Rules, my very, very good friend 
from Marietta, Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1000, a resolution 
providing for earmark reform in the U.S. House of Representatives. I 
want to say that I support this resolution because I take my 
responsibility to allocate the hard-earned money of the residents of 
Georgia's 11th District very, very seriously.
  There are fundamental duties of the Federal Government, tasks that 
the American people cannot do individually, but they rely on the 
collective strength of our Nation's capital to accomplish. Some of 
these tasks are national security, ensuring the safety of our citizens 
at home and abroad, and maintaining our national highways and 
infrastructure. However, over the years, the Federal Government has 
expanded this definition to encompass many extraneous projects that 
cannot be defended.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a reason earmarks have become such an integral 
part of the appropriation and authorization process in Congress. It is 
because each individual Member of Congress knows what is needed in 
their own districts better than anyone else. It is for this reason that 
I fully support this legislation, because it does not outlaw earmarks. 
Rather, it represents reform that is long overdue.
  Mr. Speaker, I have submitted earmark requests on behalf of my 
constituents, but I have always tried to prioritize these projects in 
an effort to maintain my credibility as a trustworthy steward of the 
taxpayer dollars.
  So I rise today not to condemn the earmark process, but rather to 
applaud the legislation that inherently reforms it. This legislation 
takes a stand for transparency in an effort to curb the current trend 
of frivolous Federal spending. Congress always needs to remember to 
whom we are ultimately accountable, and because of this legislation, 
Congress will be able to restore that full credibility.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from New York for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are demanding real reform of 
Congress. This bill isn't it.

[[Page 18299]]

  The second session of the 109th Congress began with Members on both 
sides of the aisle deeply concerned that the dignity of this great 
institution had been tarnished. Newspapers across the country ran 
stories almost every day about the illegal practices of well-connected 
lobbyists. Stories discussed the ways in which unethical conduct had 
become the cost of doing business in Congress.
  We read about the K Street Project. We read about legislation written 
in secret by lobbyists and about back-room deals to benefit narrow 
special interests. Editorial boards from all 50 States called for 
reform.
  In May, the House passed a fundamentally flawed approach to reform. 
It included some new restrictions on lobbyists, yes, but we showed no 
willingness to demand reform of ourselves. That sent a terrible message 
to our constituents.
  There is a better approach. I have joined many of my colleagues as a 
cosponsor of the Honest Leadership Open Government Act. It injects 
transparency and accountability into Congress itself. There would be no 
more K Street Project. There would be no more meals or gifts from 
lobbyists. No more travel on corporate jets. And it would ensure better 
legislation. Members would be guaranteed 24 hours to read a bill before 
voting on it. And we would end the common practice of last-minute 
provisions slipped into conference reports.
  The majority is interested in none of this. The legislation was 
rejected in May along party lines. And since then, the House has not 
shown any interest in moving ahead with any meaningful reform.
  So here we are in the waning days of the 109th Congress debating only 
a narrow earmark reform resolution full of exceptions and unlikely to 
pass.
  Every Member of this House knows that this bill is not what the 
American people demanded of us at the beginning of the year. Certainly, 
this resolution will not restore the integrity of the institution in 
which we serve.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people want real reform. They will not be 
fooled by fig leaves.
  We still have time to act in a unified fashion to restore the dignity 
of this House. Unfortunately, this resolution falls far short of that 
necessary effort.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 1 
minute to the very distinguished majority leader, who has been a great 
champion of earmark reform for many, many years, my friend, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from California 
(Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding, and 
thank him and the Speaker for their tremendous work on this rule 
change.
  Mr. Speaker, today is an important day for the House as an 
institution. There has been much written this year about the practice 
of earmarking, which has allowed lawmakers to anonymously insert 
spending projects into bills without scrutiny or significant debate. It 
is a major source of frustration, I think, for the American people, and 
for those of us who believe that we need greater accountability and 
transparency in the way Congress works.
  Earlier this year, I, along with many of my colleagues, called for 
reforms to this earmark process. We need a process where we can 
determine what are worthy projects and distinguish those from worthless 
pork. These reforms before us will help accomplish that goal so 
unworthy projects can be publicly identified, debated and, hopefully, 
weeded out.
  I think the reforms before us are very straightforward. They specify 
that if the House considers a bill which includes earmarks, it must be 
accompanied by a list identifying those earmarks as well as the names 
of the Members who requested them. The reforms also ensure that in the 
case of a conference report, the list includes any earmarks that were 
what we call ``air-dropped,'' or in other words, not included in either 
the House or Senate bills.
  No longer will Members, the media or average taxpayers have to thumb 
through pages of legislative and report language looking for earmarks 
that are sometimes added at the eleventh hour. This information will be 
publicly available for everyone to see.
  I think it is simple common sense. If you request a project, you 
ought to be willing to put your name on it, and if you aren't willing 
to put your name on a project, you shouldn't expect the American people 
to pay for it.
  Fulfilling a commitment made by Republican leaders earlier this year 
to treat everyone equally, these reforms will apply to all committees, 
authorizers, appropriators and tax writers alike. The goal here is to 
bring earmarking out of the shadows and into the light of public 
scrutiny. These reforms will bring sunshine and transparency to the 
earmark process, resulting in greater accountability for lawmakers and 
greater public confidence in how their taxpayer dollars are spent.
  Importantly, it also likely will result in fewer earmarks, building 
on the progress already made by leaders such as chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Jerry Lewis. This year during the 
appropriations process, there were 37 percent fewer earmarks than the 
year before and the cost of those earmarks has been reduced by some 
$7.8 billion.
  Earmark reform is just one component of Republicans' larger effort to 
promote fiscal discipline and ensure that Congress spends America's 
taxpayer dollars wisely.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.
  Former Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan once said, ``The 
government being the people's business, it necessarily follows that its 
operations should be at all times open to the public view. Publicity, 
therefore, is as essential to honest administration as freedom of 
speech is to representative government.''
  Public scrutiny and oversight is what our earmarking process needs, 
and one of the best ways to do this is by implementing meaningful 
reforms that bring transparency and accountability to the process.
  The Republican leadership has offered a very modest rules amendment, 
but I think we should go even further. It is in that spirit that I have 
introduced H.R. 1008, a resolution outlining a comprehensive approach 
to earmark reform that brings real transparency and publicity to the 
earmarking process for appropriations, authorizations and tax benefits.
  My comprehensive proposal, H.R. 1008, includes requirements not only 
for reporting the Member's name along with the earmark request; it also 
requires that earmark requests be submitted to the committee or 
committees at least 7 days before an earmark request is scheduled to be 
voted upon.
  But, most importantly, most importantly, my proposal requires that 
information on all earmarks be posted on committee Web sites for public 
inspection at least 48 hours prior to the time of the vote, and also 
directs the Clerk of the House to establish a public Web site that 
provides links to all committee Web sites with information on earmark 
requests. By providing easily accessible information on earmarks and 
``one-stop shopping'' for American taxpayers, we can bring real 
accountability to the earmarking process.
  The need to control the growth of earmarks should not be a partisan 
issue. This is not about Democrats and Republicans, it is about a good 
idea and something good for the American public. We should come 
together to pass comprehensive earmark reform that brings real 
accountability and transparency to the process.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that the gentleman has some very 
interesting, creative ideas. As I said in my opening remarks, the 
reform process is an ongoing thing that we are dealing with, and I am 
more than happy to look at the proposals that the gentleman has, 
especially as we look at

[[Page 18300]]

our opening day rules package for January of next year.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman to accept 
the amendment to his proposal.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to a 
strong proponent of the issue of earmark reform, our friend from Mesa, 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States Congress is a wonderful and storied 
institution. It is with great reverence and pride that each of us who 
is elected comes into this body. But with earmarking, we have departed 
from the practices and traditions of the People's House.
  When working properly, the House of Representatives follows the time-
honored practice of authorization, appropriation and oversight. 
Earmarking short circuits this process. Today, we do far too little 
authorizing, far too much appropriating and far too little oversight.
  When I was first elected, I had visions of participating in the great 
debates of our time. It is not that these policy debates haven't 
occurred. They have and they do. But I believe it is safe to say that 
they are diminishing.
  In Congress, policies and priorities are established when money is 
attached to them. When the carefully designed process of authorization, 
appropriation and oversight is adhered to, these policies and 
priorities are given a thorough vetting. But when earmarks are inserted 
into bills at the last minute behind closed doors, there is no debate, 
deliberation or scrutiny.
  When appropriation bills reach the House floor, passage by a lopsided 
margin is virtually assured because Members with earmarks are obligated 
to vote for the entire bill. The scope of debate is substantially 
narrowed when even partisan disagreements that would otherwise occur 
are hushed as Republicans and Democrats find common cause in protecting 
their earmarks.
  I am under no illusion that this legislation, which deals only with 
the issue of transparency, will solve the problem of earmarking. Too 
many in this body have been convinced that they have both the right and 
the obligation to personally direct funding to their district. But this 
bill does represent an important first step.
  Mr. Speaker, we owe this institution more than we are giving it. 
Let's pass this bill and give it more of the respect it deserves.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill represents the death of lobby reform. Over the 
last year, as we all know, this House has received a black eye because 
of the DeLay scandal, stories about lobbyists paying for golf trips to 
Scotland, the Cunningham blatant bribery case, the Abramoff scandal, 
and we have been awash in talk of reform. But comprehensive reform 
packages have not been allowed to come to this floor. We have not been 
allowed by the majority to have votes on them.
  But now, 7 weeks before the election, we get a chance to see that the 
majority has labored long and produced a mouse, or a fig leaf at best.
  My old friend, Archie the Cockroach, said once, ``The trouble with 
most people is that they lose their sense of proportion; of what use is 
it for a queen bee to fall in love with a bull?'' Think about it a 
minute.
  The problem with this bill is that there is a huge problem and this 
bill proposes a minuscule solution. The answer of the majority 
leadership is to require a list of what they call earmarks. But this 
package is more notable for what it does not include than it is for 
what it does include.

                              {time}  1630

  I would call it the 1 percent solution.
  Now, my personal anger about earmarks I think is well known in this 
body. The last time I chaired the Appropriations Committee there was 
not a single earmark in the Labor-H appropriation bill. Today there are 
over 1,200. And 3 years ago the Labor-H Subcommittee used the earmarks 
as blackmail by threatening to cut off earmarks for any Member who 
refused to vote for an inadequate bill. I did not especially like that 
and I made that quite clear. But the point is that the problem is not 
earmarks. It is the abuse of the earmark process.
  This proposal does nothing to ensure institutional integrity. It is 
consumer fraud masquerading as earmark reform. Look at what it does not 
cover: It applies only to committee reported bills. It exempts 
managers' amendments. That means the famous ``Bridge to Nowhere'' would 
be exempted from this bill. On tax earmarks this bill actually makes 
the existing law worse. Right now a tax earmark is defined as a special 
treatment for 100 or fewer persons. This bill says the only time that 
it is going to be counted as a tax earmark is if it affects one entity. 
That means you can have a huge tax break for two multinational oil 
companies and it isn't even covered in this package.
  In the 1986 tax bill, there were 340 separate transition rules 
costing over $10 billion. There were special tax breaks for two 
Chrysler plants. This bill wouldn't cover it. The only way that that 
would be exposed under this bill is if there had only been one tax 
break for one of those Chrysler plants.
  The tax bill that passed last year that provided special treatment 
for ceiling fan imports or for U.S. horse and dog racing or Hollywood 
studios that produce the movies in the Gulf, all exempt under this 
bill.
  There were 190 special provisions in the Pension Protection Act of 
2000, costing $180 million in taxpayers' money--virtually all of them 
would be exempt under this proposition.
  If you want to save taxpayers' dollars, rather than continuing this 
silly game of Trivial Pursuit, what you would do is to require that 
reconciliation bills can be used only to reduce the deficit rather than 
increase it as the majority party has cynically used the reconciliation 
process the last 4 years. This bill, indeed, is Trivial Pursuit.
  I don't care if you list the Members who sponsor earmarks. I put out 
press releases on every one of them. I attended a ceremony last week 
where we had a groundbreaking for an expansion of the Mel Laird Medical 
Center in my district. I got that earmark. I am proud of it, and I am 
proud to stand for it. The problem is what this package doesn't 
contain.
  This is a joke. It is a fraud. It plays Trivial Pursuit. It focuses 
on the minutiae instead of the big problems. That should not be 
surprising given the track record of the majority party in this House. 
But this House ought to be able to do better.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority leader, and I, in my role as chairman of 
the Committee on Rules, have made a commitment not only to the 
appropriators but to all Members of this body that we will enforce this 
rule with respect to unreported measures and amendments, including 
managers' amendments, submitted to the Rules Committee. If the House 
considers a bill that has not been reported by a committee, the 
committee of jurisdiction must comply with the earmark rule and provide 
a list of earmarks along with the name of the Member who requested the 
earmark. If the House considers a manager's amendment on a bill, the 
committee must comply with the earmark rule and provide a list of 
earmarks along with the name of the Member who requested the earmark. 
By adopting this new rule, we as a body are not only making the 
commitment to live under its provisions, but every Member must make a 
commitment to adhere to the spirit of this new rule. This is more than 
just adding a new rule. It is making a commitment to change the culture 
of this institution.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my friend from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank you. Will you tell me how this is going to apply to 
the defense appropriations bill that will be coming back to us this 
year from conference?

[[Page 18301]]


  Mr. DREIER. Yes. If I could reclaim my time, the agreement that we 
have for implementaton of this rule means that if there is anything 
that has a so-called airdrop provision in it, this rule will apply to--
  Mr. OBEY. So none of the earmarks presently in the bill will be 
required?
  Mr. DREIER. So this rule will be implemented immediately.
  Mr. OBEY. So none of the Senate earmarks will be included; the Senate 
will continue to be anonymous?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, I will tell you 
this. I know full well that the United States Senate is watching this 
debate very, very closely and they very much are interested in seeing 
us comply with this.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point I would be happy to yield 2 minutes to my 
very good friend from Columbus, Indiana, the chairman of the Republican 
Study Committee, Mr. Pence.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I 
thank him for his leadership on House Resolution 1000, providing for 
earmarking reform in the House of Representatives. I also feel moved to 
thank particularly the House majority leader, John Boehner, for his 
yeoman's leadership and keeping his word on this issue with Members in 
our effort to bring this modest but meaningful reform to the floor of 
the Congress.
  Under Article I of the Constitution of the United States, the power 
of the purse is the power of the House of Representatives. And today we 
will not yield that power in any way. The Constitution gives this body 
the ability to spend the money of the American people in ways large and 
small. House Resolution 1000 simply requires that we earmark the 
earmarks.
  Mr. Speaker, we actually had a cow farm when I was growing up, and I 
know what an earmark is. It is a tag in the ear of a cow that will tell 
you whose cow it is. Well, the reality is under the rules that have 
developed over generations here in the House, we can add provisions to 
legislation, authorizing bills and appropriation bills, without adding 
names. Today by H. Res. 1000 we will simply require that we earmark the 
earmarks.
  Transparency promotes accountability, and this institution would do 
well to embrace this modest but meaningful step toward greater 
transparency.
  As Jeff Flake, a great leader on this issue, said earlier, it saddens 
me to see evidence of the low regard that millions of Americans hold 
the institution of the Congress. It is an historic institution filled 
with men and women of both parties of goodwill and integrity. By 
adopting this modest but meaningful earmarking reform today, we will 
take an important step toward restoring public confidence in the 
fundamental integrity of our legislative process at the national level.
  I urge my colleagues in both parties to say ``yes'' to transparency 
and greater accountability, say ``yes'' to earmarking reform.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of giving a response, I 
would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  I would simply point out under this provision, when the defense 
appropriations bill comes back from the Senate, not a single Senate 
earmark will be listed, and in the future only House earmarks will be 
listed. The Senate earmarks will not be listed.
  I would also point out that if you read the language of this 
resolution, it makes quite clear that the tax provisions covered by 
this bill are, in fact, fewer than under existing law and also that 
same fact applies to trade preferences.
  Trade bills are hard enough to pass now. So what happens is they slip 
in all kinds of special deals for special commodities in order to get 
218 votes.
  This bill will not lay a glove on them, and for that matter, it will 
not lay a glove on a single appropriations earmark. It doesn't do 
anything to any earmark in the House or the Senate. This bill is a 
fraud.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, 9 months ago the Speaker said, ``Now is the 
time for action'' on real lobbying and ethics reform. At the same time, 
the current majority leader said we must act ``because of a growing 
perception that the United States Congress is for sale.''
  And yet here we are today discussing legislation that will do nothing 
to prevent the abuses that have occurred on the Republican Congress' 
watch by both parties and both parties' Members. In short, business as 
usual continues here in the people's House.
  When Members of Congress make millions from land deals tied to 
earmarks, you know something is wrong in the people's House. When 
Members' spouses are paid six-figure salaries for ``no-show'' lobbying 
jobs, you know something is wrong in the people's House. When a mid-
level staffer gets a $2 million buyout from a lobbying firm only to 
have the revolving door return him to his old job on the committee, you 
know something is wrong in the people's House. And this bill simply 
tells all the current players that the House remains open for business. 
Business as usual continues.
  When the Speaker's gavel comes down, it is intended to open the 
people's House, not the auction house. The fact is we have an 
institutional problem requiring an institutional solution.
  To that end Representatives Van Hollen, Doggett, Delahunt, Bean, 
Barrow, and I introduced real earmark reform legislation yesterday to 
eliminate the abuses. Our bill prohibits earmarks that personally 
benefit Members, their spouses, and immediate family members. It bans 
earmarks that benefit lobbyists who chair a Member's leadership PAC. It 
prohibits earmarks to any entity or lobbying firm employing the spouse, 
family member, or former staffer of the earmark sponsor. Finally, it 
eliminates the ``sweetheart'' tax provisions for a single individual or 
corporation, and it ends the practice of adding new earmarks into 
conference reports in the dead of night.
  This is real reform the American people are demanding, and I 
challenge my colleagues to let us have a vote on it. But I know they 
won't because 12 years ago the Republicans came to Congress to change 
Washington and in those 12 years Washington changed them.
  It is time for a new direction. It is time for a change. The ``for 
sale'' sign still exists on the West Lawn of the people's House.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess it is pretty obvious that we are 54 days 
away from an election. I listened to that speech, and the only thing 
that I can say is that we have seen a challenge here, both political 
parties in this institution, and we have stepped up to the plate, and 
we believe that accountability, transparency, and disclosure will 
provide an opportunity to address the understandable concerns that have 
existed, and I believe that we have a great opportunity with this 
legislation to bring about that change.
  Let me just respond to Mr. Obey's concern briefly, before I yield to 
my colleague, on the issue of bringing back the defense conference 
report. When we implement this rule, we will clearly be placing onto 
the shoulders of whoever is chairing that conference from the House 
side the responsibility of bringing back a conference report that 
includes a full listing, full transparency and full disclosure of all 
earmarks that were not in that measure when it was passed through 
either the House or the Senate. So for that reason we in the House 
would not be able to bring up and pass a report that did not have that 
full list that we are looking for.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Dallas, our good 
friend who has worked very hard on this issue, Mr. Hensarling.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
I certainly thank him for his leadership in helping bring this rule.
  Two hundred and seventy-three thousand dollars to implement ``garden 
mosaics'' at a local university, $179,000 to produce hydroponic 
tomatoes, $550,000 for a Museum of Glass, $400,000 for an

[[Page 18302]]

Italian market in the Bronx, $500,000 for buses at Disneyland.
  Mr. Speaker, there are many worthy earmarks, worthy of this 
institution, but today there are still too many that do not pass the 
smell test, that do not pass the laugh test, and certainly do not pass 
the fiscal responsibility test.
  Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, we have to decide do we wish to be judged by 
the principles on which we stand or the pork that we are able to carry? 
For the integrity of our institution and the fiscal future of our 
republic, I certainly hope it is the former.
  The simple but profound rule that we are debating today will empower 
Members to engage in a proper debate as to whether an earmark is truly 
worthwhile and the opportunity to challenge its merits if it is not.
  This is truly a defining moment for those who claim fealty to fiscal 
responsibility. The question, Mr. Speaker, now is will Democrats put 
their votes where their mouths are and support this rule? If they do 
not, they will once again be exposed for the reckless and wasteful 
spenders that they are.
  I want to thank the Republican leadership for bringing this rule to 
the floor. I want to thank Chairman Lewis for the great progress that 
has been made in dealing with earmarks under his watch. And I 
personally want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) for his 
courage and relentless commitment to fight irresponsible Federal 
spending in the area of earmarks, and I urge the adoption of this rule.

                              {time}  1645

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. The world knows who is doing the big spending. We have 
the worst deficit we have ever seen. And as far as stepping up to the 
plate, the Democrats never get a chance at bat. We have absolutely 
nothing we can do, all we can do is vote up or down. We don't know when 
the bills were written, we have no impact on them at all. As far as the 
deliberative body, it is all on your side. So I urge all of my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, despite the huge scandals that have 
worked this town, this Congress has failed to pass a lobbying reform 
bill, we failed to pass an ethics reform bill, we failed to deal with 
the gift ban, we failed to stop the flying on the corporate jets, we 
failed to shut the resolving door. There has been a shameful lack of 
accountability.
  Now, I support greater transparency in the earmark process, I support 
greater sunshine. But we should get right at the root of the problem 
and eliminate the worst abuses outright. Now, Mr. Emanuel and I and 
others offered an amendment the other day in the Rules Committee to 
stop the inside dealing and to stop the sweetheart deals, and the 
Republican leadership said no.
  What did that amendment do? It was pretty simple. It said a Member of 
Congress can't take Federal taxpayers' dollars and earmark them for an 
organization that employs their spouse or their family members. They 
said no to that. It says let's not take Federal taxpayer dollars and 
steer them to an organization that just employed one of their former 
staffers. They said no to that.
  Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Not out of my time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could yield myself 10 seconds out of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I would be happy to.
  Mr. DREIER. I was just going to say that there was no amendment 
offered in the Rules Committee whatsoever, so nothing was rejected.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. There was an amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. No, there wasn't. I chair the committee, and I will tell 
you that there was not an amendment that was offered in the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. There was a proposal.
  We made some proposals to address that issue.
  Mr. DREIER. It wasn't offered in the Rules Committee.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you.
  There is a proposal also out there that we have sponsored that I hope 
you will address and make in order to this particular piece of 
legislation with respect to prohibiting funds from going to somebody 
who has an organization, if that person is also the head of a political 
action committee of a leadership PAC, some simple rules of the game 
that we should all therefore be able to agree to, I hope. If you didn't 
take it up in the Rules Committee, maybe we can take it up now today if 
we all agree that those are abuses that we should end.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. If the gentleman will yield, and I will give him the 
extra time, but let me make clear that this amendment was submitted to 
the Rules Committee for consideration. The fact that you would not take 
it up is not the fault of Mr. Van Hollen.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, we submitted an amendment to the Rules 
Committee for its consideration. I am sorry that the chairman decided 
not to take up the amendment, but what the amendment did was outline 
the very simple prohibitions that we talked about, to prohibit us from 
steering Federal taxpayers' dollars to organizations that employed 
family members, that employed former staff members, or where monies 
were steered through lobbyists and lobbyist organizations that employed 
spouses or family members or former staff members.
  The key issue here is trying to end the sort of inside dealing and 
sweetheart deals that have rocked this town. We have not done that. 
What worries me about this piece of legislation is that people are 
going to pass it and they are going to go home to their congressional 
districts and they are going to tell people: We have cleaned up 
Washington; that we have stopped the abuses, that we have done 
something about the nexus between lobbying problems and the earmark 
process, when in fact we haven't done it.
  The earmarks have skyrocketed since the Republicans took control of 
Congress, and yet they have also refused to adopt a rule that we 
proposed for a pay-as-you-go budget. The President and others complain 
about earmarks, but he hasn't vetoed a single bill except the stem cell 
bill. We keep hearing about the problems on the spending side, and yet 
every one of the bills that has gone through this Congress has been 
signed by the President. Again, the only bill he has vetoed is the bill 
dealing with stem cell research.
  So if we are serious about fiscal accountability, let's adopt the 
pay-as-you-go rule that has been proposed by the Democrats, and let's 
adopt the measures that I talked about that we submitted to the Rules 
Committee that would end the worst abuses. And I still don't understand 
why the Rules Committee failed to take up and consider those proposals.
  I thank my colleague from New York for the time. Let's send a signal 
to the people around this country that we recognize the abuses that 
have taken place, that we are going to do something real, let's not 
just pretend we are doing something. There is some momentum to do 
things here. We are not taking advantage of it. Let's do that.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds to say to my 
friend that to call increasing transparency, accountability, and 
disclosure as pretend is absolutely outrageous.
  There is bipartisan concern about this problem, as stated from my 
friend from Wisconsin and from other Members on both sides of the 
aisle, and I believe that this measure will allow us to do that.
  The proposal that the gentleman is talking about may have been listed 
upstairs, but it wasn't offered on the Committee on Rules for us to 
consider. And in looking at it, Mr. Speaker, I have got to tell you 
that we found that it was the most impractical thing imaginable.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Newport 
Beach, Mr. Campbell.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House 
for less than a year, not a very long time, but it is long enough to 
know that this is real reform.

[[Page 18303]]

  In the first 90 days after I was elected to this House, I received 
70, that is 7-0, requests for various earmarks. A whole lot of those, 
frankly, were not appropriate; whether there wasn't a Federal nexus, 
whether there wasn't a public benefit, for whatever reason, they 
weren't appropriate. Now, I submitted seven of those 70 for 
consideration by the Appropriations Committee, and I have made very 
public what those seven were. Because if we are going to spend taxpayer 
money, we ought to be able to justify it and to stand behind what we 
are doing, why we are doing it, and who is doing it. And that is what 
this does. It simply says if we are going to spend the taxpayers' money 
in this way, and there is nothing inappropriate if there is a Federal 
nexus, et cetera, about Members spending money on things that have a 
Federal nexus and are appropriate and have a public good in their 
district. There is nothing wrong with that process. But you should be 
able to shine the light of day on it, to stand behind it, to say this 
is what I am doing and this is why I am doing it and this is who is 
doing it. And that is what this does.
  Now, you could sit there as some of our friends on the other side of 
the aisle want to do and try to indicate everything that is 
inappropriate. But isn't it better if we just simply say, here it is 
and here is the name, so that the person doing it, if they know that 
there is anything there, then they won't come forward with it.
  Now, I have to tell you this is unlikely to save any money, unlikely 
to reduce spending, but what it will do is I think it will add greatly 
to what we do spend being spent better.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Austin, Texas (Mr. McCaul).
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. I thank the chairman for his leadership on this 
important resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, in the past we have seen abusive earmarks in 
appropriation bills while the Members responsible hide from the 
scrutiny of the American taxpayer. We have also seen earmarks included 
in the conference process in the darkness of night. Well, this bill 
changes all that. As a former Federal prosecutor in the Public 
Integrity Section, I have always said that sunlight is the best 
disinfectant.
  From now on, our appropriations tax and authorizing earmarks will 
have a bright light shined upon them. From now on, all reported bills 
and conference reports will include a list of earmarks and the name of 
the Member requesting them. Members will also be able to challenge any 
``air-dropped earmark.''
  This is exactly the transparency and accountability that the House 
needs, and it is something that the American people have come to expect 
and deserve. I urge my colleagues to vote for this important step to 
restoring integrity to the process.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Wantage, New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to open up 
our books to the American people so that everyone in the public can be 
fully apprised as to how their hard-earned dollars are spent by the 
Federal Government. I rise in support of this bill for reform.
  Accountability is not something that should be or could be postponed. 
It should be instinctive in all of our work as stewards of the American 
taxpayer. It should be reflective, but sadly it is not.
  I am encouraged that we are taking up this bill. I believe it is an 
important first step forward in accountability. The reforms we consider 
today in essence broaden the efforts of our earlier reforms and 
lobbying reform package of legislation that we passed earlier. It goes 
now to appropriations, authorization, and tax bills.
  We must stop the process of loading up authorization bills with pork 
the way we loaded up appropriations bills. That infamous Bridge to 
Nowhere, that was an appropriations bill. It was an earmark in a bill 
authorizing Federal spending giving the congressional imprimatur to the 
project.
  We must police Federal tax laws better as well. We load up our tax 
bills with special tax breaks, making the IRS Code totally 
incomprehensible even to the most skilled and practiced CPA. We cannot 
begin the process of simplifying the Tax Code until we end the practice 
of random tax cut earmarks.
  For too long these earmarks have lived a really quiet existence in 
the back room, in the dead of night; they slip into language without 
even the public's awareness to it. But let me just make this other 
point: Not all earmarks are bad. There are local projects that are 
worthy of Federal assistance. But worthy projects will be those that 
stand up to the light of day in public scrutiny and floor debate. And 
as we work to curb spending and government waste, such accountability 
is crucial.
  So as one of my fellow Members likes to say, and I often quote him, 
we must put the focus back on the family budget and not on the Federal 
budget. In fact, until we get a handle on all earmarks, all our other 
efforts to rein in spending, to reduce the deficit, and to fund true 
national priorities like protecting our Nation from terrorism will be 
useless.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the 
previous question so I can amend the rule to give the House an 
opportunity to vote today up or down on a comprehensive reform package.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and 
extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous 
question. That will include the listing of the amendments at the Rules 
Committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership in this House 
has promised for months it would enact comprehensive ethics and 
lobbying reform legislation in this Congress. We all know that it has 
not and most likely will not happen before the House adjourns for the 
mid-term elections in just 2 weeks. But we still have time and 
opportunity to do something today if we will defeat the previous 
question.
  The amendment provides that, immediately after the House adopts this 
rule, it will bring up ethics and lobbying reform legislation that is 
identical to the motion to recommit that I offered this past May. That 
motion to recommit, which had bipartisan support, came within three 
votes of passing.

                              {time}  1700

  This legislation, called the Honest Leadership and Open Government 
Act, is a truly comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform initiative. It 
takes a tough stand on a number of the problems that have led to the 
culture of corruption that has evolved in the 109th Congress.
  I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can 
bring up legislation and give Members of this House the right to cast a 
vote for cleaning up the ethics problems that have plagued this 
institution for too long. Time is running out for the 109th Congress. 
If we do not act now, there will be no opportunity to show the American 
people that we are serious about reform.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule for 
this piece of legislation that will only live for two more weeks.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, under the very able leadership of my California 
colleague Jerry Lewis we have seen a 37 percent reduction in the number 
of earmarks. We have seen either a flat line or real cuts in the 
appropriations bills with the exception of our priorities of national 
defense and homeland security, and we have seen a very strong 
commitment to institutional reform. I take my hat off to Jerry Lewis 
for the fine work that he has done.
  Mr. Speaker, we are constantly looking at more reform. The Speaker of 
the House, the majority leader, I believe

[[Page 18304]]

that Members on both sides of the aisle believe that we should pursue 
greater transparency, greater disclosure and greater accountability. I 
have heard Democrats and Republicans alike say that over the past hour. 
We have an opportunity to do just that right now.
  We, I am very happy to say, have put into place bold economic 
policies that have led to a $58 billion reduction in the deficit over 
last year's number.
  We today have the lowest unemployment rate on the face of the earth. 
There is no other country in the world with an unemployment rate as low 
as our unemployment rate, and yet we need to continue to do everything 
that we can to try and rein in Federal spending.
  I, as a Republican, believe that the reach of government not only 
costs money, but it impinges on individual initiative and opportunity. 
I believe that as we focus on this kind of reform we will be in a 
position where we will be able to improve the quality of life and the 
standard of living for our constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on 
this rule.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
legislation before us today. This legislation is not real reform; it is 
merely an empty shell riddled with loopholes that will allow the 
culture of corruption that has infected this House to continue 
virtually unchecked.
  This bill--for which the text has only been available for less than 
12 hours--is simply a poorly masked effort by Republicans to distract 
voters from the fact that they have failed to live up to their promises 
to pass real ethics and lobbying reform. The only reform they can claim 
victory for is banning former Members who are now lobbyists from the 
Members' gym. While this is of course an admirable step, it is a baby 
step at most.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant--and I 
can truly say that this House has never been more in need of a good 
dose of sunshine. Over the past few years, we have seen some truly 
appalling abuses of power. Legislation has been passed without Members 
even knowing what they are voting for; votes have been held open for 
record amounts of time; and lobbyists have had more access to 
conference negotiations than Members of the conference. This shameful 
behavior should not be acceptable to Members of either party, and this 
bill is just another example of how Congress has done nothing to stop 
it.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and to make valid, 
meaningful reform a genuine priority for the 109th Congress.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of H. Res. 1000, which will 
require disclosure of earmark sponsors in the text of any legislation 
considered in the House. This is a common-sense change that should 
improve the transparency of the earmarking process and eliminate 
questions about who is really behind the funding of thousands of 
projects.
  I believe securing federal funding for local projects can be an 
important role for a member of Congress, so long as the project meets 
basic requirements. I use two tests to determine whether to seek 
funding. First, I ensure that transportation projects have the support 
of the local chief executive, regional planning agency and the 
Connecticut Department of Transportation.
  Secondly, I apply my ``community meeting'' test. If I can't justify 
the funding to constituents, I know it's not a project I should 
support.
  Earmarks have funded a broad array of transportation projects in the 
Fourth Congressional District, including the Bridgeport Intermodal 
Center, the Norwalk Pulse Point Improvement project, and the Stamford 
Urban Transitway, and projects promoting urban development in our urban 
areas and education.
  Unfortunately, projects like Alaska's ``Bridge to Nowhere,'' taint 
views of all congressionally-directed funding.
  I do not believe adoption of this resolution today lessens the need 
for comprehensive lobbying and ethics reform, because today's action 
still does not prevent the type of behavior we have witnessed in recent 
months. The resolution does provide additional sunlight on the process, 
however, which I think we can all agree is a good thing,
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution 
to reform the earmark process in Congress.
  Not all spending requests are bad. Many of them fund legitimate 
public projects.
  The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, and Members 
of Congress are often in a better position to determine the priorities 
of their districts than government employees in Washington.
  However, the often secret process that has been used in recent years 
to fund earmarks has led to wasteful and unnecessary spending.
  The earmark process needs more sunshine on it, and this new rule 
provides for that.
  This bill will bring greater transparency to the legislative process, 
ensuring that Members of Congress are held accountable for their 
requests.
  By requiring a list of earmarks and their sponsors to accompany every 
bill and conference report considered by the House we will deter 
wrongful behavior and give the public a better view of what their 
elected officials are doing in Washington.
  Full disclosure will enable our constituents to decide whether 
spending requests are justified and whether they serve the public 
interest.
  I have long advocated for this important reform and I am glad the 
House is acting on it.
  Republicans in the House have a strong record of implementing ethics 
reform. This rule change governing earmarks represents a great 
improvement over the current system and is another example of our 
party's leadership on ethics reform.
  At this time, I request unanimous consent to place in the Record an 
op-ed I wrote on the subject.
  I am hopeful that we will continue to implement additional reforms, 
including greater public disclosure of lobbying activities, and 
continue to uphold the integrity of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I am glad this resolution has been brought to the floor 
and urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am inserting in the Record a list of 
additional Members who would like to be considered as cosponsors of H. 
Res. 1000.
  Additional Members include: Mark Green, John Linder, and Charles 
Bass.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering H. Res. 1003, a 
rule providing that, upon its adoption, H. Res. 1000, providing for 
earmarking reform in the House of Representatives is hereby adopted.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are considering an important reform that 
members of both parties have supported. In fact, it was a key provision 
in the House-passed Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act. 
Specifically, with this new rule, member-directed spending to projects 
in their district, or earmarks, will no longer be anonymous.
  As it stands now, there are no disclosure requirements for earmarks 
in appropriations, tax and authorizing legislation. Earmarks can be 
buried in the text of bills that often number into the thousands of 
pages. There is no easy way to account for how many earmarks are in a 
bill and who is sponsoring them.
  This new rule requires sponsors of earmarks to be listed in committee 
reports. Conference reports must also have a list of earmarks that are 
``airdropped'' into the agreement.
  We are blowing away the fog of anonymity so the public can have a 
clear picture of what the projects are, how much they cost and who is 
sponsoring them. This is a victory for fiscal responsibility and a 
victory for spending taxpayer dollars wisely.
  As an enforcement mechanism, this new rule also provides for a 
question of consideration when a bill or conference report does not 
contain a list of earmarks. The question of consideration is debatable 
for 30 minutes--15 minutes equally divided.
  If a Member feels strongly enough about a proposed earmark, they will 
have to attach their name to it. And they need to be prepared to make 
their case in full view of their colleagues and constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, while the report to accompany H. Res. 1000 addresed 
several issues regarding the implementation of this new rule, I believe 
that it is important to further clarify how this rule will operate 
after its adoption.
  First, this rule will become effective immediately upon its adoption. 
Any report filed by a committee from that point forward should address 
this new rule. If there are earmarks in the bill or report, they should 
be listed appropriately; if there are none, I would encourage the 
committee chairmen to include a statement to that effect, as is often 
the current practice with other reporting requirements under rule XIII.
  Secondly, with regard to measures in conference, we recognize that 
the exact requirments of the resolution may be problematic given that 
this rule was not in place at the point of House consideration. We 
believe that it is important that committee chairmen make a good faith 
effort to comply with the spirit of the rule, and would regard 
inclusion of a list of earmarks which were not in either the House or 
Senate bill or their accompanying reports, i.e. ``airdropped'' 
earmarks, as meeting the intent of this new rule.

[[Page 18305]]

  Mr. Speaker, the earmark reform will build on the reforms already 
being implemented by the Appropriations Committee--reforms that have 
reduced the number of earmarks this year by 37 percent. Overall, 
spending on member projects was reduced $7.8 billion below last year. 
Over the last 2 years, Member project spending has decreased by over 
$10 billion.
  I want to thank Chairman Lewis and the Appropriations Committee for 
making significant progress in reining-in government spending.
  I also want to make very clear that our focus is not solely on 
appropriations. For the reform to be effective, it must be 
comprehensive, and that was the commitment made by Speaker Hastert and 
the leadership of the House. So let me point out that this earmark 
reform applies across the board. It does not just apply to some 
committees. It covers all committees and all appropriations, tax and 
authorizing legislation that moves through regular order.
  Mr. Speaker, we have taken great care to clearly and precisely state 
what constitutes a tax, an appropriations and an authorizing earmark. 
And the good news is that there is more agreement than disagreement on 
these definitions. Yet clearly, there's no magic bullet. There is not 
going to be one definition that will be perfect and please everybody. 
But at the end of the day, we have to come together and move this 
process forward. If there's an earmark in a bill, it belongs on a list. 
It's just that simple.
  Now, is this new disclosure going to completely end the practice of 
earmarking? No. But it will shine a spotlight on earmarks without 
grinding the legislative process to a halt.
  And let me make very clear that the larger goal of this new rule is 
to make a profound and lasting change in how this institution handles 
earmarks and spends taxpayer dollars. The goal is to increase 
transparency and accountability. And the goal is to pull back the 
curtain on earmarks for the public, who have every right to know.
  For this earmark reform to be both meaningful and lasting, everyone, 
from commttee chairman on down, must make a good faith effort to comply 
with the spirit of the new rule. Our leadership--and certainly the 
Rules Committee--has made such a commitment. We are determined to make 
this work.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that while this is an 
important milestone on the path toward reform, we have not reached the 
goal-line. Reform is a continuous process. It gains momentum from 
members who never let up and never settle for the status quo. I urge my 
colleagues to vote yes for reforming earmarks and yes to setting the 
stage for more reforms down the road.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
support of H. Res. 1000, to provide for earmark reform in the House of 
Representatives. This measure, I believe, will help bring much-needed 
transparency and accountability for funding projects in the House. It 
will do this by obliging Committees to list the names of House Members 
next to the projects that they request. Identifying project sponsors 
will allow the public to see how their representatives are choosing to 
spend their tax dollars.
  I am pleased that this legislation will include ALL House Committees. 
That means this resolution will identify the sponsors of special tax 
breaks, and special programs as well as those who are asking for 
appropriations earmarks.
  Despite the fact that I support this bill, I am disappointed in its 
limitations. In the first place, the bill only applies to House rules. 
It's not the law of the land. So if there are violations, there are no 
legal consequences. Second, the bill does nothing to limit or at least 
define Member earmarks. That means that Members will continue to use 
their seniority and committee assignments to get special deals for 
their districts. While I'm a strong supporter of bringing tax dollars 
back to the district, I firmly believe that federal programs and 
projects need to be awarded based on merit and need, and should be 
subject to scrutiny and rigorous review.
  Having said all this, H. Res. 1000 is a step forward. I am hopeful 
that greater transparency for the earmarking will allow the public to 
become more knowledgeable about the process. At the very least, this 
will let them know how their taxes are being sent. And at the most, it 
will create the oversight and accountability we need to lead to better 
allocation of our precious and limited resources.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this sham 
legislation and call on this Congress to pass serious reform 
legislation to clean up the corruption in the People's House.
  The culture of corruption under the current Republican Majority is a 
stain on the honor of everyone who serves this institution. The former 
Republican Majority Leader has been indicted, one former Republican 
Member of the Appropriations Committee is serving a lengthy Federal 
prison term, and just this morning we learned that a former powerful 
Republican Committee Chairman has agreed to plead guilty to criminal 
charges. And throughout the current l09th Congress, the Republican 
Leadership has shut down the Ethics Committee that has responsibility 
for maintaining the integrity of the U.S. House.
  I support full disclosure of all Member-directed appropriations to 
shine a light on the process and ensure any special interest provisions 
can pass muster of public scrutiny. It is well past time for Congress 
to pass serious lobbying reform to clean up this institution.
  Unfortunately, House Resolution 1000, the so-called Earmark Reform 
Act is a fraud. It would do nothing to expose the Alaskan ``Bridge to 
Nowhere'' because it does not apply to authorization bills. And on 
appropriations bills, this proposal sets up a huge loophole because it 
does not apply to what is known as the Manager's Amendment. This 
omission simply sets up a new conduit for the Republicans' earmark 
excesses.
  Mr. Speaker, I regret the Republican party bosses refuse to bring 
legislation to clean up the corruption in Congress, and I urge my 
colleagues to join me in voting against this scam legislation.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of real, 
comprehensive lobbying and earmark reform, and in opposition to H. Res. 
1000. While Republican leaders claim that this legislation is earmark 
reform, major loopholes in their bill allow future boondoggles like the 
Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere to pass through Congress without full public 
scrutiny. Further, the bill abandons any lobbying reform to end the 
Republican culture of corruption--typified by the Jack Abramoff and 
Duke Cunningham scandals.
  The Republican majority has allowed these scandals and pet projects 
to run rampant, underscoring the dire need for comprehensive lobbying 
reform. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, 
since President Bush took office, federal spending on earmarks has more 
than doubled--from $33 billion in 2000 to $67 billion in 2006. Sadly, 
Republicans have failed to deliver on reform. On September 5th, a USA 
Today editorial said, ``Congress' answer to this ethics catastrophe has 
been a pair of competing measures in the House and Senate, which fall 
far short of what was promised in January but allow incumbents 
campaigning for re-election to claim they `voted for lobbying 
reform.'''
  The reality is that H. Res. 1000 will not save one taxpayer dollar, 
will not remove a single earmark, and does not cover all earmarks. This 
sham reform bill is solely a symbolic effort to hide the fact that the 
Republican Majority has failed the Nation on fiscal matters.
  I join my Democratic colleagues in supporting a true, comprehensive 
lobbying reform bill that would ban travel on corporate jets, prohibit 
lobbyist gifts, slow the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K 
Street, shut down the K Street project in which jobs in lobbying firms 
were traded for legislative favors; shine the light on earmarks so that 
special interest provisions cannot be slipped into bills without public 
scrutiny, and put an end to some of the procedural abuses that have 
flourished in the Republican-controlled House.
  Democrats are fighting for these comprehensive reforms to ensure that 
Congress is held to the highest ethical standards. Corruption has come 
at great cost to the American people--from the cost of prescription 
drugs to the price at the pump.
  Mr. Speaker, my fellow Democrats and I are fighting for a new 
direction, because Americans want and deserve the real reform that 
restores accountability, honesty and openness in Washington.
  The material previously referred by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

 Previous Question on H. Res. 1003 Rule providing for consideration of 
                              H. Res. 1000

       At the end of the resolution add the following new 
     sections:
       ``Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
     it shall be in order without intervention of any point of 
     order to consider in the House a bill consisting of the text 
     specified in Section 3. The bill shall be considered as read 
     for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) 60 minutes of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.''
       Sec. 3. The text referred to in section 2 is as follows:

                                 H.R.--

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

[[Page 18306]]



     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Honest 
     Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.

                  TITLE I--CLOSING THE REVOLVING DOOR

Sec. 101. Extension of lobbying ban for former Members and employees of 
              Congress and executive branch officials.
Sec. 102. Elimination of floor privileges and access to Members 
              exercise facilities for former Member lobbyists.
Sec. 103. Disclosure by Members of Congress and senior congressional 
              staff of employment negotiations.
Sec. 104. Ethics review of employment negotiations by executive branch 
              officials.
Sec. 105. Wrongfully influencing a private entity's employment 
              decisions or practices.

              TITLE II--FULL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING

Sec. 201. Quarterly filing of lobbying disclosure reports.
Sec. 202. Electronic filing of lobbying disclosure reports.
Sec. 203. Additional lobbying disclosure requirements.
Sec. 204. Disclosure of paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.
Sec. 205. Disclosure of lobbying activities by certain coalitions and 
              associations.
Sec. 206. Disclosure by registered lobbyists of past executive and 
              congressional employment.
Sec. 207. Public database of lobbying disclosure information.
Sec. 208. Conforming amendment.

         TITLE III--RESTRICTING CONGRESSIONAL TRAVEL AND GIFTS

Sec. 301. Ban on gifts from lobbyists.
Sec. 302. Prohibition on privately funded travel.
Sec. 303. Prohibiting lobbyist organization and participation in 
              congressional travel.
Sec. 304. Prohibition on obligation of funds for travel by legislative 
              and executive branch officials.
Sec. 305. Per diem expenses for congressional travel.

             TITLE IV--ENFORCEMENT OF LOBBYING RESTRICTIONS

Sec. 401. Office of public integrity.
Sec. 402. Increased civil and criminal penalties for failure to comply 
              with lobbying disclosure requirements.
Sec. 403. Penalty for false certification in connection with 
              congressional travel.
Sec. 404. Mandatory annual ethics training for House employees.

                        TITLE V--OPEN GOVERNMENT

Sec. 501. Fiscal responsibility.
Sec. 502. Curbing abuses of power.
Sec. 503. Ending 2-day work weeks.
Sec. 504. Knowing what the House is voting on.
Sec. 505. Full and open debate in conference.

               TITLE VI--ANTI-CRONYISM AND PUBLIC SAFETY

Sec. 601. Minimum requirements for political appointees holding public 
              safety positions.
Sec. 602. Effective date.

            TITLE VII--ZERO TOLERANCE FOR CONTRACT CHEATERS

Sec. 701. Public availability of Federal contract awards.
Sec. 702. Prohibition on award of monopoly contracts.
Sec. 703. Competition in multiple award contracts.
Sec. 704. Suspension and debarment of unethical contractors.
Sec. 705. Criminal sanctions for cheating taxpayers and wartime fraud.
Sec. 706. Prohibition on contractor conflicts of interest.
Sec. 707. Disclosure of Government contractor overcharges.
Sec. 708. Penalties for improper sole-source contracting procedures.
Sec. 709. Stopping the revolving door.

                   TITLE VIII--PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES

Sec. 801. Presidential libraries.

              TITLE IX--FORFEITURE OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS

Sec. 901.  Loss of pensions accrued during service as a Member of 
              Congress for abusing the public trust.

                  TITLE I--CLOSING THE REVOLVING DOOR

     SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF LOBBYING BAN FOR FORMER MEMBERS AND 
                   EMPLOYEES OF CONGRESS AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
                   OFFICIALS.

       Section 207 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``One-year'' and 
     inserting ``Two-year'';
       (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``1 year'' and inserting 
     ``2 years'' in both places it appears; and
       (C) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``1-year period'' and 
     inserting ``2-year period;''
       (2) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``1 year'' and inserting 
     ``2 years''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``1 year'' and 
     inserting ``2 years''; and
       (3) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``1 year'' and 
     inserting ``2 years'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``1 year'' and 
     inserting ``2 years'';
       (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``1 year'' and inserting 
     ``2 years'';
       (D) in paragraph (4), by striking ``1 year'' and inserting 
     ``2 years'';
       (E) in paragraph (5)(A), by striking ``1 year'' and 
     inserting ``2 years''; and
       (F) in paragraph (6), by striking ``1-year period'' and 
     inserting ``2-year period''.

     SEC. 102. ELIMINATION OF FLOOR PRIVILEGES AND ACCESS TO 
                   MEMBERS EXERCISE FACILITIES FOR FORMER MEMBER 
                   LOBBYISTS.

       (a) Floor Privileges.--(1) Clause 4 of rule IV of the Rules 
     of the House of Representatives is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``4. (a) A former Member, Delegate, or Resident 
     Commissioner; a former Parliamentarian of the House; or a 
     former elected officer of the House or former minority 
     employee nominated as an elected officer of the House; or a 
     head of a department shall not be entitled to the privilege 
     of admission to the Hall of the House and rooms leading 
     thereto if he or she--
       ``(1) is a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign 
     principal as those terms are defined in clause 5 of rule XXV;
       ``(2) has any direct personal or pecuniary interest in any 
     legislative measure pending before the House or reported by a 
     committee; or
       ``(3) is in the employ of or represents any party or 
     organization for the purpose of influencing, directly or 
     indirectly, the passage, defeat, or amendment of any 
     legislative proposal.
       ``(b) The Speaker may promulgate regulations that exempt 
     ceremonial or educational functions from the restrictions of 
     this clause.''.
       (2) Clause 2(a)(12) of rule IV of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives is amended by inserting ``(subject to clause 
     4)'' before the period.
       (b) Exercise Facilities.--(1) The House of Representatives 
     may not provide access to any exercise facility which is made 
     available exclusively to Members and former Members of the 
     House of Representatives to any former Member who is a 
     lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 
     or any successor statute. For purposes of this section, the 
     term ``Member of the House of Representatives'' includes a 
     Delegate or Resident Commissioner to the Congress.
       (2) The Committee on House Administration shall promulgate 
     regulations to carry out this section.

     SEC. 103. DISCLOSURE BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND SENIOR 
                   CONGRESSIONAL STAFF OF EMPLOYMENT NEGOTIATIONS.

       Rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is 
     amended by redesignating clause 14 as clause 15 and by adding 
     at the end the following new clause:
       ``14. (a) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 
     officer, or employee of the House covered by the post 
     employment restriction provisions of title 18, United States 
     Code, shall notify the Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct that he or she is negotiating or has any arrangement 
     concerning prospective private employment if a conflict of 
     interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest may 
     exist.
       ``(b) The disclosure and notification under subparagraph 
     (a) shall be made within 3 business days after the 
     commencement of such negotiation or arrangement.
       ``(c) A Member or employee to whom this rule applies shall 
     recuse himself or herself from any matter in which there is a 
     conflict of interest for that Member or employee under this 
     rule and notify the Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct of such recusal.
       ``(d)(1) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
     shall develop guidelines concerning conduct which is covered 
     by this paragraph.
       ``(2) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall 
     maintain a current public record of all notifications 
     received under subparagraph (a) and of all recusals under 
     subparagraph (c).''.

     SEC. 104. ETHICS REVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT NEGOTIATIONS BY 
                   EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS.

       Section 208 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1)--
       (A) by inserting after ``the Government official 
     responsible for appointment to his or her position'' the 
     following: ``and the Office of Government Ethics''; and
       (B) by striking ``a written determination made by such 
     official'' and inserting ``a written determination made by 
     the Office of Government Ethics, after consultation with such 
     official,''; and

[[Page 18307]]

       (2) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``the official 
     responsible for the employee's appointment, after review of'' 
     and inserting ``the Office of Government Ethics, after 
     consultation with the official responsible for the employee's 
     appointment and after review of''; and
       (3) in subsection (d)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``Upon request'' and all that follows 
     through ``Ethics in Government Act of 1978.'' and inserting 
     ``In each case in which the Office of Government Ethics makes 
     a determination granting an exemption under subsection (b)(1) 
     or (b)(3) to a person, the Office shall, not later than 3 
     business days after making such determination, make available 
     to the public pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 
     105 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, and publish in 
     the Federal Register, such determination and the materials 
     submitted by such person in requesting such exemption.''; and
       (B) by striking ``the agency may withhold'' and inserting 
     ``the Office of Government Ethics may withhold''.

     SEC. 105. WRONGFULLY INFLUENCING A PRIVATE ENTITY'S 
                   EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS OR PRACTICES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 11 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 226. Wrongfully influencing a private entity's 
       employment decisions by a Member of Congress

       ``Whoever, being a Senator or Representative in, or a 
     Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress or an 
     employee of either House of Congress, with the intent to 
     influence on the basis of partisan political affiliation an 
     employment decision or employment practice of any private 
     entity--
       ``(1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or 
     withhold, an official act; or
       ``(2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the 
     official act of another;

     shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more 
     than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding 
     any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United 
     States.''.
       (b) No Inference.--Nothing in section 226 of title 18, 
     United States Code, as added by this section, shall be 
     construed to create any inference with respect to whether the 
     activity described in section 226 of title 18, United States 
     Code, was already a criminal or civil offense prior to the 
     enactment of this Act, including sections 201(b), 201(c), and 
     216 of title 18, United States Code.
       (c) Chapter Analysis.--The chapter analysis for chapter 11 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

``226. Wrongfully influencing a private entity's employment decisions 
              by a Member of Congress.''.

       (d) House Rules.--Rule XXIII of the Rules of the House (as 
     amended by section 103) is further amended by redesignating 
     clause 15 as clause 16, and by inserting after clause 14 the 
     following new clause:
       ``15. No Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall, 
     with the intent to influence on the basis of partisan 
     political affiliation an employment decision or employment 
     practice of any private entity--
       ``(1) take or withhold, or offer or threaten to take or 
     withhold, an official act; or
       ``(2) influence, or offer or threaten to influence, the 
     official act of another.''.

              TITLE II--FULL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING

     SEC. 201. QUARTERLY FILING OF LOBBYING DISCLOSURE REPORTS.

       (a) Quarterly Filing Required.--Section 5 of the Lobbying 
     Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1604) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``Semiannual'' and inserting ``Quarterly'';
       (B) by striking ``the semiannual period'' and all that 
     follows through ``July of each year'' and insert ``the 
     quarterly period beginning on the first days of January, 
     April, July, and October of each year''; and
       (C) by striking ``such semiannual period'' and insert 
     ``such quarterly period''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``semiannual report'' and inserting ``quarterly report'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``semiannual filing 
     period'' and inserting ``quarterly period'';
       (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``semiannual period'' and 
     inserting ``quarterly period''; and
       (D) in paragraph (4), by striking ``semiannual filing 
     period'' and inserting ``quarterly period''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Definition.--Section 3(10) of the Lobbying Disclosure 
     Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1602) is amended by striking ``six 
     month period'' and inserting ``three-month period''.
       (2) Registration.--Section 4 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act 
     of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1603) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(3)(A), by striking ``semiannual 
     period'' and inserting ``quarterly period''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)(3)(A), by striking ``semiannual 
     period'' and inserting ``quarterly period''.
       (3) Enforcement.--Section 6 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act 
     of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1605) is amended in paragraph (6) by 
     striking ``semiannual period'' and inserting ``quarterly 
     period''.
       (4) Estimates.--Section 15 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act 
     of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1610) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``semiannual period'' 
     and inserting ``quarterly period''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``semiannual period'' 
     and inserting ``quarterly period''.
       (5) Dollar amounts.--
       (A) Section 4 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 
     U.S.C. 1603) is amended--
       (i) in subsection (a)(3)(A)(i), by striking ``$5,000'' and 
     inserting ``$2,500'';
       (ii) in subsection (a)(3)(A)(ii), by striking ``$20,000'' 
     and inserting ``$10,000'';
       (iii) in subsection (b)(3)(A), by striking ``$10,000'' and 
     inserting ``$5,000''; and
       (iv) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ``$10,000'' and 
     inserting ``$5,000''.
       (B) Section 5 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 
     U.S.C. 1604) is amended--
       (i) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``$10,000'' and 
     ``$20,000'' and inserting ``$5,000'' and ``$10,000'', 
     respectively; and
       (ii) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``$10,000'' both 
     places such term appears and inserting ``$5,000''.

     SEC. 202. ELECTRONIC FILING OF LOBBYING DISCLOSURE REPORTS.

       Section 5 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 
     1604) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Electronic Filing Required.--A report required to be 
     filed under this section shall be filed in electronic form, 
     in addition to any other form that may be required by the 
     Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives. The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of 
     the House of Representatives shall provide for public access 
     to such reports on the Internet.''.

     SEC. 203. ADDITIONAL LOBBYING DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Disclosure of Contributions and Payments.--Section 5(b) 
     of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1604(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5), as added by section 204(c), by 
     striking the period and inserting a semicolon; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) for each registrant (and for any political committee, 
     as defined in section 301(4) of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(4)), affiliated with such 
     registrant) and for each employee listed as a lobbyist by a 
     registrant under paragraph 2(C)--
       ``(A) the name of each Federal candidate or officeholder, 
     leadership PAC, or political party committee, to whom a 
     contribution was made, and the amount of such contribution; 
     and
       ``(B) the name of each Federal candidate or officeholder, 
     or a leadership PAC of such candidate or officeholder, or 
     political party committee for whom a fundraising event was 
     hosted, cohosted, or otherwise sponsored, the date and 
     location of the event, and the total amount raised by the 
     event;
       ``(7) a certification that the lobbying firm or registrant 
     has not provided, requested, or directed a gift, including 
     travel, to a Member or employee of Congress in violation of 
     clause 5 of rule XXV of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives;
       ``(8) the date, recipient, and amount of funds contributed 
     or disbursed by, or arranged by, a registrant or employee 
     listed as a lobbyist--
       ``(A) to pay the costs of an event to honor or recognize a 
     covered legislative branch official or covered executive 
     branch official;
       ``(B) to, or on behalf of, an entity that is named for a 
     covered legislative branch official or covered executive 
     branch official, or to a person or entity in recognition of 
     such official;
       ``(C) to an entity established, financed, maintained, or 
     controlled by a covered legislative branch official or 
     covered executive branch official, or an entity designated by 
     such official; or
       ``(D) to pay the costs of a meeting, retreat, conference or 
     other similar event held by, or for the benefit of, 1 or more 
     covered legislative branch officials or covered executive 
     branch officials;

     except that this paragraph shall not apply to any payment or 
     reimbursement made from funds required to be reported under 
     section 304 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 434); and
       ``(9) the name of each Member of Congress contacted by 
     lobbyists employed by the registrant on behalf of the 
     client.''.
       (b) Leadership PAC.--Section 3 of the Lobbying Disclosure 
     Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1602) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(17) Leadership pac.--The term `leadership PAC' means an 
     unauthorized multicandidate political committee that is 
     established, financed, maintained, and controlled by an 
     individual who is a Federal officeholder or a candidate for 
     Federal office.''.
       (c) Full and Detailed Accounting.--Section 5(c)(1) of the 
     Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1604(c)(1)) is 
     amended by striking ``shall be rounded to the nearest 
     $20,000''

[[Page 18308]]

     and inserting ``shall be rounded to the nearest $1,000''.
       (d) Notification of Members.--Section 6 of the Lobbying 
     Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1605) is amended in 
     paragraph (2) by striking ``review, and, where necessary'' 
     and inserting ``review and--
       ``(A) if a report states (under section 5(b)(9) or 
     otherwise) that a Member of Congress was contacted, 
     immediately notify that Member of that report; and
       ``(B) where necessary,''.

     SEC. 204. DISCLOSURE OF PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS 
                   LOBBYING.

       (a) Disclosure of Paid Efforts to Stimulate Grassroots 
     Lobbying.--Section 3 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 
     (2 U.S.C. 1602) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate 
     grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots 
     lobbying.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(18) Grassroots lobbying.--The term `grassroots lobbying' 
     means the voluntary efforts of members of the general public 
     to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal 
     officials or to encourage other members of the general public 
     to do the same.
       ``(19) Paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.--The 
     term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying'--
       ``(A) means any paid attempt to influence the general 
     public, or segments thereof, to engage in grassroots lobbying 
     or lobbying contacts; and
       ``(B) does not include any attempt described in 
     subparagraph (A) by a person or entity directed to its 
     members, employees, officers or shareholders, unless such 
     attempt is financed with funds directly or indirectly 
     received from or arranged by a lobbyist or other registrant 
     under this Act retained by another person or entity.
       ``(20) Grassroots lobbying firm.--The term `grassroots 
     lobbying firm' means a person or entity that--
       ``(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid 
     efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such 
     clients; and
       ``(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an 
     aggregate of $50,000 or more for such efforts in any 
     quarterly period.''.
       (b) Registration.--Section 4(a) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 
     1603(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``45'' and inserting 
     ``20'';
       (2) in the flush matter at the end of paragraph (3)(A)--
       (A) by striking ``as estimated'' and inserting ``as 
     included''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following: ``For purposes of 
     clauses (i) and (ii) the term `lobbying activities' shall not 
     include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Grassroots lobbying firms.--Not later than 20 days 
     after a grassroots lobbying firm first is retained by a 
     client to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots 
     lobbying, such grassroots lobbying firm shall register with 
     the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives.''.
       (c) Separate Itemization of Paid Efforts to Stimulate 
     Grassroots Lobbying.--Section 5(b) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 
     1604(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by--
       (A) inserting after ``total amount of all income'' the 
     following: ``(including a separate good faith estimate of the 
     total amount relating specifically to paid efforts to 
     stimulate grassroots lobbying and, within that amount, a good 
     faith estimate of the total amount specifically relating to 
     paid advertising)''; and
       (B) striking ``and'' after the semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (4), by--
       (A) inserting after ``total expenses'' the following: 
     ``(including a good faith estimate of the total amount 
     relating specifically to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots 
     lobbying and, within that total amount, a good faith estimate 
     of the total amount specifically relating to paid 
     advertising)''; and
       (B) striking the period and inserting a semicolon;
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) in the case of a grassroots lobbying firm, for each 
     client--
       ``(A) a good faith estimate of the total disbursements made 
     for grassroots lobbying activities, and a subtotal for 
     disbursements made for grassroots lobbying through paid 
     advertising;
       ``(B) identification of each person or entity other than an 
     employee who received a disbursement of funds for grassroots 
     lobbying activities of $10,000 or more during the period and 
     the total amount each person or entity received; and
       ``(C) if such disbursements are made through a person or 
     entity who serves as an intermediary or conduit, 
     identification of each such intermediary or conduit, 
     identification of the person or entity who receives the 
     funds, and the total amount each such person or entity 
     received.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:

     ``Subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (2) shall not apply 
     with respect to reports relating to paid efforts to stimulate 
     grassroots lobbying activities.''.
       (d) Large Grassroots Expenditure.--Section 5(a) of the Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 1604(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``No later'' and inserting:
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), not 
     later''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Large grassroots expenditure.--A registrant that is a 
     grassroots lobbying firm and that receives income of, or 
     spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate amount of $250,000 or 
     more on paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying for a 
     client, or for a group of clients for a joint effort, shall 
     file--
       ``(A) a report under this section not later than 20 days 
     after receiving, spending, or agreeing to spend that amount; 
     and
       ``(B) an additional report not later than 20 days after 
     each time such registrant receives income of, or spends or 
     agrees to spend, an aggregate amount of $250,000 or more on 
     paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying for a client, 
     or for a group of clients for a joint effort.''.

     SEC. 205. DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES BY CERTAIN 
                   COALITIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 3 of the Lobbying 
     Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1602) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(2) Client.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `client' means any person or 
     entity that employs or retains another person for financial 
     or other compensation to conduct lobbying activities on 
     behalf of that person or entity. A person or entity whose 
     employees act as lobbyists on its own behalf is both a client 
     and an employer of such employees.
       ``(B) Treatment of coalitions and associations.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clauses (ii) and 
     (iii), in the case of a coalition or association that employs 
     or retains other persons to conduct lobbying activities, each 
     of the individual members of the coalition or association 
     (and not the coalition or association) is the client. For 
     purposes of section 4(a)(3), the preceding sentence shall not 
     apply, and the coalition or association shall be treated as 
     the client.
       ``(ii) Exception for certain tax-exempt associations.--In 
     case of an association--

       ``(I) which is described in paragraph (3) of section 501(c) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax 
     under section 501(a) of such Code, or
       ``(II) which is described in any other paragraph of section 
     501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from 
     tax under section 501(a) of such Code and which has 
     substantial exempt activities other than lobbying with 
     respect to the specific issue for which it engaged the person 
     filing the registration statement under section 4,

     the association (and not its members) shall be treated as the 
     client.
       ``(iii) Exception for certain members.--

       ``(I) In general.--Information on a member of a coalition 
     or association need not be included in any registration under 
     section 4 if the amount reasonably expected to be contributed 
     by such member toward the activities of the coalition or 
     association of influencing legislation is less than $500 per 
     any quarterly period.
       ``(II) Exception.--Subclause (I) shall not apply with 
     respect to any member who unexpectedly makes aggregate 
     contributions of more than $500 in any quarterly period, and 
     the date the aggregate of such contributions first exceeds 
     $500 in such period shall be treated as the date of first 
     employment or retention to make a lobbying contact for 
     purposes of section 4.
       ``(III) No donor or membership list disclosure.--No 
     disclosure is required under this Act if it is publicly 
     available knowledge that the organization that would be 
     identified is affiliated with the client or has been publicly 
     disclosed to have provided funding to the client, unless the 
     organization in whole or in major part plans, supervises or 
     controls such lobbying activities. Nothing in this paragraph 
     shall be construed to require the disclosure of any 
     information about individuals who are members of, or donors 
     to, an entity treated as a client by this Act or an 
     organization identified under this paragraph.''.

       ``(iv) Look-thru rules.--In the case of a coalition or 
     association which is treated as a client under the first 
     sentence of clause (i)--

       ``(I) such coalition or association shall be treated as 
     employing or retaining other persons to conduct lobbying 
     activities for purposes of determining whether any individual 
     member thereof is treated as a client under clause (i), and
       ``(II) information on such coalition or association need 
     not be included in any registration under section 4 of the 
     coalition or association with respect to which it is treated 
     as a client under clause (i).''.

       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply to--
       (A) coalitions and associations listed on registration 
     statements filed under section 4 of the Lobbying Disclosure 
     Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1603) after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, and
       (B) coalitions and associations for whom any lobbying 
     contact is made after the date of the enactment of this Act.

[[Page 18309]]

       (2) Special rule.--In the case of any coalition or 
     association to which the amendments made by this Act apply by 
     reason of paragraph (1)(B), the person required by such 
     section 4 to file a registration statement with respect to 
     such coalition or association shall file a new registration 
     statement within 30 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 206. DISCLOSURE BY REGISTERED LOBBYISTS OF PAST 
                   EXECUTIVE AND CONGRESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT.

       Section 4(b)(6) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 
     U.S.C. 1603(b)(6)) is amended by striking ``or a covered 
     legislative branch official'' and all that follows through 
     ``as a lobbyist on behalf of the client,'' and inserting ``or 
     a covered legislative branch official,''.

     SEC. 207. PUBLIC DATABASE OF LOBBYING DISCLOSURE INFORMATION.

       (a) Database Required.--Section 6 of the Lobbying 
     Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1605) is further amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (8) by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(9) maintain, and make available to the public over the 
     Internet, without a fee or other access charge, in a 
     searchable, sortable, and downloadable manner, an electronic 
     database that--
       ``(A) includes the information contained in registrations 
     and reports filed under this Act;
       ``(B) directly links the information it contains to the 
     information disclosed in reports filed with the Federal 
     Election Commission under section 304 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434); and
       ``(C) is searchable and sortable to the maximum extent 
     practicable, including searchable and sortable by each of the 
     categories of information described in section 4(b) or 
     5(b).''.
       (b) Availability of Reports.--Section 6 of such Act is 
     further amended in paragraph (4) by inserting before the 
     semicolon at the end the following: ``and, in the case of a 
     report filed in electronic form pursuant to section 5(d), 
     shall make such report available for public inspection over 
     the Internet not more than 48 hours after the report is so 
     filed''.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     paragraph (9) of section 6 of such Act, as added by 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 208. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

       The requirements of this Act shall not apply to the 
     activities of any political committee described in section 
     301(4) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

         TITLE III--RESTRICTING CONGRESSIONAL TRAVEL AND GIFTS

     SEC. 301. BAN ON GIFTS FROM LOBBYISTS.

       (a) In General.--Clause 5(a)(1)(A) of rule XXV of the Rules 
     of the House of Representatives is amended by inserting 
     ``(i)'' after ``(A)'' and adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, 
     or employee of the House may not knowingly accept a gift from 
     a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal or from 
     a nongovernmental organization that retains or employs 
     registered lobbyists or agents of a foreign principal except 
     as provided in subparagraphs (2)(B) or (3) of this 
     paragraph.''.
       (b) Rules Committee Review.--The Committee on Rules shall 
     review the present exceptions to the House gift rule and make 
     recommendations to the House not later than 3 months after 
     the date of enactment of this Act on eliminating all but 
     those which are absolutely necessary to effectuate the 
     purpose of the rule.

     SEC. 302. PROHIBITION ON PRIVATELY FUNDED TRAVEL.

       Clause 5(b)(1)(A) of rule XXV of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives is amended by inserting ``or from a 
     nongovernmental organization that retains or employs 
     registered lobbyists or agents of a foreign principal'' after 
     ``foreign principal''.

     SEC. 303. PROHIBITING LOBBYIST ORGANIZATION AND PARTICIPATION 
                   IN CONGRESSIONAL TRAVEL.

       (a) In General.--Clause 5 of rule XXV of the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives is amended by redesignating 
     paragraphs (e) and (f) as paragraphs (g) and (h), 
     respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (d) the 
     following:
       ``(e) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, 
     or employee of the House may not accept transportation or 
     lodging on any trip that is planned, organized, requested, 
     arranged, or financed in whole or in part by a lobbyist or 
     agent of a foreign principal, or in which a lobbyist 
     participates.
       ``(f) Before a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 
     officer, or employee of the House may accept transportation 
     or lodging otherwise permissible under this paragraph from 
     any person, such individual shall obtain 30 days before such 
     trip a written certification from such person (and provide a 
     copy of such certification to the Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct) that--
       ``(1) the trip was not planned, organized, requested, 
     arranged, or financed in whole, or in part by a registered 
     lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal and was not 
     organized at the request of a registered lobbyist or agent of 
     a foreign principal;
       ``(2) registered lobbyists will not participate in or 
     attend the trip; and
       ``(3) the person did not accept, from any source, funds 
     specifically earmarked for the purpose of financing the 
     travel expenses.

     The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall make 
     public information received under this paragraph as soon as 
     possible after it is received.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Clause 5(b)(3) of rule XXV of 
     the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended--
       (1) by striking ``of expenses reimbursed or to be 
     reimbursed'';
       (2) in subdivision (E), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (3) in subdivision (F), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) a description of meetings and events attended during 
     such travel, except when disclosure of such information is 
     deemed by the Member or supervisor under whose direct 
     supervision the employee works to jeopardize the safety of an 
     individual or otherwise interfere with the official duties of 
     the Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or 
     employee.''.
       (c) Public Availability.--Subparagraph (5) of rule XXV of 
     the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(e) The Clerk of the House shall make available to the 
     public all advance authorizations, certifications, and 
     disclosures filed pursuant to subparagraphs (1) and 
     subparagraph (3)(H) as soon as possible after they are 
     received.''.

     SEC. 304. PROHIBITION ON OBLIGATION OF FUNDS FOR TRAVEL BY 
                   LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS.

       No Federal agency may obligate any funds made available in 
     an appropriation Act for a flight on a non-governmental 
     airplane that is not licensed by the Federal Aviation 
     Administration to operate for compensation or hire, taken as 
     part of official duties of a United States Senator, a Member, 
     Delegate, or Resident Commissioner of the House of 
     Representatives, an officer or employee of the Senate or 
     House of Representatives, or an officer or employee of the 
     executive branch.

     SEC. 305. PER DIEM EXPENSES FOR CONGRESSIONAL TRAVEL.

       Rule XXV of the Rules of the House of Representatives (as 
     amended by section 304(b) is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(h) Not later than 90 days after the date of adoption of 
     this paragraph and at annual intervals thereafter, the 
     Committee on House Administration shall develop and revise, 
     as necessary, guidelines on what constitutes `reasonable 
     expenses' or `reasonable expenditures' for purposes of this 
     rule. In developing and revising the guidelines, the 
     committee shall take into account the maximum per diem rates 
     for official Government travel published annually by the 
     General Services Administration, the Department of State, and 
     the Department of Defense.''.

             TITLE IV--ENFORCEMENT OF LOBBYING RESTRICTIONS

     SEC. 401. OFFICE OF PUBLIC INTEGRITY.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established within the Office 
     of Inspector General of the House of Representatives an 
     office to be known as the ``Office of Public Integrity'' 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Office''), which shall 
     be headed by a Director of Public Integrity (hereinafter 
     referred to as the ``Director'').
       (b) Office.--The Office shall have access to all lobbyists' 
     disclosure information received by the Clerk under the 
     Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 and conduct such audits and 
     investigations as are necessary to ensure compliance with the 
     Act.
       (c) Referral Authority.--The Office shall have authority to 
     refer violations of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to 
     the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and the 
     Department of Justice for disciplinary action, as 
     appropriate.
       (d) Director.--
       (1) In general.--The Director shall be appointed by the 
     Inspector General of the House. Any appointment made under 
     this subsection shall be made without regard to political 
     affiliation and solely on the basis of fitness to perform the 
     duties of the position. Any person appointed as Director 
     shall be learned in the law, a member of the bar of a State 
     or the District of Columbia, and shall not engage in any 
     other business, vocation, or employment during the term of 
     such appointment.
       (2) Staff.--The Director shall hire such additional staff 
     as are required to carry out this section, including 
     investigators and accountants.
       (e) Audits and Investigations.--
       (1) In general.--The Office shall audit lobbying 
     registrations and reports filed pursuant to the Lobbying 
     Disclosure Act of 1995 to determine the extent of compliance 
     or non-compliance with the requirements of such Act by 
     lobbyists and their clients.
       (2) Evidence of non-compliance.--If in the course an audit 
     conducted pursuant to the

[[Page 18310]]

     requirements of paragraph (1), the Office obtains information 
     indicating that a person or entity may be in non-compliance 
     with the requirements of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, 
     the Office shall refer the matter to the United States 
     Attorney for the District of Columbia.
       (f) Conforming Amendment.--Section 8 of the Lobbying 
     Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1607) is amended by striking 
     subsection (c).
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated in a separate account such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this section.

     SEC. 402. INCREASED CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR FAILURE 
                   TO COMPLY WITH LOBBYING DISCLOSURE 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 7 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 
     1606) is amended--
       (1) by inserting `` (a) Civil Penalty.--'' before 
     ``Whoever'';
       (2) by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting ``$100,000''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Criminal Penalty.--
       ``(1) In general.--Whoever knowingly and wilfully fails to 
     comply with any provision of this section shall be imprisoned 
     for not more than 5 years, or fined under title 18, United 
     States Code, or both.
       ``(2) Corruptly.--Whoever knowingly, wilfully, and 
     corruptly fails to comply with any provision of this section 
     shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or fined 
     under title 18, United States Code, or both.''.

     SEC. 403. PENALTY FOR FALSE CERTIFICATION IN CONNECTION WITH 
                   CONGRESSIONAL TRAVEL.

       (a) Civil Fine.--
       (1) In general.--Whoever makes a false certification in 
     connection with the travel of a Member, officer, or employee 
     of either House of Congress (within the meaning given those 
     terms in section 207 of title 18, United States Code), under 
     clause 5 of rule XXV of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives, shall, upon proof of such offense by a 
     preponderance of the evidence, be subject to a civil fine 
     depending on the extent and gravity of the violation.
       (2) Maximum fine.--The maximum fine per offense under this 
     section depends on the number of separate trips in connection 
     with which the person committed an offense under this 
     subsection, as follows:
       (A) First trip.--For each offense committed in connection 
     with the first such trip, the amount of the fine shall be not 
     more than $100,000 per offense.
       (B) Second trip.--For each offense committed in connection 
     with the second such trip, the amount of the fine shall be 
     not more than $300,000 per offense.
       (C) Any other trips.--For each offense committed in 
     connection with any such trip after the second, the amount of 
     the fine shall be not more than $500,000 per offense.
       (3) Enforcement.--The Attorney General may bring an action 
     in United States district court to enforce this subsection.
       (b) Criminal Penalty.--
       (1) In general.--Whoever knowingly and wilfully fails to 
     comply with any provision of this section shall be imprisoned 
     for not more than 5 years, or fined under title 18, United 
     States Code, or both.
       (2) Corruptly.--Whoever knowingly, wilfully, and corruptly 
     fails to comply with any provision of this section shall be 
     imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or fined under title 
     18, United States Code, or both.

     SEC. 404. MANDATORY ANNUAL ETHICS TRAINING FOR HOUSE 
                   EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Ethics Training.--
       (1) In general.--The Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct shall provide annual ethics training to each employee 
     of the House which shall include knowledge of the Official 
     Code of Conduct and related House rules.
       (2) New employees.--A new employee of the House shall 
     receive training under this section not later than 60 days 
     after beginning service to the House.
       (b) Certification.--Not later than January 31 of each year, 
     each employee of the House shall file a certification with 
     the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that the 
     employee attended ethics training in the last year as 
     established by this section.

                        TITLE V--OPEN GOVERNMENT

     SEC. 501. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.

       (a) Reconciliation.--Clause 10 of rule XVIII of the Rules 
     of the House of Representatives is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(d) It shall not be in order to consider any 
     reconciliation legislation which has the net effect of 
     reducing the surplus or increasing the deficit compared to 
     the most recent Congressional Budget Office estimate for any 
     fiscal year.''.
       (b) Application of Points of Order Under Congressional 
     Budget Act to All Bills and Joint Resolutions Considered 
     Under Special Orders of Business.--Rule XXI of the Rules of 
     the House of Representatives is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new clause:
       ``7. For purposes of applying section 315 of the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the 
     term `as reported' under such section shall be considered to 
     include any bill or joint resolution considered in the House 
     pursuant to a special order of business.''.

     SEC. 502. CURBING ABUSES OF POWER.

       (a) Limit on Time Permitted for Recorded Electronic 
     Votes.--Clause 2(a) of rule XX of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives is amended by inserting after the second 
     sentence the following sentence: ``The maximum time for a 
     record vote by electronic device shall be 20 minutes, except 
     that the time may be extended with the consent of both the 
     majority and minority floor managers of the legislation 
     involved or both the majority leader and the minority 
     leader.''.
       (b) Congressional Integrity.--Rule XXIII of the Rules of 
     the House of Representatives (the Code of Official Conduct) 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating clause 14 as clause 16; and
       (2) by inserting after clause 13 the following new clauses:
       ``14. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall 
     not condition the inclusion of language to provide funding 
     for a district-oriented earmark, a particular project which 
     will be carried out in a Member's congressional district, in 
     any bill or joint resolution (or an accompanying report 
     thereof) or in any conference report on a bill or joint 
     resolution (including an accompanying joint statement of 
     managers thereto) on any vote cast by the Member, Delegate, 
     or Resident Commissioner in whose Congressional district the 
     project will be carried out.
       ``15. (a) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who 
     advocates to include a district-oriented earmark in any bill 
     or joint resolution (or an accompanying report) or in any 
     conference report on a bill or joint resolution (including an 
     accompanying joint statement of managers thereto) shall 
     disclose in writing to the chairman and ranking member of the 
     relevant committee (and in the case of the Committee on 
     Appropriations to the chairman and ranking member of the full 
     committee and of the relevant subcommittee)--
       ``(1) the name of the Member, Delegate, or Resident 
     Commissioner;
       ``(2) the name and address of the intended recipient of 
     such earmark;
       ``(3) the purpose of such earmark; and
       ``(4) whether the Member, Delegate, or Resident 
     Commissioner has a financial interest in such earmark.
       ``(b) Each committee shall make available to the general 
     public the information transmitted to the committee under 
     paragraph (a) for any earmark included in any measure 
     reported by the committee or conference report filed by the 
     chairman of the committee or any subcommittee thereof.
       ``(c) The Joint Committee on Taxation shall review any 
     revenue measure or any reconciliation bill or joint 
     resolution which includes revenue provisions before it is 
     reported by a committee and before it is filed by a committee 
     of conference of the two Houses, and shall identify whether 
     such bill or joint resolution contains any limited tax 
     benefits. The Joint Committee on Taxation shall prepare a 
     statement identifying any such limited tax benefits, stating 
     who the beneficiaries are of such benefits, and any 
     substantially similar introduced measures and the sponsors of 
     such measures. Any such statement shall be made available to 
     the general public by the Joint Committee on Taxation.''.
       (c) Restrictions on Reporting Certain Rules.--Clause 6(c) 
     of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (1);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (2) 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(3) a rule or order for consideration of a bill or joint 
     resolution reported by a committee that makes in order as 
     original text for purposes of amendment, text which differs 
     from such bill or joint resolution as recommended by such 
     committee to be amended unless the rule or order also makes 
     in order as preferential a motion to amend that is neither 
     divisible nor amendable but, if adopted will be considered 
     original text for purposes of amendment, if requested by the 
     chairman or ranking minority member of the reporting 
     committee, and such rule or order shall waive all necessary 
     points of order against that amendment only if it restores 
     all or part of the text of the bill or joint resolution as 
     recommended by such committee or strikes some or all of the 
     original text inserted by the Committee on Rules that was not 
     contained in the recommended version;
       ``(4) a rule or order that waives any points of order 
     against consideration of a bill or joint resolution, against 
     provisions in the measure, or against consideration of 
     amendments recommended by the reporting committee unless the 
     rule or order makes in order and waives the same points of 
     order against one germane amendment if requested by the 
     minority leader or a designee;
       ``(5) a rule or order that waives clause 10(d) of rule 
     XVIII, unless the majority leader and minority leader each 
     agree to the waiver and a question of consideration of the 
     rule is adopted by a vote of two-thirds of the Members 
     voting, a quorum being present; or
       ``(6) a rule or order that waives clause 12(a) of rule 
     XXII.''.

[[Page 18311]]



     SEC. 503. ENDING 2-DAY WORK WEEKS.

       Rule XV of the Rules of the House of Representatives is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``8. It shall not be in order to consider a resolution 
     providing for adjournment sine die unless, during at least 20 
     weeks of the session, a quorum call or recorded vote was 
     taken on at least 4 of the weekdays (excluding legal public 
     holidays).''.

     SEC. 504. KNOWING WHAT THE HOUSE IS VOTING ON.

       (a) Bills and Joint Resolutions.--
       (1) In general.--Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new clause:
       ``8. Except for motions to suspend the rules and consider 
     legislation, it shall not be in order to consider in the 
     House a bill or joint resolution until 24 hours after or, in 
     the case of a bill or joint resolution containing a district-
     oriented earmark or limited tax benefit, until 3 days after 
     copies of such bill or joint resolution (and, if the bill or 
     joint resolution is reported, copies of the accompanying 
     report) are available (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal 
     holidays except when the House is in session on such a 
     day).''.
       (2) Prohibiting waiver.--Clause 6(c) of rule XIII of the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives, as amended by section 
     3(a), is further amended--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (5);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (6) 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(7) a rule or order that waives clause 8 of rule XIII or 
     clause 8(a)(1)(B) of rule XXII, unless a question of 
     consideration of the rule is adopted by a vote of two-thirds 
     of the Members voting, a quorum being present.''.
       (b) Conference Reports.--Clause 8(a)(1)(B) of rule XXII of 
     the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by 
     striking ``2 hours'' and inserting ``24 hours or, in the case 
     of a conference report containing a district-oriented earmark 
     or limited tax benefit, until 3 days after''.

     SEC. 505. FULL AND OPEN DEBATE IN CONFERENCE.

       (a) Numbered Amendments.--Clause 1 of rule XXII of the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new sentence: ``A motion to request or 
     agree to a conference on a general appropriation bill is in 
     order only if the House expresses its disagreements with the 
     House in the form of numbered amendments.''.
       (b) Promoting Openness in Deliberations of Managers.--
     Clause 12(a) of rule XXII of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(3) All provisions on which the two Houses disagree shall 
     be open to discussion at any meeting of a conference 
     committee. The text which reflects the conferees' action on 
     all of the differences between the two Houses, including all 
     matter to be included in the conference report and any 
     amendments in disagreement, shall be available to any of the 
     managers at least one such meeting, and shall be approved by 
     a recorded vote of a majority of the House managers. Such 
     text and, with respect to such vote, the total number of 
     votes cast for and against, and the names of members voting 
     for and against, shall be included in the joint explanatory 
     statement of managers accompanying the conference report of 
     such conference committee.''.
       (c) Point of Order Against Consideration of Conference 
     Report Not Reflecting Resolution of Differences as 
     Approved.--
       (1) In general.--Rule XXII of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new clause:
       ``13. It shall not be in order to consider a conference 
     report the text of which differs in any material way from the 
     text which reflects the conferees' action on all of the 
     differences between the two Houses, as approved by a recorded 
     vote of a majority of the House managers as required under 
     clause 12(a).''.
       (2) Prohibiting waiver.--Clause 6(c)(6) of rule XIII of the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives, as added by section 
     3(c)(3), is further amended by striking ``clause 12(a)'' and 
     inserting ``clause 12(a) or clause 13''.

               TITLE VI--ANTI-CRONYISM AND PUBLIC SAFETY

     SEC. 601. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR POLITICAL APPOINTEES 
                   HOLDING PUBLIC SAFETY POSITIONS.

       (a) In General.--A public safety position may not be held 
     by any political appointee who does not meet the requirements 
     of subsection (b).
       (b) Minimum Requirements.--An individual shall not, with 
     respect to any position, be considered to meet the 
     requirements of this subsection unless such individual--
       (1) has academic, management, and leadership credentials in 
     one or more areas relevant to such position;
       (2) has a superior record of achievement in one or more 
     areas relevant to such position;
       (3) has training and expertise in one or more areas 
     relevant to such position; and
       (4) has not, within the 2-year period ending on the date of 
     such individual's nomination for or appointment to such 
     position, been a lobbyist for any entity or other client that 
     is subject to the authority of the agency within which, if 
     appointed, such individual would serve.
       (c) Political Appointee.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term ``political appointee'' means any individual who--
       (1) is employed in a position listed in sections 5312 
     through 5316 of title 5, United States Code (relating to the 
     Executive Schedule);
       (2) is a limited term appointee, limited emergency 
     appointee, or noncareer appointee in the Senior Executive 
     Service; or
       (3) is employed in the executive branch of the Government 
     in a position which has been excepted from the competitive 
     service by reason of its policy-determining, policy-making, 
     or policy-advocating character.
       (d) Public Safety Position.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term ``public safety position'' means--
       (1) the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and 
     Response, Department of Homeland Security;
       (2) the Director of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency, Department of Homeland Security;
       (3) each regional director of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security;
       (4) the Recovery Division Director of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security;
       (5) the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security;
       (6) the Assistant Secretary for Public Health Emergency 
     Preparedness, Department of Health and Human Services;
       (7) the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and 
     Emergency Response, Environmental Protection Agency; and
       (8) any position (not otherwise identified under any of the 
     preceding provisions of this subsection) a primary function 
     of which involves responding to a direct threat to life or 
     property or a hazard to health, as identified by the head of 
     each employing agency in consultation with the Office of 
     Personnel Management.

     Beginning not later than 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the head of each agency shall maintain 
     on such agency's public website a current list of all public 
     safety positions within such agency.
       (e) Coordination With Other Requirements.--The requirements 
     set forth in subsection (b) shall be in addition to, and not 
     in lieu of, any requirements that might otherwise apply with 
     respect to any particular position.
       (f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``agency'' means an Executive agency (as 
     defined by section 105 of title 5, United States Code);
       (2) the terms ``limited term appointee'', ``limited 
     emergency appointee'', and ``noncareer appointee'' have the 
     respective meanings given them by section 3132 of such title 
     5;
       (3) the term ``Senior Executive Service'' has the meaning 
     given such term by section 2101a of such title 5;
       (4) the term ``competitive service'' has the meaning given 
     such term by section 2102 of such title 5; and
       (5) the terms ``lobbyist'' and ``client'' have the 
     respective meanings given them by section 3 of the Lobbying 
     Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1602).

     SEC. 602. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title shall apply with respect to any appointment made 
     after the end of the 30- day period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

            TITLE VII--ZERO TOLERANCE FOR CONTRACT CHEATERS

     SEC. 701. PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF FEDERAL CONTRACT AWARDS.

       (a) Amendment.--The Office of Federal Procurement Policy 
     Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.) is amended by inserting after 
     section 19 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 19A. PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF CONTRACT AWARD 
                   INFORMATION.

       ``Not later than 14 days after the award of a contract by 
     an executive agency, the head of the executive agency shall 
     make publicly available, including by posting on the Internet 
     in a searchable database, the following information with 
     respect to the contract:
       ``(1) The name and address of the contractor.
       ``(2) The date of award of the contract.
       ``(3) The number of offers received in response to the 
     solicitation.
       ``(4) The total amount of the contract.
       ``(5) The contract type.
       ``(6) The items, quantities, and any stated unit price of 
     items or services to be procured under the contract.
       ``(7) With respect to a procurement carried out using 
     procedures other than competitive procedures--
       ``(A) the authority for using such procedures under section 
     303(c) of title III of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253(c)) or 
     section 2304(c) of title 10, United States Code; and
       ``(B) the number of sources from which bids or proposals 
     were solicited.
       ``(8) The general reasons for selecting the contractor.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents contained in 
     section 1(b) of such

[[Page 18312]]

     Act is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 19 the following new item:

``Sec. 19A. Public availability of contract award information.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall 
     apply to contracts entered into more than 90 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 702. PROHIBITION ON AWARD OF MONOPOLY CONTRACTS.

       (a) Paragraph (3) of section 303H(d) of title III of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 
     U.S.C. 253h(d)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3)(A) The regulations implementing this subsection shall 
     prohibit the award of monopoly contracts.
       ``(B) In this subsection, the term `monopoly contract' 
     means a task or delivery order contract in an amount 
     estimated to exceed $10,000,000 (including all options) 
     awarded to a single contractor.
       ``(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), a monopoly contract 
     may be awarded if the head of the agency determines in 
     writing that--
       ``(i) for one of the reasons set forth in section 303(c), a 
     single task or delivery order contract is in the best 
     interest of the Federal Government; or
       ``(ii) the task orders expected under the contract are so 
     integrally related that only a single contractor can 
     reasonably perform the work.''.
       (b) Section 303H(d)(1) of such Act is amended by striking 
     ``The head'' and inserting ``Subject to paragraph (3), the 
     head''.
       (c) Subsection (e) of section 303I of such Act (41 United 
     States Code 253i) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Multiple Awards.--Section 303H(d) applies to a task 
     or delivery order contract for the procurement of advisory 
     and assistance services under this section.''.

     SEC. 703. COMPETITION IN MULTIPLE AWARD CONTRACTS.

       Title III of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.) is amended by 
     inserting after section 303M the following new section:

     ``SEC. 303N. COMPETITION IN MULTIPLE AWARD CONTRACTS.

       ``(a) Regulations Required.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this section, the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation shall be revised to require 
     competition in the purchase of goods and services by each 
     executive agency pursuant to multiple award contracts.
       ``(b) Content of Regulations.--(1) The regulations required 
     by subsection (a) shall provide, at a minimum, that each 
     individual purchase of goods or services in excess of 
     $100,000 that is made under a multiple award contract shall 
     be made on a competitive basis unless a contracting officer 
     of the executive agency--
       ``(A) waives the requirement on the basis of a 
     determination that--
       ``(i) one of the circumstances described in paragraphs (1) 
     through (4) of section 303J(b) applies to such individual 
     purchase; or
       ``(ii) a statute expressly authorizes or requires that the 
     purchase be made from a specified source; and
       ``(B) justifies the determination in writing.
       ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, an individual 
     purchase of goods or services is made on a competitive basis 
     only if it is made pursuant to procedures that--
       ``(A) require fair notice of the intent to make that 
     purchase (including a description of the work to be performed 
     and the basis on which the selection will be made) to be 
     provided to all contractors offering such goods or services 
     under the multiple award contract; and
       ``(B) afford all contractors responding to the notice a 
     fair opportunity to make an offer and have that offer fairly 
     considered by the official making the purchase.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), notice may be provided 
     to fewer than all contractors offering such goods or services 
     under a multiple award contract described in subsection 
     (c)(2)(A) if notice is provided to as many contractors as 
     practicable.
       ``(4) A purchase may not be made pursuant to a notice that 
     is provided to fewer than all contractors under paragraph (3) 
     unless--
       ``(A) offers were received from at least three qualified 
     contractors; or
       ``(B) a contracting officer of the executive agency 
     determines in writing that no additional qualified 
     contractors were able to be identified despite reasonable 
     efforts to do so.
       ``(5) For purposes of paragraph (2), fair notice means 
     notice of intent to make a purchase under a multiple award 
     contract posted, at least 14 days before the purchase is 
     made, on the website maintained by the General Services 
     Administration known as FedBizOpps.gov (or any successor 
     site).
       ``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `individual purchase' means a task order, 
     delivery order, or other purchase.
       ``(2) The term `multiple award contract' means--
       ``(A) a contract that is entered into by the Administrator 
     of General Services under the multiple award schedule program 
     referred to in section 309(b)(3);
       ``(B) a multiple award task order contract that is entered 
     into under the authority of sections 2304a through 2304d of 
     title 10, United States Code, or sections 303H through 303K; 
     and
       ``(C) any other indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity 
     contract that is entered into by the head of an executive 
     agency with two or more sources pursuant to the same 
     solicitation.
       ``(d) Applicability.--The revisions to the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation pursuant to subsection (a) shall take 
     effect not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this section and shall apply to all individual 
     purchases of goods or services that are made under multiple 
     award contracts on or after the effective date, without 
     regard to whether the multiple award contracts were entered 
     into before, on, or after such effective date.''.

     SEC. 704. SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT OF UNETHICAL CONTRACTORS.

       (a) Civilian Agency Contractors.--Title III of the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 
     251 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 303N, as 
     added by section 703, the following new section:

     ``SEC. 303O. SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT OF UNETHICAL 
                   CONTRACTORS.

       ``(a) In General.--No prospective contractor may be awarded 
     a contract with an agency unless the contracting officer for 
     the contract determines that such prospective contractor has 
     a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.
       ``(b) Definition.--No prospective contractor shall be 
     considered to have a satisfactory record of integrity and 
     business ethics if it--
       ``(1) has exhibited a pattern of overcharging the 
     Government under Federal contracts;
       ``(2) has exhibited a pattern of failing to comply with the 
     law, including tax, labor and employment, environmental, 
     antitrust, and consumer protection laws; or
       ``(3) has an outstanding debt with a Federal agency in a 
     delinquent status.''
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such Act is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 303N, as added by section 703, the 
     following new item:

``Sec. 303O. Suspension and debarment of unethical contractors.''.

     SEC. 705. CRIMINAL SANCTIONS FOR CHEATING TAXPAYERS AND 
                   WARTIME FRAUD.

       (a) Prohibition.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1039. Criminal sanctions for cheating taxpayers and 
       wartime fraud

       ``(a) Prohibition.--
       ``(1) In general.--Whoever, in any matter involving a 
     Federal contract for the provision of goods or services, 
     knowingly and willfully--
       ``(A) executes or attempts to execute a scheme or artifice 
     to defraud the United States;
       ``(B) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, 
     scheme, or device a material fact;
       ``(C) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent 
     statements or representations, or makes or uses any 
     materially false writing or document knowing the same to 
     contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent 
     statement or entry; or
       ``(D) materially overvalues any good or service with the 
     specific intent to excessively profit from war, military 
     action, or relief or reconstruction activities;

     shall be fined under paragraph (2), imprisoned not more than 
     10 years, or both.
       ``(2) Fine.--A person convicted of an offense under 
     paragraph (1) may be fined the greater of--
       ``(A) $1,000,000; or
       ``(B) if such person derives profits or other proceeds from 
     the offense, not more than twice the gross profits or other 
     proceeds.
       ``(b) Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.--There is 
     extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under 
     this section.
       ``(c) Venue.--A prosecution for an offense under this 
     section may be brought--
       ``(1) as authorized by chapter 211 of this title;
       ``(2) in any district where any act in furtherance of the 
     offense took place; or
       ``(3) in any district where any party to the contract or 
     provider of goods or services is located.''.
       (2) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter 
     47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

``1039. Criminal Sanctions for Cheating Taxpayers and Wartime Fraud.''.

       (d) Civil Forfeiture.--Section 981(a)(1)(C) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``1039,'' after 
     ``1032,''.
       (e) Criminal Forfeiture.--Section 982(a)(2)(B) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``or 1030'' and 
     inserting ``1030, or 1039''.
       (f) Money Laundering.--Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting the following: 
     ``, section 1039 (relating to Criminal Sanctions for Cheating 
     Taxpayers and Wartime Fraud,'' after ``liquidating agent of 
     financial institution),''.

     SEC. 706. PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTOR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.

       (a) Prohibition.--An agency may not enter into a contract 
     for the performance of a

[[Page 18313]]

     function relating to contract oversight with any contractor 
     with a conflict of interest.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``function relating to contract oversight'' 
     includes the following specific functions:
       (A) Evaluation of a contractor's performance.
       (B) Evaluation of contract proposals.
       (C) Development of statements of work.
       (D) Services in support of acquisition planning.
       (E) Contract management.
       (2) The term ``conflict of interest'' includes cases in 
     which the contractor performing the function relating to 
     contract oversight, or any related entity--
       (A) is performing all or some of the work to be overseen;
       (B) has a separate ongoing business relationship, such as a 
     joint venture or contract, with any of the contractors to be 
     overseen;
       (C) would be placed in a position to affect the value or 
     performance of work it or any related entity is doing under 
     any other Government contract;
       (D) has a reverse role with the contractor to be overseen 
     under one or more separate Government contracts; and
       (E) has some other relationship with the contractor to be 
     overseen that could reasonably appear to bias the 
     contractor's judgment.
       (3) The term ``related entity'', with respect to a 
     contractor, means any subsidiary, parent, affiliate, joint 
     venture, or other entity related to the contractor.
       (c) Contracts Relating to Inherently Governmental 
     Functions.--An agency may not enter into a contract for the 
     performance of inherently governmental functions for contract 
     oversight (as described in subpart 7.5 of part 7 of the 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation).
       (d) Effective Date and Applicability.--This section shall 
     take effect on the date of enactment of this Act and shall 
     apply to--
       (1) contracts entered into on or after such date;
       (2) any task or delivery order issued on or after such date 
     under a contract entered into before, on, or after such date; 
     and
       (3) any decision on or after such date to exercise an 
     option or otherwise extend a contract for the performance of 
     a function relating to contract oversight regardless of 
     whether such contract was entered into before, on, or after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 707. DISCLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR OVERCHARGES.

       (a) Quarterly Report to Congress.--
       (1) The head of each Federal agency or department shall 
     submit to the chairman and ranking member of each committee 
     described in paragraph (2) on a quarterly basis a report that 
     includes the following:
       (A) A list of audits or other reports issued during the 
     applicable quarter that describe contractor costs in excess 
     of $1,000,000 that have been identified as unjustified, 
     unsupported, questioned, or unreasonable under any contract, 
     task or delivery order, or subcontract.
       (B) The specific amounts of costs identified as 
     unjustified, unsupported, questioned, or unreasonable and the 
     percentage of their total value of the contract, task or 
     delivery order, or subcontract.
       (C) A list of audits or other reports issued during the 
     applicable quarter that identify significant or substantial 
     deficiencies in any business system of any contractor under 
     any contract, task or delivery order, or subcontract.
       (2) The report described in paragraph (1) shall be 
     submitted to the Committee on Government Reform of the House 
     of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and other committees of 
     jurisdiction.
       (b) Submission of Individual Audits.--The head of each 
     Federal agency or department shall provide, within 14 days 
     after a request in writing by the chairman or ranking member 
     of any of the committees described in subsection (a)(2), a 
     full and unredacted copy of any audit or other report 
     described in subsection (a)(1).

     SEC. 708. PENALTIES FOR IMPROPER SOLE-SOURCE CONTRACTING 
                   PROCEDURES.

       Section 303 of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act (41 U.S.C. 253) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (g), (h), and (i) as 
     subsections (h), (i), and (j), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(g) Any official who knowingly and intentionally violates 
     Federal procurement law in the preparation or certification 
     of a justification for a sole-source contract, in the award 
     of a sole-source contract, or in directing or participating 
     in the award of a sole-source contract, shall be subject to 
     administrative sanctions up to and including termination of 
     employment.''.

     SEC. 709. STOPPING THE REVOLVING DOOR.

       (a) Elimination of Loopholes That Allow Former Federal 
     Officials to Accept Compensation From Contractors or Related 
     Entities.--
       (1) Paragraph (1) of section 27(d) of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 423(d)(1)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``or consultant'' and inserting 
     ``consultant, lawyer, or lobbyist'';
       (B) by striking ``one year'' and inserting ``two years''; 
     and
       (C) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``personally made for 
     the Federal agency--'' and inserting ``participated 
     personally and substantially in--''.
       (2) Paragraph (2) of section 27(d) of such Act (41 U.S.C. 
     423(d)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `contractor' 
     includes any division, affiliate, subsidiary, parent, joint 
     venture, or other related entity of the contractor.''.
       (b) Prohibition on Award of Government Contracts to Former 
     Employers.--Section 27 of such Act (41 U.S.C. 423) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Prohibition on Involvement by Certain Former 
     Contractor Employees in Procurements.--A former employee of a 
     contractor who becomes an employee of the Federal government 
     shall not be personally and substantially involved with any 
     Federal agency procurement involving the employee's former 
     employer, including any division, affiliate, subsidiary, 
     parent, joint venture, or other related entity of the former 
     employer, for a period of two years beginning on the date on 
     which the employee leaves the employment of the 
     contractor.''.
       (c) Requirement for Federal Procurement Officers to 
     Disclose Job Offers Made to Relatives.--Section 27(c)(1) of 
     such Act (41 U.S.C. 423(c)(1)) is amended by inserting after 
     ``that official'' the following: ``or for a relative of that 
     official (as defined in section 3110 of title 5, United 
     States Code),''.
       (d) Additional Criminal Penalties.--Paragraph (1) of 
     section 27(e) of such Act (41 U.S.C. (e)(1)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(1) Criminal penalties.--Whoever engages in conduct 
     constituting a violation of--
       ``(A) subsection (a) or (b) for the purpose of either--
       ``(i) exchanging the information covered by such subsection 
     for anything of value, or
       ``(ii) obtaining or giving anyone a competitive advantage 
     in the award of a Federal agency procurement contract; or
       ``(B) subsection (c) or (d);

     shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years or fined as 
     provided under title 18, United States Code, or both.''.
       (e) Regulations.--Section 27 of such Act (41 U.S.C. 423) is 
     further amended by adding at the end of the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(j) Regulations.--The Director of the Office of 
     Government Ethics, in consultation with the Administrator, 
     shall--
       ``(1) promulgate regulations to carry out and ensure the 
     enforcement of this section; and
       ``(2) monitor and investigate individual and agency 
     compliance with this section.''.

                   TITLE VIII--PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES

     SEC. 801. PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 2112 of title 44, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(h)(1) Any organization that is established for the 
     purpose of raising funds for creating, maintaining, 
     expanding, or conducting activities at a Presidential 
     archival depository or any facilities relating to a 
     Presidential archival depository, shall submit to the 
     Administration, the Committee on Government Reform of the 
     House of Representatives, and the Committee on Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate on a quarterly basis, by not later than 
     the applicable date specified in paragraph (2), information 
     with respect to every contributor who, during the designated 
     period--
       ``(A) with respect to a Presidential archival depository of 
     a President who currently holds the Office of President or 
     for which the Archivist has not accepted, taken title to, or 
     entered into an agreement to use any land or facility, gave 
     the organization a contribution or contributions (whether 
     monetary or in-kind) totaling $100 or more for the quarterly 
     period; or
       ``(B) with respect to a Presidential archival depository of 
     a President who no longer holds the Office of President and 
     for which the Archivist has accepted, taken title to, or 
     entered into an agreement to use any land or facility, gave 
     the organization a contribution or contributions (whether 
     monetary or in-kind) totaling $100 or more for the quarterly 
     period.
       ``(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the applicable date--
       ``(A) with respect to information required under paragraph 
     (1)(A), shall be April 15, July 15, October 15, and January 
     15 of each year and of the following year as applicable to 
     the fourth quarterly filing; and
       ``(B) with respect to information required under paragraph 
     (1)(B), shall be April 15, July 15, October 15, and January 
     15 of each year and of the following year as applicable to 
     the fourth quarterly filing.
       ``(3) As used in this subsection, the term `information' 
     means the following:
       ``(A) The amount or value of each contribution made by a 
     contributor referred to in paragraph (1) in the quarter 
     covered by the submission.
       ``(B) The source of each such contribution, and the address 
     of the entity or individual that is the source of the 
     contribution.

[[Page 18314]]

       ``(C) If the source of such a contribution is an 
     individual, the occupation of the individual.
       ``(D) The date of each such contribution.
       ``(4) The Archivist shall make available to the public 
     through the Internet (or a successor technology readily 
     available to the public) as soon as is practicable after each 
     quarterly filing any information that is submitted in 
     accordance with paragraph (1).
       ``(5)(A) It shall be unlawful for any person who makes a 
     contribution described in paragraph (1) to knowingly and 
     willfully submit false material information or omit material 
     information with respect to the contribution to an 
     organization described in such paragraph.
       ``(B) The penalties described in section 1001 of title 18, 
     United States Code, shall apply with respect to a violation 
     of subparagraph (A) in the same manner as a violation 
     described in such section.
       ``(6)(A) It shall be unlawful for any organization 
     described in paragraph (1) to knowingly and willfully submit 
     false material information or omit material information under 
     such paragraph.
       ``(B) The penalties described in section 1001 of title 18, 
     United States Code, shall apply with respect to a violation 
     of subparagraph (A) in the same manner as a violation 
     described in such section.
       ``(7)(A) It shall be unlawful for a person to knowingly and 
     willfully--
       ``(i) make a contribution described in paragraph (1) in the 
     name of another person;
       ``(ii) permit his or her name to be used to effect a 
     contribution described in paragraph (1); or
       ``(iii) accept a contribution described in paragraph (1) 
     that is made by one person in the name of another person.
       ``(B) The penalties set forth in section 309(d) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(d)) 
     shall apply to a violation of subparagraph (A) in the same 
     manner as if such violation were a violation of section 
     316(b)(3) of such Act.
       ``(8) The Archivist shall promulgate regulations for the 
     purpose of carrying out this subsection.''.
       (b) Applicability.--Section 2112(h) of title 44, United 
     States Code (as added by subsection (a))--
       (1) shall apply to an organization established for the 
     purpose of raising funds for creating, maintaining, 
     expanding, or conducting activities at a Presidential 
     archival depository or any facilities relating to a 
     Presidential archival depository before, on or after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act; and
       (2) shall only apply with respect to contributions (whether 
     monetary or in-kind) made after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

              TITLE IX--FORFEITURE OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS

     SEC. 901. LOSS OF PENSIONS ACCRUED DURING SERVICE AS A MEMBER 
                   OF CONGRESS FOR ABUSING THE PUBLIC TRUST.

       (a) Civil Service Retirement System.--Section 8332 of title 
     5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(o)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     subchapter, the service of an individual finally convicted of 
     an offense described in paragraph (2) shall not be taken into 
     account for purposes of this subchapter, except that this 
     sentence applies only to service rendered as a Member 
     (irrespective of when rendered). Any such individual (or 
     other person determined under section 8342(c), if applicable) 
     shall be entitled to be paid so much of such individual's 
     lump-sum credit as is attributable to service to which the 
     preceding sentence applies.
       ``(2)(A) An offense described in this paragraph is any 
     offense described in subparagraph (B) for which the following 
     apply:
       ``(i) Every act or omission of the individual (referred to 
     in paragraph (1)) that is needed to satisfy the elements of 
     the offense occurs while the individual is a Member.
       ``(ii) Every act or omission of the individual that is 
     needed to satisfy the elements of the offense directly 
     relates to the performance of the individual's official 
     duties as a Member.
       ``(iii) The offense is committed after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection.
       ``(B) An offense described in this subparagraph is only the 
     following, and only to the extent that the offense is a 
     felony under title 18:
       ``(i) An offense under section 201 of title 18 (bribery of 
     public officials and witnesses).
       ``(ii) An offense under section 219 of title 18 (officers 
     and employees acting as agents of foreign principals).
       ``(iii) An offense under section 371 of title 18 
     (conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States) to 
     the extent of any conspiracy to commit an act which 
     constitutes an offense under clause (i) or (ii).
       ``(3) An individual convicted of an offense described in 
     paragraph (2) shall not, after the date of the final 
     conviction, be eligible to participate in the retirement 
     system under this subchapter or chapter 84 while serving as a 
     Member.
       ``(4) The Office of Personnel Management shall prescribe 
     any regulations necessary to carry out this subsection. Such 
     regulations shall include--
       ``(A) provisions under which interest on any lump-sum 
     payment under the second sentence of paragraph (1) shall be 
     limited in a manner similar to that specified in the last 
     sentence of section 8316(b); and
       ``(B) provisions under which the Office may provide for--
       ``(i) the payment, to the spouse or children of any 
     individual referred to in the first sentence of paragraph 
     (1), of any amounts which (but for this clause) would 
     otherwise have been nonpayable by reason of such first 
     sentence, but only to the extent that the application of this 
     clause is considered necessary given the totality of the 
     circumstances; and
       ``(ii) an appropriate adjustment in the amount of any lump-
     sum payment under the second sentence of paragraph (1) to 
     reflect the application of clause (i).
       ``(5) For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `Member' has the meaning given such term by 
     section 2106, notwithstanding section 8331(2); and
       ``(B) the term `child' has the meaning given such term by 
     section 8341.''.
       (b) Federal Employees' Retirement System.--Section 8411 of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(l)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     chapter, the service of an individual finally convicted of an 
     offense described in paragraph (2) shall not be taken into 
     account for purposes of this chapter, except that this 
     sentence applies only to service rendered as a Member 
     (irrespective of when rendered). Any such individual (or 
     other person determined under section 8424(d), if applicable) 
     shall be entitled to be paid so much of such individual's 
     lump-sum credit as is attributable to service to which the 
     preceding sentence applies.
       ``(2) An offense described in this paragraph is any offense 
     described in section 8332(o)(2)(B) for which the following 
     apply:
       ``(A) Every act or omission of the individual (referred to 
     in paragraph (1)) that is needed to satisfy the elements of 
     the offense occurs while the individual is a Member.
       ``(B) Every act or omission of the individual that is 
     needed to satisfy the elements of the offense directly 
     relates to the performance of the individual's official 
     duties as a Member.
       ``(C) The offense is committed after the date of enactment 
     of this subsection.
       ``(3) An individual finally convicted of an offense 
     described in paragraph (2) shall not, after the date of the 
     conviction, be eligible to participate in the retirement 
     system under this chapter while serving as a Member.
       ``(4) The Office of Personnel Management shall prescribe 
     any regulations necessary to carry out this subsection. Such 
     regulations shall include--
       ``(A) provisions under which interest on any lump-sum 
     payment under the second sentence of paragraph (1) shall be 
     limited in a manner similar to that specified in the last 
     sentence of section 8316(b); and
       ``(B) provisions under which the Office may provide for--
       ``(i) the payment, to the spouse or children of any 
     individual referred to in the first sentence of paragraph 
     (1), of any amounts which (but for this clause) would 
     otherwise have been nonpayable by reason of such first 
     sentence, but only to the extent that the application of this 
     clause is considered necessary given the totality of the 
     circumstances; and
       ``(ii) an appropriate adjustment in the amount of any lump-
     sum payment under the second sentence of paragraph (1) to 
     reflect the application of clause (i).
       ``(5) For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `Member' has the meaning given such term by 
     section 2106, notwithstanding section 8401(20); and
       ``(B) the term `child' has the meaning given such term by 
     section 8341.''.
                                  ____


  Summary of Amendments Submitted to the Rules Committee for H. Res. 
 1000--Providing for Earmarking Reform in the House of Representatives

       Emanuel (IL)--1. Establishes a new point of order against 
     any reported bill or conference report which contains an 
     earmark that would: personally benefit a Member, Member's 
     spouse, or immediate family member; benefit a registered 
     lobbyist or former registered lobbyist who serves as chairman 
     of the leadership political action committee of the Member 
     requesting the earmark; benefit any entity that employs the 
     spouse or immediate family member of the earmark's sponsor; 
     benefits any entity that employs or is represented by a 
     former employee of the earmark's sponsor, or is represented 
     by a lobbying firm that employs any spouse or close relative 
     of the earmark's sponsor. Applies the point of order to any 
     bill containing an earmark which amends the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 to benefit one individual, corporation or 
     entity. Applies the point of order to any conference report 
     containing earmarks that were not contained in the House or 
     Senate-passed versions of the matter committed to conference.
       King, Steve (IA)--2. Prohibits the consideration of any 
     bill or conference report unless: (1) the bill or conference 
     report is made available on the internet for at least 48 
     hours prior to its consideration; (2) any amendment made in 
     order under a rule is made

[[Page 18315]]

     available on the internet within one hour after the rule is 
     filed; (3) any amendment under an open rule is made available 
     on the internet immediately after being offered, in a format 
     that is searchable and sortable.

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of H. Res. 1003, if ordered; and 
motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 6033.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 194, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 448]

                               YEAS--218

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--194

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Baca
     Bishop (UT)
     Cannon
     Case
     Culberson
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Forbes
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kolbe
     Lynch
     McHenry
     McKinney
     McMorris Rodgers
     Ney
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Strickland

                              {time}  1725

  Mr. HONDA and Mr. RANGEL changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. FRANKS of Arizona, YOUNG of Alaska, MILLER of Florida, and 
ROGERS of Michigan changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 245, 
noes 171, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 449]

                               AYES--245

     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)

[[Page 18316]]


     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Melancon
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Waters
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wu

                               NOES--171

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonilla
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rogers (KY)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherwood
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Baca
     Baker
     Bishop (UT)
     Case
     Culberson
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Forbes
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kolbe
     Marshall
     Ney
     Peterson (MN)
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Strickland

                              {time}  1733

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to H. Res. 1003, 
H. Res. 1000, as amended, is adopted.
  The text of H. Res. 1000, as amended, is as follows:

                              H. Res. 1000

       Resolved,

     SECTION 1. EARMARKING REFORM IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) In the House of Representatives, it shall not be in 
     order to consider--
       (1) a bill reported by a committee unless the report 
     includes a list of earmarks in the bill or in the report (and 
     the names of Members who submitted requests to the committee 
     for earmarks included in such list); or
       (2) a conference report to accompany a bill unless the 
     joint explanatory statement prepared by the managers on the 
     part of the House and the managers on the part of the Senate 
     includes a list of earmarks in the conference report or joint 
     statement (and the names of Members who submitted requests to 
     the committee for earmarks included in such list) that were 
     not committed to the conference committee by either House, 
     not in a report specified in paragraph (1), and not in a 
     report of a committee of the Senate on a companion measure.
       (3) In order to be cognizable by the Chair, a point of 
     order raised under paragraph (1) may be based only on the 
     failure of a report of a committee to include a list required 
     by paragraph (1).
       (b) In the House of Representatives, it shall not be in 
     order to consider--
       (1) a bill carrying a tax measure reported by the Committee 
     on Ways and Means as to which the Joint Committee on Taxation 
     has--
       (A) identified a tax earmark pursuant to subsection (e), 
     unless the report on the bill includes a list of tax earmarks 
     in the bill or report (and the names of Members who submitted 
     requests to the committee for tax earmarks included in such 
     list); or
       (B) failed to provide an analysis under subsection (e); or
       (2) a conference report to accompany a bill carrying a tax 
     measure as to which the Joint Committee on Taxation has--
       (A) identified a tax earmark pursuant to subsection (e), 
     unless the joint explanatory statement prepared by the 
     managers on the part of the House and the managers on the 
     part of the Senate includes a list of tax earmarks in the 
     conference report or joint statement (and the names of 
     Members who submitted requests to the committee for tax 
     earmarks included in such list) that were not committed to 
     the conference committee by either House, not in a report 
     specified in paragraph (1), and not in a report of a 
     committee of the Senate on a companion measure; or
       (B) failed to provide an analysis under subsection (e).
       (3) A point of order under paragraph (1) or (2) may not be 
     cognizable by the Chair if the Joint Committee on Taxation 
     has provided an analysis under subsection (e) and has not 
     identified a tax earmark.
       (c)(1) In the House of Representatives, it shall not be in 
     order to consider a rule or order that waives the application 
     of subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2).
       (2) A point of order that a rule or order waives the 
     application of subsection (b)(2)(A) may not be cognizable by 
     the Chair if the Joint Committee on Taxation has provided an 
     analysis under subsection (e) and has not identified a tax 
     earmark.
       (3) In order to be cognizable by the Chair, a point of 
     order that a rule or order waives the application of 
     subsection (b)(2)(A) must specify the precise language of the 
     rule or order and any pertinent analysis by the Joint 
     Committee on Taxation contained in the joint statement of 
     managers.
       (d)(1) As disposition of a point of order under subsection 
     (a) or (b), the Chair shall put the question of consideration 
     with respect to the proposition that is the subject of the 
     point of order.
       (2) As disposition of a point of order under subsection (c) 
     with respect to a rule or order relating to a conference 
     report, the Chair shall put the question of consideration as 
     follows: ``Shall the House now consider the resolution 
     notwithstanding the assertion of [the maker of the point of 
     order] that the object of the resolution introduces a new 
     earmark or new earmarks?''.
       (3) The question of consideration under this subsection 
     (other than one disposing of a point of order under 
     subsection (b)) shall be debatable for 15 minutes by the 
     Member initiating the point of order and for 15 minutes by an 
     opponent, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening 
     motion except one that the House adjourn.
       (e) The Joint Committee on Taxation shall review any bill 
     containing a tax measure that is being reported by the 
     Committee on Ways and Means or prepared for filing by a 
     committee of conference of the two Houses, and shall identify 
     whether such bill contains any tax earmarks. The Joint 
     Committee on Taxation shall provide to the Committee on Ways 
     and Means or the committee of conference a statement 
     identifying any such tax earmarks or declaring that the bill 
     or joint resolution does not contain any tax earmarks, and 
     such statement shall be included in the report on the bill or 
     joint statement of managers, as applicable. Any such 
     statement shall also be made available to any Member of 
     Congress by the Joint Committee on Taxation immediately upon 
     request.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) For the purpose of this resolution, the term 
     ``earmark'' means a provision in a bill or conference report, 
     or language in an accompanying committee report or joint 
     statement of managers--
       (1) with respect to a general appropriation bill, or 
     conference report thereon, providing or recommending an 
     amount of budget authority for a contract, loan, loan 
     guarantee, grant, or other expenditure with or to a non-
     Federal entity, if--
       (A) such entity is specifically identified in the report or 
     bill; or
       (B) if the discretionary budget authority is allocated 
     outside of the statutory or administrative formula-driven or 
     competitive bidding process and is targeted or directed to an 
     identifiable entity, specific State, or Congressional 
     district; or
       (2) with respect to a measure other than that specified in 
     paragraph (1), or conference report thereon, providing 
     authority, including budget authority, or recommending the 
     exercise of authority, including budget authority, for a 
     contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or 
     other expenditure with or to a non-Federal entity, if--

[[Page 18317]]

       (A) such entity is specifically identified in the report or 
     bill;
       (B) if the authorization for, or provision of, budget 
     authority, contract authority loan authority or other 
     expenditure is allocated outside of the statutory or 
     administrative formula-driven or competitive bidding process 
     and is targeted or directed to an identifiable entity, 
     specific State, or Congressional district; or
       (C) if such authorization for, or provision of, budget 
     authority, contract authority, loan authority or other 
     expenditure preempts statutory or administrative State 
     allocation authority.
       (b)(1) For the purpose of this resolution, the term ``tax 
     earmark'' means any revenue-losing provision that provides a 
     Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to 
     only one beneficiary (determined with respect to either 
     present law or any provision of which the provision is a 
     part) under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in any year for 
     which the provision is in effect;
       (2) for purposes of paragraph (1)--
       (A) all businesses and associations that are members of the 
     same controlled group of corporations (as defined in section 
     1563(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) shall be 
     treated as a single beneficiary;
       (B) all shareholders, partners, members, or beneficiaries 
     of a corporation, partnership, association, or trust or 
     estate, respectively, shall be treated as a single 
     beneficiary;
       (C) all employees of an employer shall be treated as a 
     single beneficiary;
       (D) all qualified plans of an employer shall be treated as 
     a single beneficiary;
       (E) all beneficiaries of a qualified plan shall be treated 
     as a single beneficiary;
       (F) all contributors to a charitable organization shall be 
     treated as a single beneficiary;
       (G) all holders of the same bond issue shall be treated as 
     a single beneficiary; and
       (H) if a corporation, partnership, association, trust or 
     estate is the beneficiary of a provision, the shareholders of 
     the corporation, the partners of the partnership, the members 
     of the association, or the beneficiaries of the trust or 
     estate shall not also be treated as beneficiaries of such 
     provision;
       (3) for the purpose of this subsection, the term ``revenue-
     losing provision'' means any provision that is estimated to 
     result in a reduction in Federal tax revenues (determined 
     with respect to either present law or any provision of which 
     the provision is a part) for any one of the two following 
     periods--
       (A) the first fiscal year for which the provision is 
     effective; or
       (B) the period of the 5 fiscal years beginning with the 
     first fiscal year for which the provision is effective; and
       (4) the terms used in this subsection shall have the same 
     meaning as those terms have generally in the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, unless otherwise expressly provided.
       (c) For the purpose of this resolution--
       (1) government-sponsored enterprises, Federal facilities, 
     and Federal lands shall be considered Federal entities;
       (2) to the extent that the non-Federal entity is a State, 
     unit of local government, territory, an Indian tribe, a 
     foreign government or an intergovernmental international 
     organization, the provision or language shall not be 
     considered an earmark unless the provision or language also 
     specifies the specific purpose for which the designated 
     budget authority is to be expended;
       (3) the term ``budget authority'' shall have the same 
     meaning as such term is defined in section 3 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 622); and
       (4) an obligation limitation shall be treated as though it 
     is budget authority.

     

                          ____________________