[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6291-6300]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4975, LOBBYING ACCOUNTABILITY AND 
                        TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2006

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 783 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 783

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4975) to provide greater transparency with 
     respect to lobbying activities, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     amendments recommended by the Committees on the Judiciary, 
     Rules, and Government Reform now printed in the bill, the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of the Rules Committee Print dated April 21, 2006, 
     modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be 
     considered as adopted in the House and the Committee of the 
     Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the 
     original bill for the purpose of further amendment and shall 
     be considered as read. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 
     XVIII, no further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be 
     in order except those printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules. Each further amendment may be offered 
     only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only 
     by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as 
     read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against 
     such further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such 
     further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2. In the engrossment of H.R. 4975, the Clerk shall--
       (1) add the text of H.R. 513, as passed by the House, as 
     new matter at the end of H.R. 4975;
       (2) conform the title of H.R. 4975 to reflect the addition 
     of the text of H.R. 513 to the engrossment;
       (3) assign appropriate designations to provisions within 
     the engrossment; and
       (4) conform provisions for short titles within the 
     engrossment.
       Sec. 3. After passage of H.R. 4975, it shall be in order to 
     take from the Speaker's table S. 2349 and to consider the 
     Senate bill in the House. All points of order against 
     consideration of the Senate bill are waived. It shall be in 
     order to move to strike all after the enacting clause of the 
     Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof the provisions of 
     H.R. 4975 (as engrossed pursuant to section 2 of this 
     resolution). All points of order against that motion are 
     waived. If the motion is adopted and the Senate bill, as 
     amended, is passed, then it shall be in order to move that 
     the House insist on its amendment to the Senate bill and 
     request a conference with the Senate thereon.

                              {time}  1545

  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 Rochester, 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, it was 11:00 this morning that I first called up the 
rule for consideration of this extraordinarily important lobbying and 
ethics reform measure. As I began my remarks, I talked about the fact 
that over the past 4 months, we have been meeting with outside 
organizations. We have been meeting with Democrats and Republicans in 
this House. We have been meeting with congressional experts to glean as 
much information as we possibly can from a wide range of sources.
  The point I want to make is we began at about 11:00 this morning. I 
felt at that point we had a great deal of input over the past 4 months 
since we began dealing with this critically important issue which has 
to do with the credibility of this institution. As we began that 
debate, I thought why don't we get a little more input; and so for that 
reason, I moved to withdraw the resolution, and that is exactly what we 
did. We decided to proceed with more input from Members on this issue. 
And having gained more information, more input from our colleagues, we 
are now reconvening and further considering this important measure.
  You know, the issue of reform is something of which I have been very, 
very proud over the years I have been privileged to serve here. The 
Republican Party is the party of reform. We have led reform initiatives 
for Congress after Congress, and what we are doing here today is 
another indication of our strong commitment to the issue of reform.
  We know that there is a problem of corruption. We also know that it 
is not a one-party issue. It is a problem that has existed on both 
sides of the aisle. I remember a quote from our very distinguished 
former colleague who served as chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee, Dan Rostenkowski, who one time said, You know, if everybody 
is unhappy with a piece of legislation, it is probably a pretty good 
bill.
  And that is exactly what is the case right here. I do not know of 
anyone who is ecstatic with this piece of legislation. I have read the 
editorials out there from some of the people who have provided me with 
input on this issue.
  I have listened to Democrats, and I will tell you, since January, I 
could not come to the House floor without a Democrat coming up to me 
and saying, You cannot ban privately funded travel. We must continue to 
maintain privately funded travel. It is critical. And yes, I have heard 
similar statements from our side of the aisle.
  I mention the fact that there was input from outside organizations. 
Some have been very critical of this legislation, Mr. Speaker. But I am 
pleased that some of the harshest critics of this legislation have been 
able to have a great deal of input in this legislation.

[[Page 6292]]

I have been very proud to have had meetings with the leadership of 
Common Cause, Democracy 21 and other organizations.
  One of the recommendations that came to us from Mr. Wertheimer was 
that we prevent registered lobbyists who are former Members of Congress 
from having access to the House floor and the gym. We, I am very happy 
to say, with a strong bipartisan vote, were able to make sure that we 
prevented former Members of Congress who are registered lobbyists from 
having access to the floor and to the gym.
  One of the concerns out there has been the lack of transparency when 
it comes to the campaign contributions that lobbyists make and the 
lobbying activity that they engage in. That was another recommendation 
that was put forward by the leadership of Democracy 21 and Common 
Cause. I am very pleased that in this legislation we include that 
issue, and we address it to make sure that transparency and 
accountability is addressed, and we do bring this forward.
  Could we do more? Of course we could do more. I hope in conference we 
will be able to address these issues when we move ahead with this. I 
also want to say that the issue of reporting from lobbyists, and it is 
done right now under current law on a semiannual basis, it was the 
recommendation of the leadership of Democracy 21 and of Common Cause 
that we go from semiannual reporting to quarterly reporting.
  I know there were a wide range of other recommendations that those 
and other organizations made that have not been incorporated, but I get 
back to the argument that we have been able to take a number of very 
important issues that have been put forward by Democrats and 
Republicans and include them in this legislation.
  Would I like to do more? Sure, I would like to do more. I hope very 
much that as we take this bill, passing it out of this House and go to 
a conference with our colleagues in the Senate, that we will be able to 
do more.
  I see the distinguished former chairman of the ethics committee Mr. 
Hefley here, and I know he has a number of concerns. I have already 
told him that as we take this first step in addressing the issue of 
moving ahead to a conference, I want to address the concerns that 
Members have that have not heretofore been addressed in this first 
process in the legislation and do that.
  Now, over the past 4 months we have seen five committees of 
jurisdiction hold hearings and markups on this issue. The Rules 
Committee, with which I am the most familiar, held three original 
jurisdiction hearings, and we held a markup on this legislation. We had 
13 outside witnesses who came and provided their recommendations to us, 
and we had input from a wide range of Members as we went through this 
process.
  I know that our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, on the 
Government Reform Committee, Mr. Hastings, who is chairman of the 
ethics committee and also has been very involved working with the Rules 
Committee on this, and also Mr. Ehlers, chairman of the Administration 
Committee, have all worked diligently so we can put together a piece of 
legislation which will allow the American people to have a greater 
opportunity to see what it is that takes place here, to ensure that the 
tragic problems of corruption that we have witnessed will never happen 
again. That is our goal. I believe this legislation provides bold, 
strong, dynamic reforms which will move us in the direction towards 
doing just that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would love to ask my good friend from California what great insight 
he did gain in these last 5 hours, and if it led him to want us to be 
able to be part of this input and that you would reconsider turning 
down a Democrat substitute?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say again, as we know very well 
in this institution, listening to Members talking about a wide range of 
issues is a very important thing. We have been talking about, over the 
past few hours, some of the concerns that were raised by a number of 
our Members.
  The issue of increasing transparency and accountability is very 
important, and I will say that I believe this package with this 
excellent rule that we are coming forward with to allow us to debate a 
wide range of issues is the right thing to do and will provide the best 
structure for our first step as we prepare to move to a conference with 
our colleagues in the Senate.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry it did not lead to input from 
our side.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I 
would say that input from her side has been very important. And, yes, I 
have over the past few hours been talking to a number of Democrats who 
have been providing recommendations to me as well, and I thank my 
friend.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee, who does have some input.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from 
California for being able to give that speech with a straight face. I 
really admire him for it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I was smiling as I presented it.
  Mr. OBEY. Well, I thought you were gritting your teeth; but, 
nonetheless, that is fine.
  Mr. Speaker, let me simply say I really regret days like this in the 
House because I love this institution, and I love what this institution 
is supposed to represent to the American people.
  The public wants us to pass significant House reform. Instead, this 
legislation before us, in my humble view, constitutes consumer fraud 
masquerading as lobbying reform, and there are two spectacular examples 
of that.
  The most egregious example of the corruption of the process in this 
House is the way in which conference committees have been substantially 
corrupted by some of the most powerful people in this body. When you 
have a package that does not prevent powerful people in this body from 
adding 30 and 40 pages of new legislation to a conference report 
without ever having a vote on the conference report, as happened last 
year on the defense appropriation bill, when you have a reform bill 
that still allows that to occur, I do not think that is much of a 
reform bill.
  This bill ought to require that any time any item is inserted in a 
conference report, that that cannot be considered by the House unless 
there is an open public vote of the conferees beforehand. That is the 
way you prevent the pharmaceutical industry from being shielded from 
suit, as happened on the defense bill last year at the behest of the 
majority leader of the other body.
  Let me also say that with respect to earmarks, this bill purports to 
deal with the problem of earmarks by only going after appropriations 
earmarks; and yet last year on the authorization bill on highways, 
there were some 5,000 earmarks, seven times as many as were contained 
in the comparable appropriation bill. To not do something about 
authorizing committee earmarks in the process is a joke, in my view.
  And then I would point out, to not lay a glove on the special goodies 
that are tucked into tax bills is even more outrageous. The 1986 tax 
bill, for instance, included 340 separate transition rules each 
benefiting a small set of individuals and small, ``little'' businesses 
like General Motors, Chrysler, Phillips Petroleum and Commonwealth 
Edison. It provided special deals for sports stadiums in Tampa, San 
Francisco, Denver, Cleveland, and Los Angeles. It provided a special 
rule for a millionaire stockbroker who had the largest private 
collection of Rodin sculpture in

[[Page 6293]]

the Chicago area, and a family listed by Forbes Magazine as one of the 
400 richest in America.
  Any bill that allows those kinds of earmarks to continue is a bill 
that is not worthy of the name. It is a joke. It is an embarrassment, 
and I would urge that this House get serious and pass real reform.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that we are, with this 
package, going to implement real reform.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart), the very distinguished vice chairman of the Rules Committee 
who has long been a champion of institutional reform.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman 
for the time and for his hard work in bringing forth this piece of 
legislation today.
  The Speaker of the House announced last January that this difficult 
subject, difficult but important, and it is difficult, Mr. Speaker, 
because any time that you deal with institutional reform, you deal with 
reform of the practices of Congress, obviously there is much tension 
and controversy and difficulty. And we are seeing it in the debate 
today, and we are going to continue to see it in the debate today. So 
it is not an easy task.
  But the Speaker in January announced that he was going to deal, and 
we were going to, pursuant to his instruction and his leadership, deal 
with this issue of further creating transparency in this process and in 
this House, this respectable, this House that needs to be respected 
because it merits it. And yet, obviously, it can be improved.
  And Chairman Dreier, pursuant to the instruction of the Speaker, has 
done tremendous work in listening time and again to the concerns of 
Members on both sides of the aisle and formulating this piece of 
legislation that is before us today that seeks to be before us based on 
this rule with which we bring it to the floor today.
  So I urge all colleagues, first, to realize that their vote on the 
rule is going to be a vote on whether they are serious about 
considering lobbying reform. This is the vote on the record of whether 
or not one is serious about considering, about dealing with the issue 
of lobbying reform, and we will have an opportunity to go on the 
record.
  We can always talk about how we would prefer to do other things. But 
perfection is sometimes, Mr. Speaker, the enemy of progress. This is 
the real thing, the real vote. If you are for lobbying reform, you will 
vote for the rule. If you are not, even if you have all sorts of 
excuses, then you vote ``no.''
  I am confident that the majority of this body will vote for this rule 
so we can further consider and further improve this important piece of 
legislation that we bring to the floor today.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this oppressive, 
undemocratic rule, a rule inconsistent with the great traditions of the 
people's House. So many amendments that were proposed by good Members 
of this body were not allowed to be considered today. And let me give 
you three examples. Number 1, no amendment was allowed to deal with the 
issue of Members getting rides on corporate jets. Let me put this in 
perspective for you with real numbers. Today my wife is 35 weeks 
pregnant. A few weeks ago, I priced what does it cost if this happens 
in the middle of the night and I need to try to get home quickly to be 
with her when she goes into labor: $12,000 on a charter service for me 
to get home to Little Rock to be with my pregnant wife. Do you know 
what the first class ticket costs with Northwest Airlines? $680. So an 
alternative for me is to call up one of my good corporate friends and 
say, can I catch a ride on your plane? I will give you $680, and 
neither one of us will say, oh, by the way, that means you gave me an 
$11,300 gift. I think that people should be able to ride on planes. But 
they should pay the fair market value. That amendment should have been 
allowed to be discussed and brought on the floor.
  Second, the chairman and I had a discussion at the beginning of this 
session about my feelings. I had an amendment proposed in the Rules 
Committee yesterday to greatly restrict the ability of former Members 
who are registered lobbyists to be on the floor and participate in some 
of these activities that we know as the Members dining room and the 
parking garage and the gym and all these kinds of things. Because here 
is the issue: when my constituents come from Arkansas, they have to go 
through the security. Members who are registered lobbyists do not. When 
my constituents come from Arkansas, they don't get to go to the 
Members' dining room. When my constituents come from Arkansas they 
don't get to roam through the halls and go in the back rooms of the 
committee rooms. Former Members who are registered lobbyists do.
  My amendment was not allowed on the floor to be considered. If you 
don't like it, vote against it; but let me have this discussion.
  Third, an amendment that deals with lobbyist-funded meals was not 
allowed. An amendment to deal with the ban on lobbyists-paid meals was 
not allowed. Are we so dependent on lobbyist-funded meals for our lunch 
money that we won't even let an amendment come on the floor of the 
House? Well, I have got a solution. I have got $5. I will leave it over 
here on this podium. If any Member is so dependent on not having lunch 
money, so dependent on lobbyist-funded meals, take the $5. But let us 
have a vote on these very important amendments.
  Vote against this rule. It is a bad rule, undemocratic.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
first congratulate my friend. And I know that he is going to have a 
wonderful baby boy or girl before too terribly long.
  And I will say in response to the issue of corporate aircraft, that 
is an issue that is addressed by the Federal Election Commission, and 
those are regulations which are promulgated by them. And that is the 
reason that we have not addressed this issue there in light of the fact 
that those regs come forward there.
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. SNYDER. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, me going back to Little Rock, 
Arkansas, to be with my wife as she goes into labor is not a campaign 
event. That is not the issue. We are talking about people catching 
rides for all kinds of reasons.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, what I am 
talking about is the use of corporate aircraft for campaign events that 
is handled by the Federal Election Commission. The Federal Election 
Commission is the one that promulgates those regulations, because those 
corporate aircraft are used for campaign events for the political 
process.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished former 
chairman of the House Committee on Ethics, my good friend from Ft. 
Collins, Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I don't know who left me the $5 up here to 
buy my vote. I am not sure here.
  Mr. DREIER. My recommendation is that you not touch it.
  Mr. HEFLEY. I will keep my hands up here where you can see them.
  Mr. Chairman, I have enormous respect for you and the committee, and 
you know that I do. But I am not happy with this rule. And I am not 
happy with this rule because I think it doesn't allow the House to 
consider real and meaningful ethics reform.
  Now, you do lobbyist reform. But in terms of the ethics process 
reform, I don't think we really have much of that here. The rule does 
not allow the House to consider many of the provisions that would 
strengthen the integrity of the House and help restore public 
confidence. And I think actually we are missing an opportunity here.
  I introduced a bill, along with Representative Hulshof, who was my 
colleague on the Ethics Committee, to

[[Page 6294]]

strengthen the Ethics Committee in ways not allowed under this rule. 
Our bill is cosponsored by many Democrats and Republicans, and not just 
Democrats and Republicans, but the left and right wing of both parties. 
So philosophically it crossed lines too. And yet our amendment will not 
be considered in this rule.
  Our amendment had broad and sweeping disclosure across the board. All 
gifts over $20 disclosed, all privately funded travel disclosed, all 
lobbyist registrations, all passengers on corporate jets, all Members' 
financial disclosure statements, all disclosed on the Internet in real-
time. Most of this is not in the bill. And yet it would allow Members 
to, our bill that we wanted as an amendment, would allow Members to 
continue privately funded travel, which I think is important.
  Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding, and I would simply say to 
my friend that he has brought forward a wide range of very, very 
important issues, many of which he addressed as chairman of the Ethics 
Committee himself. And I will, again, as I said in my opening remarks, 
I am very happy to make the commitment that we recognize that this 
process is the first step on our road towards dealing with this, and it 
is our goal that as we move beyond this rule to consider the 
legislation that we get into a House-Senate conference.
  I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HEFLEY. I won't belabor the point any more, except to just simply 
say there was a lot of good opportunity here, I think, to really 
strengthen the ethics process. And I know there are some who would like 
to do a commission to that again. The ethics process works. It did work 
and it worked very well for a long time. It needs to be tweaked a 
little bit, and that is what this bill would do.
  I see the majority leader on the floor. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the majority leader.
  Mr. BOEHNER. I thank my colleague for yielding, and suggest to my 
colleague from California, I am as concerned as you and many other 
Members on both sides of the aisle that the Ethics Committee process is 
not running the way it should. For the benefit of this institution, for 
the responsibility of this institution, the Ethics Committee should be 
functioning and should be enforcing the rules of the House. 
Unfortunately, one side of the aisle has decided that they don't want 
the process to continue.
  Now, the gentleman from Colorado and I, yesterday, had a conversation 
about the ethics process. I am interested in seeing it up and running. 
I am interested in working in a bipartisan way to fix the problems that 
are there so that it will run for the benefit of Members and the 
institution; and the gentleman has my commitment to work with him and 
Members on the other side of the aisle to make sure that the ethics 
process works, because it is important for the integrity of this 
institution.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HEFLEY. You said one side of the aisle is not interested in the 
Ethics Committee proceeding and working. There is enough blame to go 
around, I have to say. Both sides of the aisles have fouled this 
process up now. And we need to work together to get it back together. 
The Ethics Committee needs to work, and anything we do in the Ethics 
Committee reform process has to be bipartisan, or nonpartisan. You 
can't have an Ethics Committee that is partisan, and it has to be 
nonpartisan. So I would like to work with the majority leader, and I 
would like to ask that if we are not going to have this as an amendment 
to this bill, that we have the opportunity to have a freestanding bill 
on the floor in the foreseeable future, in the near future, which would 
encompass much of what I have described here.
  Mr. BOEHNER. In responding to my colleague from Colorado, I am 
interested in working in a bipartisan way to come to an agreement on 
those issues that are necessary for the Ethics Committee to do its job 
on behalf of Members and this institution. And whatever I can do to 
help foster those changes and to initiate real action at the Ethics 
Committee, I will do everything I can to work with you to do that.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Hefley would like more time, I can 
yield him another minute.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I just lost my $5 here.
  I don't want to take any more time because I know this is going to, 
we need to go ahead and get on with this thing. But I think we do have 
a serious opportunity here to do some really good things. And there are 
some really good things in this bill. I just don't think it goes far 
enough if we are really to have the reform kind of package that many of 
us would like to see.
  Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield, if he has any time left. I 
will say that I agree with exactly what the gentleman said. I wish 
there could have been more in this bill too. But, again, getting input 
from so many on both sides of the aisle has been a challenge.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Reclaiming my time, I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, 
that it is all well and good to talk about we are going to work very 
hard to fix the Ethics Committee, but we are in the 16th month of this 
term, and I don't see much action taking place over there.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I happen to believe we are losing our moral 
authority to lead this place. It has been over a decade since my party 
took over the majority, and I feel like we have forgotten how we got 
here. Republicans were united on three common issues, and one of them 
was reforming Congress.
  It was amazing after the 2004 election we considered repealing the 
rule requiring a Republican leader to step down if indicted. Next we 
proceeded to remove the members of our Ethics Committee who had voted 
to hold our former majority leader accountable for his actions. Then we 
proceeded to make it more difficult to initiate an Ethics Committee 
investigation.
  I think there is a tendency for power to corrupt, and absolute power 
to corrupt absolutely. We need bold action, and we need bold reform. 
Regretfully, this bill does not do it, and this rule does not allow us 
to make it better.

                              {time}  1615

  I asked the Rules Committee to consider 5 reforms that Congressman 
Meehan and I and others had proposed. Create an Office of Public 
Integrity. If you do not think it makes sense, debate it and then 
explain why.
  Strengthen lobby disclosure requirements above what this legislation 
includes. If you do not think it makes sense, allow the amendment and 
then argue against it and vote it down.
  Require disclosure of huge sums being spent by professional lobby 
firms and lobby organizations on grassroots campaigns to stimulate 
lobbying by Members of Congress. Allow that amendment. If you do not 
think it makes sense, argue against it and vote it down.
  Require Members to pay for charter flights they take rather than pay 
a first-class fare. Allow this amendment, and if you do not think it 
makes sense, argue against it and vote it down.
  Enact a true gift ban. If you do not think it makes sense, still 
allow a debate. Debate it, and if you do not think it makes sense, vote 
it down.
  Particularly as it relates to charter flights, here we are going to 
ban Members from potentially flying to deliver a commencement address, 
but we are going to say to the leaders on both sides of the aisle, you 
can go on a corporate jet and only pay the first-class rate when it 
will cost that corporation literally tens of thousands of dollars. I do 
not understand how we, with a straight face, can say we are cracking 
down on the abuses of lobbying when we allow the corporations to fund 
where our leaders go.
  The bottom line for me is why can we not have debate and vote on 
these

[[Page 6295]]

issues and a number of others? I believe we need to defeat the rule and 
then do what my majority leader and the chairman have said: work on a 
bipartisan basis on a new bill, on new rules, that will allow some 
debate.
  When I was re-elected 10 years ago and Republicans took over, I 
really believed, Mr. Dreier, that we would be allowed to have debates. 
Every year I see less and less of it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me say once again that I am very proud of the reform agenda that 
we have implemented and continue to implement in a wide range of areas 
including institutionally right here on ensuring that we have a free-
flowing debate on a wide range of issues, a guaranteed motion to 
recommit, which I know my colleagues will have on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence), the distinguished chairman of the 
Republican Study Committee.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I 
commend the chairman of the Rules Committee for his outstanding 
leadership and no small amount of perseverance and courage in evidence 
today.
  I also speak in commendation of Speaker Hastert and our leadership 
for bringing the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act to the 
floor in this rule.
  After months of scandal and years of deficit spending, we have come 
to a moment of truth. We will show today on this floor in less than an 
hour who in this body is committed to reform and who is not.
  This legislation has significant lobbying reforms: enhanced 
disclosure reporting for lobbyists, civil and criminal penalties for 
noncompliance, and imposes a moratorium on privately funded travel. But 
as we change the way lobbyists spend their money, this Congress also 
understands that we must change the way we spend the money of the 
American people, understanding that you cannot complain about the 
sharks when you are holding a bucket of chum.
  This bill contains historic and significant budget reforms. Under the 
reforms we will consider, Members will have unprecedented opportunities 
to challenge so-called earmark spending at every stage of the 
legislative process. And we can do more earmark reform, applying it to 
all committees, as has been suggested, but we dare not do less. 
Lobbying reform must be married with spending reforms that give greater 
transparency and accountability to the process and the American people.
  This country longs for a Congress that will renew its commitment to 
fiscal and ethical reform, and this is such a moment. This is a moment 
of truth. I urge all of my colleagues to support the rule for the 
Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I had an amendment that was 
adopted in the Judiciary Committee, and the adoption of this rule would 
eliminate that amendment.
  That amendment would have created just a study of a practice where 
some lobbyists appear to be charging percentage contingency fees for 
getting earmarks. Now, when you combine this idea with the K Street 
Project where you are supposed to be hiring Republican lobbyists who 
are supposed to be contributing back to the legislators, you can see 
how ugly a practice this can get. I just asked for a study.
  And, Mr. Speaker, these kinds of contracts are illegal for agents of 
foreign governments. They are illegal in some executive branch 
lobbying. The Congressional Research Service in a memorandum cited 
these as bad because they furnish the strongest incentive to the 
exertion of corrupting and sinister influences to the end that the 
desired legislation may be secured, and there is a long line of cases 
in which it is utterly void against public policy. The CRS memo cites 
Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1906, saying that it is the tendency in such 
contracts to provide incentives towards corruption. An 1853 Supreme 
Court case said that it is an undoubted principle of the common law, 
that it will not lend its aid to enforce a contract such as this to do 
an act which is inconsistent with sound morals or public policy or 
which tends to corrupt or contaminate.
  Mr. Speaker, these kinds of contracts are illegal in 39 States 
because of their corrupting influence. If we are going to have a bill 
that suggests it is going to do something about corruption, what is 
wrong with at least studying the prevalence of these contracts which do 
not appear to be illegal in the Federal Government but everybody knows 
have a corrupting influence?
  I would hope that we would defeat the rule so that my amendment, 
which was adopted in the Judiciary Committee, can be reinserted back 
into the bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  As I listen to critics of this legislation, you would think that the 
package that we have is a huge step backward. Let me first say to my 
friend Mr. Scott that his amendment was not germane to the bill, and 
all of the amendments that we have made in order are germane to the 
bill. We, in fact, used that as a guide in proceeding here.
  When one thinks about what has or has not happened, again, this 
criticism is leveled towards what is not in the bill, failing to 
recognize what is in the bill.
  This bill doubles the fines for lobbyists who fail to disclose. It 
adds the possibility of jail time for failing to comply with the act. 
It adds oversight to make sure disclosure information is accurate, and 
it gives the public full on-line access to disclosure reports, all 
things that are needed and are improved with the passage of this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point I am very pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Scottsdale, Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California, the 
chairman of the Rules Committee, for the time to speak on behalf of 
this rule.
  And one of the challenges we confront in an institution that, yes, 
has a partisan composition and is made up of, admittedly, imperfect 
beings is that there are numerous examples of imperfection and, dare we 
say, partisanship brought to this debate.
  But the question in the final analysis, despite the seeming 
inevitability of incrementalism, which in itself in this case is not 
fatal or does not flaw this positive action, is that the short-term 
temptation to attempt to gain partisan advantage is not completely 
negated on this floor. And, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, we would be 
naive if we thought that it were.
  I listened with great interest to my friend from Virginia, a member 
of the Judiciary Committee, offer some legal case history, although his 
amendment was not germane to this bill. I could point out, just as a 
citizen, we could look at other challenges faced by other Congresses 
and other majority in a landmark work entitled The Ambition and the 
Power that dealt with the challenges of a previous majority.
  What is past is prologue. What we have an opportunity to do in this 
House today, despite admitted imperfections, despite the temptation of 
partisanship, is to take a meaningful step forward for reform.
  I listened to constructive criticisms from those who say the bill 
does not go far enough. I listened to other criticisms that perhaps are 
partisan in nature. But the question before this House is will we stand 
up clearly and take a step in favor of reform?
  This Member says yes. Let it begin with this rule. Vote ``yes'' on 
the rule and ``yes'' on the legislation and ``yes'' for real reform.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will be blunt. Washington is mired in 
corruption. In this last year alone, the Vice President's Chief of 
Staff was indicted for obstructing justice. Two of the former majority 
leaders top aides have

[[Page 6296]]

pled guilty to bribery and conspiracy. And a senior Republican Member 
of Congress was convicted of accepting over $1 million in bribes from 
military contractors. Yet this so-called reform legislation, this 
incrementalism that we should accept, is a complete and utter sham.
  In my committee, the Committee on Government Reform, we worked hard 
to pass true reform legislation of the executive branch, and on a 
unanimous bipartisan vote of 32-0, we reported legislation that would 
have closed the revolving door between K Street and the Federal 
Government. Our bill would stop lobbyists like the former Deputy 
Interior Secretary from using a high-ranking government position to 
benefit energy industry clients. It would prohibit senior officials, 
like the former Medicare Director, from seeking jobs representing 
pharmaceutical companies while writing prescription drug legislation. 
Our legislation would have ended secret meetings between lobbyists and 
executive branch officials like those that produced the deeply flawed 
White House energy plan. And it would have promoted open government, 
banned covert propaganda, and given national security whistleblowers 
long overdue protection.
  But what does the Republican leadership do when Committee Chairman 
Tom Davis and I jointly proposed these landmark bipartisan reforms and 
we asked that it be included in this legislation or give us a rule to 
report it out as separate legislation? They reject it. They would not 
give us an opportunity to bring bipartisan legislation to the floor. 
And then they stand here and say, we cannot do more because we do not 
have bipartisan support. But when we give them a bill on ethics and 
lobbying reform with bipartisan support, they ignore it and will not 
give us a chance on the House floor.
  A corrupt mentality governs in Washington, and there is no better 
metaphor for the contempt for reform that has infected this body than 
the treatment that our proposal received.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? I would be happy 
to yield the gentleman time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. If you yield me time, I would be happy to yield to you.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to engage in a colloquy 
with my friend.

                              {time}  1630

  I have the greatest respect for him as a fellow Californian. The fact 
is, Mr. Speaker, as we look at this issue, will the gentleman not 
acknowledge that the problem of corruption we face in this town is a 
bipartisan issue, that it crosses party lines and it is not just a 
Republican issue?
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I certainly think what 
we have seen is a lot of corruption, and the resolution of how to deal 
with it ought to be bipartisan. We gave you a bipartisan proposal, 
which you would not bring to the House floor.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California will not yield 
further to me?
  Mr. DREIER. I yielded twice as much, 100 percent more, than what the 
gentleman yielded to me.
  Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman will not yield further.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes). The House will be in order.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the gentleman from 
Minnesota to proceed, and then if my friend from California would like 
to ask me a question or something, as soon as we are done with the 
gentleman from Minnesota, I will be happy to yield to my friend from 
California.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, this bill does include many 
important provisions, and I am thankful for that; but I feel that we 
have not gone quite far enough in terms of stopping the revolving door 
from public service to K Street. It does not extend the current 1-year 
ban on Members becoming registered lobbyists.
  To fix the problems caused by competing public and personal 
interests, we must close the revolving door between Congress and 
lobbying. That is why I introduced H.R. 4658, to permanently ban 
Members from taking jobs as registered lobbyists. We must make sure 
there is not the temptation for Members of Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I applaud the things that are in the bill. I hope that 
we can continue to work on this further in the future.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I would simply 
say in response to my friend, as he knows very well, we have really 
gone a long way toward making sure there is greater transparency on 
that issue, so the so-called ban on lobbying, the cooling-off period, 
is made clear with lines that we draw. I think it is really moving in 
the direction to which my friend has referred.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I 
appreciate the clarity that was put in the bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this juncture I would like to yield 30 
seconds to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my good friend why, when 
the committee that has jurisdiction over executive branch lobbying has 
a unanimous vote on a bipartisan bill to try to stop some of these 
egregious problems of the revolving door, why we couldn't get it on the 
floor?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would reclaim my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Both gentlemen will suspend. Thirty seconds 
has been yielded. Please allow the 30 seconds to expire.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I would simply 
say that this measure is designed to deal with lobbying and ethics 
reform for the first branch of government, the legislative branch; and 
it is for that reason that we have not gotten into the executive branch 
issue to which my friend referred.
  Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on 
each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  The Chair would remind the House that when a Member who controls time 
yields a specific block of time to another, that time may not be 
reclaimed and should not be interrupted by interjection.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that I have 8\1/2\ 
minutes remaining and my colleague from Rochester has 15\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, I think it would be probably useful for us to proceed with 
hearing some of her arguments.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the lobbying reform proposal drafted by the Republican 
leadership in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal and other recent 
instances of corruption by public officials is woefully lacking in many 
respects; but chief among them, however, is its failure to address the 
central weakness and the most corrosive aspect of the current lobbying 
rules, and that has proven to be this revolving door aspect we have 
heard so much about today, which involves public sector congressional 
folks, employees, going over to work for special interest groups. In 
the most recent instance with the Abramoff scandal, we had staffers for 
the former Republican leader going over to work for Abramoff.
  However, the need to impose greater restrictions on the flow between 
key legislative and executive branch policymaking posts and business 
and lobbying firms was never more evident than during the days 
following the passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug Act. That was 
an absolute disgrace. We came to find out that the former chairman of 
the House Energy and Commerce Committee had taken the top job at the 
pharmaceutical industry's most powerful trade group only a couple of 
months after he had played an instrumental role in the bill's 
development and promotion.

[[Page 6297]]

  We came to find out only days after passage of the Medicare act that 
the administration's chief congressional negotiator on the bill had 
landed a job at a top lobbying firm representing drug companies and 
health care providers with major stakes in the legislation.
  As has been pointed out, that legislation has a provision that says 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall not negotiate lower 
drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies. Then one of the chief 
drafters of the bill goes to work for the pharmaceutical companies. It 
weakens our credibility as an institution here. Not only were seniors 
robbed, but also I think that the insurance companies were allowed to 
greatly benefit as a result of this revolving door situation, and we 
must correct it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this lobby bill began with grand talk and 
broad promises, and today it is ending with a whimper. The announcement 
was the high watermark. Since then, the Republican strategy has been on 
each of these reforms, let the weak get weaker, and to reject most 
every Democratic proposal that has been advanced, even some like my own 
that had no visible opposition.
  So much has been stripped from this bill that if it remains here 
another week, there won't be anything left but the name, and the name 
is certainly appropriate, The Transparency Act, because you can see 
right through this bill, that it does not reflect any meaningful 
bipartisan reform of a very corrupt system.
  Tragically, the party of Abraham Lincoln is becoming the party of 
Abramoff. No wonder you have blocked every effort we have made to 
investigate this wretched scandal. With all the special interest wining 
and dining, what a ``Grand Old Party'' it is. But it is a grand party 
for everyone but the taxpayers, who have to pick up the tab, because 
corruption is not a victimless crime. Ask those who bear the higher 
price at the gas pump, who bear the costs as taxpayers of no-bid 
Halliburton contracts, or the suffering of our seniors from a 
pharmaceutical bill written for the manufacturers, not for the seniors.
  This bill represents no right step in the right direction, no true 
incremental reform. It is, instead, a phony, contrived maneuver to 
obstruct genuine change, to stop the greed and end the culture of 
corruption that is weakening our country.
  We have come forward as Democrats with one proposal after another to 
reach across the aisle and to try to address this corruption, but at 
every turn our hand has been slapped away by those who are content with 
the corrupt system that is ruining this country and damaging this 
Congress.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my 
time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our minority 
leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, we are about to vote on a rule for a so-
called lobbying reform bill that The Washington Post has said ``is 
simply a joke.'' ``Or more accurately,'' it goes on to say, ``a ruse 
aimed at convincing what the leaders must believe is a doltish public 
that the House has done something to clean up Washington.'' A ruse. 
That is what this is.
  And to the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, if you think 
that what is being proposed today maintains a high ethical standard for 
this House, either your standards are too low or you have no interest, 
no interest, in cleaning up the culture of corruption that the 
Republicans have in this House of Representatives.
  This Republican leadership so-called Lobbying Accountability and 
Transparency Act holds no one accountable and provides little 
transparency to the activities of lobbyists or anyone else. It is an 
embarrassingly trivial response to the culture of corruption that has 
thrived under the Republican Congress.
  And this corruption has a cost to the American people, as others of 
my colleagues have said. This corruption has come at great cost to the 
American people in terms of prices at the pump, a Medicare prescription 
drug bill that does little to lower the cost of spiraling health drug 
costs, and waste and fraud in the gulf coast and in Iraq.
  This bill is a missed opportunity, a missed opportunity. As House 
Democratic Leader, I would have hoped that we could have worked 
together with the leadership of this House of Representatives to put 
forth something that truly threw up the windows and pulled back the 
shades to let in the fresh air. But that didn't happen because of this 
ruse.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I wouldn't even think of yielding to you. You have all 
the time in the world.
  I come to this floor with great sadness. I come here as one who has 
served on the Ethics Committee for 7 years, at a time when we worked in 
a bipartisan fashion to maintain a high ethical standard. I take very 
seriously our responsibility to the American people to do their 
business here, not the business of the special interests of the 
lobbyists.
  That is why it is such a pity that we really don't have transparency 
in this rule and in this bill, where we can come to the floor with an 
open rule, where all points of view can be considered and all positive 
initiatives can be considered and voted up or down. Let's leave that up 
to the debate.
  We certainly can do better than this. That wouldn't be difficult.
  Democrats are offering a motion to recommit that breaks the link 
between K Street lobbyists and the Congress of the United States. It 
says it ``bans.'' It is unequivocal. It is unambiguous. It bans gifts 
and travel from lobbyists and from organizations who employ lobbyists. 
It prohibits use of corporate jets for official travel. It just 
prohibits it. You can't do it. It shuts down the K Street Project, in 
which lobbying firm jobs are traded for legislative favors. And it 
shuts down the revolving door. What a disgrace, this revolving door 
that is spinning so fast. It prohibits Members, senior staff and 
executive branch officials from lobbying their former colleagues for 2 
years after leaving office. Two years. I think it should be longer, but 
that is a compromise.
  Today, the Republican majority brings forth a rule that is itself an 
abuse of power. The Republican Rules Committee has refused to let this 
House debate bills that 165 Democrats cosponsored. The Republicans have 
refused to let this House debate even Republican serious proposals 
directed at cronyism and corruption in government contracting. The 
Republicans have refused to let this House debate any serious attempt 
to end the culture of corruption.
  They call this bill the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act? 
The Washington Post calls it a joke. The sad thing is, it is not a very 
funny joke, because, once again, the American people are paying the 
price.
  My colleagues have listed some of the abuses of power. Mr. Waxman in 
particular talked about what the impact is on the American consumer 
from some of those abuses of power.
  Imagine that the person managing the bill on prescription drugs left 
this House and soon was representing the pharmaceutical industry for $2 
million a year in salary. How much does it cost to sell the seniors 
down the river? Well, about $2 million a year, if you are the manager 
of the prescription drug bill. That is why Americans, middle-income 
seniors, will be paying more at the pharmacy because of the corruption 
that was involved in writing this bill, a bill where the pharmaceutical 
industry insisted that there be a prohibition in the bill against the 
Secretary of HHS for negotiating for lower prices. It was in the bill 
because the pharmaceutical industry insisted upon it. They had their 
representatives at the table. America's seniors did not. Who do you 
think came out on top in that bill writing?
  We have talked about a time when the American taxpayer has the burden 
of that, plus paying a price at the pump because of the corruption in 
writing the energy policy for this country, behind closed doors, 
refusing to reveal what went into writing that legislation.

[[Page 6298]]



                              {time}  1645

  And that legislation, do not take it from me, the Republican 
Department of Energy stated at the time that the energy bill proposed 
and passed by the Republicans in this Congress would increase the price 
at the pump. They said it at the time.
  So not only are the consumers paying the price at the pump and an 
increased cost in their home heating oil and cooling oil as we go into 
the summer months; they gave a gift, they, the American taxpayers, we 
gave a gift to the oil companies.
  That same bill that increased the price at the pump that people are 
now paying nearly $3 a gallon for, they, those oil companies, those 
same oil companies got subsidies of $12 billion in the energy bill. 
They got royalty relief, royalty holidays of several more billion 
dollars.
  And to make matters worse, in the most recent tax bill that is being 
prepared to come to this floor, they will get $5.5 billion more in tax 
breaks. What are they taking the American taxpayer for? What are they 
thinking of? It is such an insult to the intelligence of the consumer 
and the taxpayer.
  Wait a minute, at a time of record, of record profits, historic and 
obscene profits, these companies are paying enormous fees. The CEO of 
Exxon is getting a retirement package of $400 million. Record profits. 
High subsidies from the taxpayer, and high prices at the pump, a very 
raw deal for the American consumer.
  All of it born from the culture of corruption in this House of 
Representatives. We must break that link. We are here for the interests 
of the American people, for the public interest. The Republicans are 
here for the special interests. They are the handmaidens of the 
pharmaceutical industry. They are the handmaidens of the energy 
companies. They do not know any other way to do it.
  And that is why we get not only bad policy, not only corruption in 
this House, not only a cost of that corruption to the taxpayer and to 
the consumer, but we have a ruse of a bill that tries to masquerade as 
reform on this House of Representatives.
  I feel really sad about this. I feel sad for the American people. 
They expect and deserve better. And we can give that to them in our 
motion to recommit that I talked about earlier. It bans the gifts and 
travel. It breaks the link. It stops the revolving door. It also says 
that if you are convicted of a felony in the performance of your duties 
as a Member of this House, you do not get your pension. You do not get 
your pension.
  And as I said, again, this whole thing about jet travel and the rest, 
our motion to recommit would prohibit corporate travel for official 
purposes. So I hope that our colleagues will understand that we 
certainly can do better and that the American people are watching; that 
we can present substantive reforms, some that we should be debating 
today. I can assure my colleagues that these reforms, that if we have 
these reforms, we will end this culture of corruption. I also assure 
you that if the Democrats win the Congress next year, they will be 
implemented on the first day, the first day of the first session of 
this next Congress.
  So let us start fresh with this. The American people, as I say, 
expect and deserve better. We can clear the slate by rejecting, all-out 
rejecting this ruse, this pathetic, pathetic little tiny step that is a 
missed opportunity for a high ethical standard and is an excuse to keep 
the culture of corruption that is here.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and if 
the opportunity presents itself, to support the Democratic motion to 
recommit. I want to in closing commend the ranking Democrat on the 
Rules Committee, Congresswoman Slaughter. She has been a relentless 
crusader for a high ethical standard in this House for not only lobby 
reform and all kinds of other reform, but for injecting a level of 
civility into how we should have debate on the floor of the House that 
respects the views of Democrats and Republicans, because we respect the 
people who sent all of us here, not just having Republicans heard and 
Democrats blocked out.
  So Congresswoman Slaughter, I commend you for your leadership. I 
thank you for your courage. I urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my dear 
friend from California, the distinguished minority leader, to whom I am 
happy to yield at any time whatsoever, that on the issue of 
prescription drugs, we are very proud of the fact that more than 30 
million Americans, many more than had been anticipated, are today 
saving millions and millions of dollars because of the Medicare 
prescription drug package that we put into place.
  On the issue of energy issues, we are outraged at the increase in 
gasoline and fuel costs. But I will tell you, I am really perplexed, 
because as they decry the issue of global warming, you would think that 
they would be ecstatic at the fact that gasoline prices have gone 
through the roof.
  But, unfortunately, it is their policies, their refusal to pursue 
ANWR in a responsible way to deal with the issue of boutique fuels and 
to deal with the issue of refinery capacity that has been a problem.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a very hardworking member of 
both the Rules Committee and the Committee on Ethics, my friend from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I rise to support the rule and the underlying bill. And I want to 
first, Mr. Chairman, commend you. I have watched this process unfold in 
front of us as we have worked, as you and the Speaker committed we 
would, through regular order, through five different committees, over 4 
months, entertaining dozens of amendments.
  I have watched you struggle with the numerous amendments we had, and 
yet try to get them down to a manageable level, things that actually 
counted and made a difference in the legislation that let us debate 
things.
  I have watched as you and the Speaker and others have tried to craft 
a bill that moved us forward, and indeed this bill does move us 
forward. After all of the smoke and all of the rhetoric and everything 
is said, the real basic question is simply this: Will we be better off 
with or without this bill? There is no question we will be better off 
with this bill. We will be more transparent, we will have more 
reporting by lobbyists, stricter supervision, higher penalties for 
those who transgress, whether they be those amongst us or others in the 
lobbying and the political community.
  We have a measure of campaign finance reform that could be triggered 
by this legislation. And indeed as you pointed out, Mr. Speaker, this 
is simply the first step of a long journey. And it is very important. I 
appreciate the way that you have dealt with the dilemma of having some 
who want to go further than we are able to go, and actually enact 
legislation, and those who do not want to do anything at all.
  And it is always easiest to take one of those two positions, because 
you are always right. You never have to answer for anything. But at the 
end of the day, the Speaker and the chairman have to craft a package 
that will pass and will put them in a position to negotiate with the 
Senate. I think they have done that.
  I also wanted to highlight just briefly an amendment that may come up 
later in this debate, which is indeed bipartisan in nature, and which I 
think takes us in the right direction in appropriately regulating 
private travel, something that has been an abuse, and where I have had 
the good fortune of working with my friends across the aisle, Mr. 
Miller, Mr. Berman. I had the opportunity to also work with Mr. 
Hastings and Mr. Lungren, and we think we have crafted an amendment 
that everybody in this House can be pleased with.
  That would not have happened without your help, Mr. Chairman, and 
without your support. Let me conclude by saying, I am very proud to 
have worked with my friend, the chairman on the Rules Committee. I 
appreciate his support as we have worked through difficult issues.

[[Page 6299]]

  I know we are at the beginning of a long debate. I am very confident 
at the end of the day we will have a legislative package that will be a 
marked improvement.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Speaker how much time 
is remaining on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes). The gentleman from California 
has 5\1/2\ minutes. The gentlewoman from New York's time has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a hardworking 
member of the Rules Committee, the distinguished chairman of the 
Republican Policy Committee, my good friend, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Putnam).
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his hard work on 
this issue. This is another situation where the Democrats were for it 
before they were against it, before they were for it, before they were 
against it again.
  It has been interesting to watch this debate unfold as fingers have 
been pointed now since the end of last year about a culture that they 
have described as being corrupt, and yet here they come today to oppose 
a bill that addresses many of the same issues that they have been 
screaming about for the past 4 months.
  The Policy Committee did exhaustive work, Mr. Speaker, in bringing 
together groups of Members to talk about these issues. Reforming the 
institution is among the most important and also among the most 
difficult issues to do, because everyone involved has an innate 
understanding of the issues that we are dealing with and the needs of 
the House from the perspective of their particular district.
  There was widespread agreement that disclosure, sunshine, 
accountability should be the three pillars upon which we build this 
reform effort. And we did that. When it comes to issues like travel, as 
Mr. Cole has described, who has been a leader in a bipartisan effort to 
reform those practices, it has been a very difficult path, but one 
which has yielded bipartisan results in the form of the amendment that 
we will be considering later.
  When it comes to making sure that there is an opportunity for the 
public to know what goes on in this institution and what interest 
groups that are attempting to lobby the Congress are doing, we 
increased the reporting requirements. We increased the penalties for 
those people who would take advantage of the public trust that they are 
given by the voters and by the electorate.
  When it comes to the issues of making sure that we have a functioning 
ethics committee, that is the most important piece of this process, 
increasing the leverage to make sure that that committee is one that is 
functioning appropriately.
  So in sum, Mr. Speaker, it is appalling to me that people would say 
that in this case, after 4 months of decrying the status of things, 
that nothing is better than disclosure requirements, that nothing is 
better than transparency, that nothing is better than greater 
accountability.
  The foundation upon which this bill is crafted is something that 
every Member can go home and talk to their constituents about. It is 
something that will improve the work of this institution and begin the 
process of restoring the public trust in the people's Chamber.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  As many of my colleagues have said, this has been obviously a 
challenging time for us. We are dealing with some very serious problems 
in this institution. They are bipartisan. They cross party lines. And 
that is why the Speaker and I and others felt very strongly about the 
need to do what we can to do what we possibly could to ensure that we 
reached out to both Democrats and Republicans and a wide range of 
individuals and outside groups and all for recommendations.
  I am happy that many of those issues have been addressed, and I think 
it is very important for us to ask each Member to look at the bill as a 
whole and answer these very important questions: Does it increase 
transparency? Does it increase accountability? Does it put more 
information in the hands of the American people? Does it protect the 
first amendment right of citizens to petition their government? Does it 
strengthen the integrity of the United States Congress?
  Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely convinced that the answer to every 
single one of those questions is a resounding ``yes'' on every single 
count. No matter what some have argued on the other side, if they want 
to maintain the absolute status quo, it creates the potential to 
continue many of the problems that we have faced.

                              {time}  1700

  Virtually everyone has acknowledged that while they may not believe 
that this bill goes as far as we would like, this is the first step in 
a process that will allow us to join with our colleagues in the other 
body to deal in a conference with the measure that I hope is even 
stronger than this very important first step that we are taking.
  I think that the vice chairman of the Rules Committee Mr. Diaz-Balart 
put it very well when he said that anyone who casts a vote against this 
rule is saying no to the issue of reform. No, I don't want to proceed 
with bringing about the kinds of institutional changes that will play a 
role in enhancing the level of integrity to which the American people 
can hold this great deliberative body.
  We hear everyone talking about reform. Voices for reform are out 
there, and they are very prevalent in the media, here on the House 
floor, day after day after day. But in just a few minutes we are going 
to have the opportunity to transform those voices for reform into votes 
for reform. This is our opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, with that I urge an ``aye'' vote on this rule so that we 
can move ahead with this very, very important reform effort.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to join my 
colleagues in making a point that seems to be lost on the leadership of 
this House: this is not simply a ``lobbyist problem'' we are facing. 
Ensuring that lawmakers comply with existing ethics rules and enhancing 
lobbyist disclosure requirements are important goals . . . and even on 
this measure, . . . the so-called ``Lobbying Accountability and 
Transparency Act'' falls embarrassingly short.
  What started as a limited but seemingly earnest attempt at reform has 
been progressively hollowed out over the past several weeks in--you 
guessed it--closed-door meetings with lobbyists. The result is not 
surprising. Reporting requirements for lobbyist-hosted fundraisers? 
Gone. No more bargain rates on corporate jets? Gone. A study to examine 
lobbyist employment contracts? Gone.
  But again, this is not simply a lobbyist problem. House Democrats 
have tried in earnest to offer a plan for reform that takes a hard look 
in the mirror and examines what Congress must do to clean up its own 
house.
  My colleagues Dave Obey, Barney Frank, Tom Allen and I have 
introduced a fourteen-point plan that would address not only individual 
abuses, but also the abuses of the legislative process. Our proposal 
would end the practice of keeping votes held open long enough to twist 
recalcitrant arms into compliance. It would prevent legislation from 
being slipped into conference reports without conference approval. It 
would require House-Senate conferences to actually meet and vote. And 
it would give Members of Congress at least a full day to examine the 
contents of any legislation we are voting on.
  We have testified before the Rules Committee in favor of this 
comprehensive approach. During Rules Committee markup of this bill and 
again during the hearing on the rule last night, numerous amendments 
were offered and defeated--mostly on party-line votes--that would have 
implemented these reforms. The Democratic Substitute, which was also 
denied a fair hearing last night, recognized the need to take a 
comprehensive approach to lobbying and ethics reform. At each step in 
the process, our attempts at genuine, bipartisan reform were turned 
away.
  So what did we get instead? It's no surprise: a bill that could serve 
as a case study in everything that is broken in our legislative 
process--of everything we should be ``reforming.'' We get a so-called 
``Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act'' that offers neither 
accountability nor real transparency. We get a minority party--and many 
Members of the majority--completely shut out of the process once again, 
their amendments denied, their advice and concerns unheeded. We get a 
restrictive rule that makes in order just nine out of the 74 amendments 
offered--and only one

[[Page 6300]]

sponsored by a Democrat without a Republican cosponsor--and allows for 
only one hour of debate on what should be one of the most significant 
bills we consider all year.
  This leadership had a real chance to enact real reform, not for the 
sake of an aggrieved minority . . . not for the sake of election-year 
politics . . . but for the sake of our institution, for its integrity 
and its capacity to govern. Instead, they seem to think they can 
convince the American people that they're cleaning up our House, when 
all they're doing is sweeping our problems under the rug.
  Well Mr. Speaker, the American people will not be so easily fooled. 
And I assure you that those of us in this body who want real, 
comprehensive reform will not rest until we have successfully enacted 
such a measure. But this is not such a measure. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this legislation.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I rise today in 
opposition to the rule before us.
  The ethics process in this body is broken. In all candor, there is 
plenty of blame to go around as to why we find ourselves in this 
situation. We undermine the public's faith in this great institution 
when we let petty politics erode the very processes meant to preserve 
the public's trust in Congress.
  I have met with the Majority Leader on this issue, and I sincerely 
believe that he has a genuine desire to have an effective, functioning 
Ethics process in the House. I thank him for his willingness to listen, 
and I hope we can perhaps address this issue in the future.
  Having previously served on the Ethics Committee, I firmly believe 
that the ethics process can work. For the sake of this institution--it 
must work. And as we begin consideration of the Leadership's ethics and 
lobby reform package, I will say there are some provisions in the base 
bill before us that should ultimately be adopted--earmark reform, 
denying Congressional pensions to convicted felons, enhanced disclosure 
and improved ethics education are common-sense proposals that I would 
hope that we can all support.
  That being said, I cannot support this rule. Ethics reform is 
incomplete absent changes to improve the enforcement of House rules. My 
colleague Joel Hefley and I have put forward legislation to strengthen 
the ability of the Ethics Committee to dispense with ethics matters by 
expediting the review of these issues and insulating committee members 
and non-partisan staff from the political pressures that can pollute 
the ethics process. We do this by giving the Chair and Ranking Member 
on the committee subpoena power earlier in the investigative process 
and prohibiting the arbitrary dismissal of Members and technical staff. 
We also require ethics education for Members and staff, and we 
dramatically improve disclosure associated with gifts and travel. All 
of these common-sense reforms would greatly improve the ethics process 
in the House.
  We sought to offer our legislation as an amendment to the bill we are 
to consider today. This proposal was not made in order under the rule. 
Thus, we are faced with the prospect of passing an incomplete ethics 
reform package that lacks enhanced enforcement.
  I think this is a mistake, and for this reason, I must reluctantly 
oppose this rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________