[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14175-14194]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           HONEST LEADERSHIP AND OPEN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 437 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2316.

                              {time}  1440


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2316) to

[[Page 14176]]

provide more rigorous requirements with respect to disclosure and 
enforcement of lobbying laws and regulations, and for other purposes, 
with Mrs. Tauscher in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act 
reported out of the Committee on the Judiciary on a bipartisan basis 
builds on the work of the last Congress to make long-needed reforms to 
the Lobby Disclosure Act and related rules and law.
  The legislation before us today, right now, reflects the give and 
take of the legislative process incorporating proposals of Members on 
both sides of the aisle, both on and off the Judiciary Committee. At 
the end of the day, I believe that we have a measure that represents a 
very significant improvement over current law.
  By emphasizing increased disclosure and enforcement, the bill is 
defined to effect practical change in the way that lobbying efforts are 
reported and monitored. It accomplishes this without infringing upon 
our first amendment rights as citizens to petition our government for 
redress of grievances.
  The measure before us effects important changes in three areas: 
Prohibition of unethical conduct, increased disclosure, and enhanced 
penalties.
  First, it ends the practice of Members attempting to use their power 
to influence private lobbyist hiring decisions. It does it by 
prohibiting Members and senior staff from influencing hiring decisions 
or practices of private entities for partisan political gain. 
Violations can result in not only fines, but imprisonment for up to 15 
years.
  Second, this measure now under consideration provides for greater 
disclosure. It requires the disclosure of lobbying activities by many 
coalitions, as well as the past executive branch and congressional 
employment of registered lobbyists. It also requires lobbyists to file 
more detailed reports disclosing their contacts with Congress, as well 
as certifications that the lobbyist did not give a gift or pay for 
travel in violation of the rules. These reports are to be filed 
electronically and more frequently, quarterly rather than semiannually, 
and they will be made available to the public for free over the 
Internet in a timely fashion.
  Finally, the legislation provides for stronger enforcement. This 
measure significantly increases the penalties for noncompliance with 
Lobbying Disclosure Act requirements. Civil penalties are increased 
from the current $50,000 per violation to $100,000, and there are new 
criminal penalties for knowing, willful and corrupt violations, with 
potential sentences of imprisonment up to 5 years.
  The recent round of lobbying scandals demonstrates that fundamental 
change is needed. The legislation before us today helps to reform the 
lobbying process and provides us with an opportunity to begin to 
rebuild confidence in Congress.
  I believe that this legislation represents a realistic approach that 
strengthens current law to restore accountability in the Congress. This 
bill is not about any one Member or any one political party. It is 
about restoring the American people's trust in all of us.
  Madam Chairman, it is now time for us to act. We are a few months 
late in getting around to this measure, but I am sure with the 
cooperation of Members on both sides of the aisle, we will succeed in 
our endeavor to raise the integrity of the Congress and restore the 
American people's trust in all of us.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, we all deplore unethical conduct by Members of 
Congress and their staff. Each party has their share of examples. The 
public wants and deserves clean government, and today we finally bring 
before the House a bill that seems very familiar. That is because the 
increased disclosures required in the bill we are addressing today are 
largely those that were contained in H.R. 4975, which was introduced by 
Congressman David Dreier in the last Congress and passed the House 
then.
  Last year's H.R. 4975 contained all of the following provisions: a 
requirement to disclose postemployment negotiations with private 
entities; a prohibition on partisan influences on an outside entity's 
employment decisions; and increased quarterly electronic filing in a 
public database of lobbyist campaign contributions linked to Federal 
Elections Commission filings.
  The legislation also increased civil and criminal penalties for 
failure to comply, required disclosure by lobbyists of all past 
executive branch and congressional employment, and contained a 
prohibition on lobbyists' violation of House gift ban rules. Similar 
provisions, of course, are included in the legislation before us today.
  At the Judiciary Committee's markup, I was glad to see that several 
Republican amendments that would strengthen this bill were adopted by 
voice vote. One was an amendment offered by Representative Chris Cannon 
that provides for a 1-year revolving-door ban that would prohibit 
private lawyers and law firms who enter into contracts with 
congressional committees from lobbying Congress while under contract to 
such committee and for 1 year thereafter.
  Republicans passed nearly identical reform provisions over a year 
ago. I am pleased to finally see legislation come before the House this 
Congress that substantially mirrors Republican efforts from the last 
Congress.
  The concepts of greater transparency and more accountability are not 
the property of any one political party, but it just so happens that 
Republicans led the way in the last Congress by writing a reform 
package very similar to the one we are considering today. A simple 
comparison of the provisions in this bill with those in H.R. 4975 from 
the last Congress will show that what we see on the House floor today 
is a clear reflection of what we saw on the House floor last year.
  I had hoped a vote on these measures would have occurred much earlier 
in this Congress, but I am happy to cast my vote again today for these 
reforms.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Space).
  Mr. SPACE. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the Honest 
Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. For me, reform isn't a 
political talking point. As the successor of Bob Ney and, to a certain 
degree, to the illegal actions of Jack Abramoff, it is an absolute 
necessity.
  I campaigned on the promise that I would do everything in my power to 
clean up Washington. This Congress has begun to do that. Earlier this 
year we enacted a sweeping set of reforms banning gifts, travel and 
meals from lobbyists. By passing this ban, we made serious inroads into 
breaking that link that exists between lobbyists and legislators.
  Now, today, we broaden our campaign to let the sun shine in on a 
broad scope of lobbyist activities. It is what the American people have 
demanded, and it is what they deserve.

                              {time}  1450

  If nothing unethical is taking place, then these requirements will 
reassure the American public, which is itself a worthy endeavor. But if 
inappropriate actions are happening, then we have a responsibility, no, 
an obligation, to crack down on those activities.
  This bill is not perfect. We have a long way to go in our efforts to 
restore credibility in this body, but it reflects our serious effort to 
create transparency, honesty and leadership on this issue.

[[Page 14177]]

  My constituents have been betrayed before, and I will not let that 
happen again.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a valued and active 
member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chairman, I thank Ranking Member Lamar Smith 
for yielding to me and also for his leadership on this bill and also 
for his overall leadership within the Judiciary Committee.
  I want to also express my gratitude to Chairman Conyers, a gracious 
gentleman, who has worked most of these issues out in a generally 
bipartisan fashion, sometimes I would go so far as to say a nonpartisan 
fashion.
  Occasionally when I come up with an idea, it is considered a good one 
by my side of the aisle. And it is quite rare for me to come up with an 
idea that is considered a good one on both sides of the aisle. And yet, 
in this case, I am pleased that both sides have agreed that the portion 
that I introduced which provides for reporting to be on the Internet in 
a searchable, sortable, downloadable fashion. I mean, this is the 21st 
century. We are in the BlackBerry and iPod age, and Congress ought to 
get up to speed and be able to transfer that information out to the 
public.
  One of the things advocated by the chairman and ranking member and 
other members of the Judiciary Committee was that we shine sunlight on 
this lobbying process and the funding process. That is the anecdote to 
whatever we are doing here. Whenever we have tightened-up regulations, 
and we are trying to correct for generally one individual human 
failure, sometimes it is an anecdote. Occasionally it is a small group. 
Seldom does it go across a broad universe of people. If you look 
through the legislation that has passed on the floor of Congress 
throughout generations, I think you will find that often that 
legislation is specific to an incident. So those incidents reflect 
human failures, and human nature itself, I believe that foundation is 
generally good.
  Well, what sunlight does, it activates that human nature and it turns 
loose and activates the bloggers across the country where they are 
sitting with now real-time access within a reporting period of time to 
the lobbying activities, the funding activities that take place, and 
they will be able to track those activities on the Internet. There will 
be new blogs that will open up. There will be others that will be 
activated and animated, and when they can search and sort and download, 
that means that their scrutiny of the lobbying activities that surround 
this Congress will be real, and it will be effective, and it will be 
sortable.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. I want to say to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) that 
his work on this measure in the Judiciary Committee was very important 
to us, and on both sides of the aisle, I think we acknowledge and thank 
you for your contributions.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the chairman, as I reclaim my time. And I 
appreciate the tone and the tenor of this debate, as well as the work 
that has gone on on this policy.
  I would advocate there are a few things that we can do yet to move us 
further into the technological age. I look up on the wall of the House 
and see, I can be watching on television, to walk over here, and in the 
5 minutes it takes to get here from the Longworth building, the subject 
can change. Actually, the bill can change or the amendment can change, 
and a Member, a seasoned Member, can walk in here and not know what the 
debate is about. And yet, many of the State legislatures post, they 
project on the wall inside their chambers, the bill, the subject matter 
that is being debated. It is one of the other things that we can do in 
the context of shining some sunlight on. In fact, we can shine sunlight 
on the activities of Members in the fashion as we have lobbyists. That 
is not the subject of this debate here on the floor, so much as it is, 
I like to raise the expectations and the hopes that we can use this 
same philosophy and expand sunlight on reporting process of our travel 
activities, for example, and our financial recordings, both personal 
and the FEC documents, so they are in a searchable, sortable, 
downloadable database and give the bloggers that opportunity to 
scrutinize us the same way they will the lobbyist.
  I think if we keep moving down the path and having this kind of 
debate and dialogue, we will get to where the public confidence in us 
raises.
  The chairman also recognizes that I am concerned about some of the 
allegations about the electoral process. If we are able to add 
integrity in the electoral process, then the American people have more 
confidence in the whole process.
  This is one component of what needs to be done. If we can add to it 
the same levels of reporting for ourselves as Members, if we can add 
more integrity in voter registration and the actual electoral process, 
all of those things strengthen us as a Nation.
  I want to make it clear, and I don't think there is any doubt that I 
would rather lose an election than lose the confidence of the American 
people in this system. If they lose their confidence in our democratic 
process, then the whole system melts down. This is an important step 
along the way. There are other steps to take along the way. I think 
they are consistent with the philosophy of the bill before us. I thank 
all parties involved.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I am honored to recognize now the 
distinguished majority leader, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, for 1 minute.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Chair, I thank my friend, one of the Deans of this 
House, who has for so very long ensured that this country has a 
democracy of which our people can be proud and which is accessible to 
all of our people, as our Constitution promises. I am so pleased to 
join him, and I thank the ranking member as well for his leadership on 
so many issues.
  Madam Chair, I intend to support this important bill before us, the 
Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which addresses the 
relationship between Members of Congress and those who seek to 
influence legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to support this 
legislation as well.
  This bill, like the one we just considered, is not perfect. Few bills 
are. However, these measures call for a greater transparency, and 
provide specific guidance to Members and lobbyists on the propriety of 
certain actions.
  Without question, the recent scandals involving former lobbyist Jack 
Abramoff and the guilty pleas of former Representatives Randy ``Duke'' 
Cunningham and Bob Ney have raised serious questions in the public's 
mind about the integrity of our process and the Members who serve here. 
That is unfortunate, but nevertheless true.
  The legislation introduced by Chairman Conyers is an important step 
in addressing such concerns and thereby will help ensure public 
confidence in our legislative process and in this institution, the 
people's House.
  Among other things, this legislation will outlaw the so-called K 
Street Project in which Members influenced employment decisions of 
private entities for partisan gain. In fact, violators of this 
proposition will be fined or imprisoned for up to 15 years, an 
appropriate penalty.
  This legislation expands and strengthens lobbying disclosure 
requirements, mandating quarterly disclosure of lobbying reports and 
increasing penalties for violation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act.
  This legislation requires Members to disclose job negotiations for 
post-congressional employment. The public wants to know that their 
representatives are acting on their behalf, not on the behalf of the 
special interest.
  And this legislation retains the 1-year ban on lobbying imposed on 
Members and senior staff. But in addition to that, it importantly 
requires Members and such staff to recuse themselves from working on 
legislation in which a prospective employer has a vested interest, a 
substantial step forward.
  This bill alone, of course, cannot guarantee honest, ethical conduct 
any

[[Page 14178]]

more than the law against burglary will necessarily deter every 
burglar.

                              {time}  1500

  However, when coupled with the most sweeping ethics changes since 
Watergate, which the Democratic majority enacted on the very first day 
of this Congress, the legislation will help reassure the public that we 
appreciate the legitimate concerns raised by the Abramoff case and 
others and are committed to taking action to address them.
  I understand that some believe that this bill and the one we just 
considered do not go far enough. I know that some sincerely believe 
that our current system in which lobbyists or any other American 
legally contribute to a political campaign is inevitably questionable. 
The public financing obviously would be the alternative. The public 
does not support that. We know that.
  Let me say, however, without equivocation, I strongly disagree with 
the view that because there are private contributions that our system 
is broken.
  The implication of this position is not only inaccurate but also an 
unwarranted smear on the integrity of the overwhelming majority of the 
Members of both sides of the aisle who diligently abide by ethical 
rules and our campaign finance laws and who otherwise conduct 
themselves with high integrity.
  Do not misunderstand me. Our system can and should and must be 
continually improved to ensure public confidence in the integrity of 
our legislative process. However, as long as there is private financing 
of political campaigns, and as long as men and women exercise their 
right to petition their government, the relationship between private 
giving and public action will be recurring issues that require close 
examination by us and by the public.
  That is precisely what this bill before us today represents: 
important reform that ensures greater transparency and specifically 
addresses some of the most egregious recent transgressions.
  Finally, as important as this legislation and the ethics changes made 
in January are, they alone will not ensure the integrity of our process 
and this institution. Rather, the Members of this House will ensure the 
integrity of this House when we conduct ourselves openly and honestly 
and hold accountable those who fail to abide by the rules and the 
highest ethical standards.
  Thus, we have an obligation to ensure that the Ethics Committee does 
the job that it was constituted to perform. The implementation of 
rules, while critical, must be followed by effective, real enforcement 
and accountability.
  I urge my colleagues, Madam Chairman, to vote for this legislation 
and let us provide greater transparency of our legislative process and 
ensure public confidence in this institution in which all of us are so 
proud to serve.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) who, among the other 
things, I believe wants to engage the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee in a colloquy.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, as we debate the Honest Leadership and 
Open Government Act of 2007, I want to commend the members of the 
Judiciary Committee for the tremendous job that they have done, but I 
did want to ask a couple of questions regarding this legislation 
because I've not had an opportunity to look at it in its entirety.
  But title I is referred to as closing the revolving door, and we all 
understand that that relates to former Members of Congress who leave 
Congress and become registered lobbyists and represent private 
interests before the House of Representatives.
  And then title II is talking about full public disclosure of those 
people engaged in lobbying.
  And the question that I would like to ask Chairman Conyers, and maybe 
Mr. Smith knows as well, but we have a lot of Members of Congress, and 
last year the Congress passed legislation on the floor, an ethics 
package that prohibited former Members of Congress who became 
registered lobbyists from going to the House gym.
  And so my question is, in this bill, does this bill prohibit a former 
Member of Congress who is a registered lobbyist from parking in House 
parking spaces, reserved for Members of Congress and staff? And then if 
it does not, in title II, do we require a former Member of Congress who 
is now a registered lobbyist to report that as a benefit that he 
receives from the taxpayers of the United States?
  And those would be the two questions that I would appreciate the 
gentleman answering.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, as you know, the first part of our 
three-prong attempt in increasing disclosure and enforcement is, of 
course, trying to influence private lobbyists' hiring decisions.
  And in terms of parking issues, that is not involved in this measure 
because the subject matter does not come to the Judiciary Committee, 
but it does come to the House Administration Committee, where I think 
there is important discussion going on about this issue that you raise 
about parking, even as we speak. But it was not considered in the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. So this bill would not prevent former Members of 
Congress who are now registered lobbyists from continuing to park for 
free in government parking spaces, nor would it require them to file 
disclosure of that benefit that the taxpayers provide them? But it is 
your understanding that the House Administration is looking at that 
issue?
  Mr. CONYERS. Yes, that is absolutely correct, and it's an important 
point, though. We can't extend these benefits to even former Members 
who have become lobbyists. They have to be carefully considered by 
Members. As a matter of fact, prerogatives of Members, as the gentleman 
knows, is being limited and is getting harder and harder to become 
available even to active Members of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, I really appreciate the gentleman responding to 
the question. And what raised it, I was pulling into the garage this 
morning, and two former Members who are registered lobbyists were 
parking there, and it reminded me again that it is an issue that is 
still outstanding.
  And I thank the chairman, and I thank the ranking member for yielding 
time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, we are happy to have Mr. Rahm Emanuel, 
the gentleman from Illinois, who is recognized for as much time as he 
may consume, not to exceed 3 minutes.
  Mr. EMANUEL. I'd like to thank the chairman, and I use that with my 
kids at the breakfast table. You can talk not to exceed 3 minutes. But 
thank you very much for that time.
  When the new Congress came in session, this Congress, the 110th, we 
banned gifts by lobbyists. We banned meals paid for by lobbyists. We 
changed the rules of the reports on earmarks where Members were doing 
things that benefited themselves at taxpayers' expense.
  Today we're considering the most comprehensive legislation on 
lobbying disclosure since the Watergate era, the most comprehensive 
legislation, because over the last 12 years, people saw a buildup in 
this people's House that gave them no confidence that their business 
was being done, but, in fact, the work of the special interests were 
done.
  When that gavel on the Speaker's table comes down, it's intended to 
open the people's House, not the auction house, and the American people 
lost confidence in this institution. The playing field was tilted to 
the special interests.
  This legislation, time and again, alters fundamentally the law as it 
relates to the abuses that we saw over the last 12 years.
  Now, I compliment my colleagues because in 1994 when they ran for 
Congress, they came to change Washington. They passed a lobbying bill, 
but after 12 years in power, rather than

[[Page 14179]]

change Washington, Washington changed them. They became comfortable 
with power. They became comfortable and cozy with the special 
interests, and the American people said, enough.
  It beared on us and the responsibility of Democrats to change the 
culture here, to break that link between lobbyists and legislation.

                              {time}  1510

  What happened at the end of the last 12 years was the special 
interest voices were heard at the expense of the American people.
  So whether it's in banning the K Street Project that rewarded 
companies and institutions that hired the majority party's friends, 
whether it became gifts, trips and the reporting of those trips, 
whether it became when Members were negotiating their future employment 
and doing the work here on the floor of their future employer even 
before they left, every element of that reform needed to be changed. 
This bill, under this chairman, does it.
  That will set the laws. Now it's the conduct of the Member to also 
understand there is a new day, there is change in the way you do things 
here in Washington.
  About 6 years ago, the Congress altered, through passing campaign 
finance reform, the relationship between a contributor and a candidate. 
This alters the relationship between a lobbyist and the legislation.
  Going forward, it would require a constant vigil, the attempt now is 
to ensure that at no point did those who represent the special 
interests have a capacity and an interest and an access that far 
outweighs the American people. That is the attempt of this legislation.
  Whether it's the provision that relates to Jack Abramoff, the 
provisions that relate to the K Street Project, the provisions that 
relate to rangers or pioneers, that they don't have an ability to do 
things for Members or individuals that far exceed what the people who 
vote on election day for that Member and that their interests are 
heard.
  We have to always come back and make sure that it is rules of the 
road to Washington don't tilt in favor of the special interests. This 
is a beginning, and it builds on what we did by banning on day one the 
gifts and meals by lobbyists, brings transparency to earmarks, and it 
brings transparency to the entire process as it relates to lobbyists' 
influence on legislators.
  I commend our colleague and our chairman for his leadership on this 
legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my very good friend from San Antonio for 
yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I have to say, I was just downstairs listening to the 
remarks of my very good friend from Chicago (Mr. Emanuel). It really 
saddens me to hear the politicization of this issue.
  The gentleman from Detroit, the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, has done a phenomenal job, from my 
perspective, in recognizing the challenges that we face, the fact that 
we're working to address this issue in a bipartisan way now, he has 
worked with Mr. Smith on this issue. We went beyond our debate on the 
rule issue, and I said that I believe that the legislation that we had 
that is before us is not nearly as strong as the legislation that we 
were proud to have worked on in the 109th Congress, but we are what we 
are today.
  As I listened to my friend from Chicago (Mr. Emanuel) talk about this 
legislation as being the most sweeping reform since the Watergate era, 
I would encourage my friend to simply take a look at H.R. 4975, the 
legislation that we passed in the last Congress. It was dramatically 
stronger on the area of transparency, disclosure and accountability 
than the legislation that's before us.
  I wasn't going to make these remarks, but it saddens me, as I 
listened to the speeches that have been given. Mr. Smith has spoken 
very eloquently about the need to address a wide range of these issues, 
as has the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  If one were to listen to this debate, one could only conclude that 
the issue of ethics and the challenges of ethics in this institution 
are one-sided, that only the Republican Party has faced any ethical 
challenges.
  Now, I am not going to get into enumerating and throwing out the 
names. We keep hearing the name Jack Abramoff talked about time and 
time again. And it's very easy, and the chairman of the committee knows 
very well, it's very easy for us to now stand here and begin pointing 
fingers and talking about blame on the other side of the aisle. But I 
think it's unfortunate. It's an unfortunate thing to see this gross 
politicization.
  The 1994 class came here with a goal of changing the Congress, and, 
you know, they changed these individuals. All of that stuff is sad and 
tired political rhetoric and nothing more than that. We are in the 
midst of the legislative process at this moment. I think it's been 
widely recognized that the bill that is before us is not nearly as 
strong as the measure that we passed with bipartisan support, even 
though it was described as a sham in the last Congress.
  I have been joking back and forth with the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on the Judiciary, I see this bill as being sub-sham. I am 
going to vote for this bill at the end of the day. It basically doesn't 
have the teeth in it on transparency, disclosure and accountability 
that we passed in the last Congress. That bill was described by the 
Chair of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, seven times in the 
debate that we had last year as a sham, and there were others in the 
Democratic leadership who described it as a sham.
  I am not going to characterize this legislation in a disparaging 
manner, other than to say that it has not come up to that level.
  I am happy to yield to my friend, if he would like me to yield.
  Mr. EMANUEL. I would. I do appreciate it.
  As you heard what I said from my friend from California, I said you 
came to change Washington and to pass lobbying reform. Over 12 years 
you came to change Washington; Washington changed the Republican 
Congress.
  Now, to that effect, since you decided not to politicize it, but did 
decide to describe it, as a sham.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Chairman, if I could reclaim my time. The time was 
yielded me by the gentleman from Texas. Let me reclaim my time by 
saying, I did not, in fact, describe the measure that is before us as a 
sham.
  What I said was the legislation that I authored in the 109th Congress 
was characterized by the Democratic leadership, including the now Chair 
of the Committee on Rules, as a sham bill.
  What I have said is that this measure that is before us does not meet 
the standard that we passed in the last Congress on transparency, 
disclosure and accountability. To argue that this is somehow the most 
sweeping reform legislation since Watergate is absolutely preposterous, 
because the legislation that was passed through the House in the last 
Congress went much, much further than this.
  So all I am saying is, I want to work with Mr. Conyers. I want to 
work with Mr. Smith. I think that rather than pointing fingers and 
characterizing one political party as having ethical challenges or 
lacking ethics or having changed and transformed in that 12-year 
period, I believe that that's a mischaracterization.
  While he may not say it, I have a sneaking suspicion that the very 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary may be 
inclined to agree with what I have said.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I cautiously yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. EMANUEL. I don't think I will use that time.
  Madam Chairman, as Ronald Reagan once said, facts are a stubborn 
thing. Let's take the section on required recusal for Members and staff 
in negotiation for jobs. This bill has a closure on that, and it brings 
disclosure on

[[Page 14180]]

that. The bill brought up before the Republican Congress last time just 
sits by on that.
  Bans the K Street Project: This legislation only, in the last time, 
it said nothing on that. It was silent, except it was against the House 
rules.
  Disclosure of lobbyist contributions to charities, conferences, or 
similar events Members have interests in: This bill has it. Last year, 
it did not.
  The Harry and Louise disclosures, so interest groups could hide 
behind phony names and advertise against Members: This bill has it. 
Last year's did not.
  Public database of Members' travel and financial disclosures: This 
bill has it. Last year's didn't.
  Increased penalties: This bill has it. Didn't last.
  Spousal lobbying, restrictions on their spouses: This bill has it; 
did not before.
  Disclosure of lobbyist bundling will be considered in separate 
legislation. The goal is on comparison of the legislation. This is an 
improvement.
  Second, to my good friend from California, I am glad you passed 
legislation last time. The Senate has now passed this. We're going to 
go to conference on this bill and actually get it done.
  Number two, and, most importantly, I don't want to go forward looking 
back. My goal is to get this done, because as I said before, this is an 
institutional problem that requires an institutional solution, and 
that's what we have provided here.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Chair, I thank my friend, the ranking member of the 
committee, the gentleman from San Antonio, for yielding.
  I would simply say that when we look at what was passed in the 109th 
Congress and put that up against this measure, we can go through the 
litany. This notion of the K Street Project, the 1-year ban is present 
law. And, in fact, I offered amendments to enhance the transparency and 
disclosure. I hope very much, when we get to the amendment process, the 
amendment that I am going to be offering will be accepted by the 
majority. I suspect that it may be. I think it is a thoughtful 
amendment.
  So we are working to enhance and strengthen this measure to the level 
that was passed by the House last year. And I just hope very much that, 
again, we can work in a bipartisan way, because I am proud to be an 
institutionalist. I believe in this institution. I am privileged to 
have spent now nearly a majority of my life as a Member of this 
institution. I revere it. And I hope very much that we can make it more 
accountable to the American people by putting into place very proper 
reforms that will enjoy bipartisan support.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I close the general debate by merely 
observing that this has been healthy. We are working under time 
constraints. I appreciate both gentlemen from Illinois and California 
in their exchanges and reflecting back on how we got to where we are. 
But we are moving forward now, and we are all concerned that this 110th 
Congress do everything in its power to make up for the lack of 
transparency and enforcement that may have taken place in an earlier 
period of time.
  In the last few months, we have worked to address these concerns and 
begin to restore the trust in the Congress, as we promised our voters 
that we would last November. So this is an important bipartisan start. 
It is not the end of reform in this area. As everyone knows, it really 
doesn't have an end.
  Madam Chair, it is in that spirit of expediting this process that I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANNON. Madam Chairman, the language included in Section 103 of 
HR 2316 entitled Additional Restrictions on Contractors is language I 
offered at the Judiciary Committee that closed a loophole in the 
revolving door provisions of the law.
  This language was accepted by voice vote in the Judiciary Committee 
with the support of Committee Chairman John Conyers. My amendment would 
impose the same post employment restrictions currently in law to those 
attorneys and firms that are employed through a contract with the 
Congress.
  Currently, the House Judiciary Committee Majority has agreed to a 
contract with a partner in a law firm at the same time that law firm is 
registered to lobby the Congress and in particular is registered to 
lobby for clients with particular legislative interest before the 
committee. It is a glaring loophole that a law firm would be able to 
send an individual to work on the hill at the same time the firm is 
lobbying the contract employee's colleagues on the committee and the 
contract employee can potentially lobby the committee where they worked 
because they are technically not an employee of the committee.
  The contract the Judiciary Committee signed was with Irv Nathan of 
Arnold and Porter for $25,000 per month for up to $250,000 for a 10 
month contract. An astonishing amount of money to be paid to a staffer, 
an amount any full time staffer or member would appreciate to be 
making.
  It is my opinion the only way to comply with clause 14(b) of House 
Rule XXI, which states contract employees shall not be able to use 
one's official position for private gain and to conduct oneself at all 
times in a manner that reflects creditably on the House, is to include 
contract employees in the revolving door provisions. In an article from 
the Washington Post on January 16, 2007, Jeff Birnbaum writes:

       The most jaw-dropping hire from K Street, though, is Matt 
     Gelman. Gelman is senior adviser to House Democratic Whip 
     James E. Clyburn (S.C.) and is, in effect, on loan from 
     Microsoft, where he is director of federal government 
     affairs. He's on unpaid leave for a few months from the 
     software giant and will return after he helps build Clyburn's 
     vote-counting operation.

  Furthermore, in a January 27, 2007 story in McClatchy Newspapers Matt 
Stearns writes:

       Clyburn spokeswoman Kristie Greco defended the hire, saying 
     that Gelman is a veteran Capitol Hill aide with specialized 
     knowledge . . . and that Microsoft is banned from lobbying 
     Clyburn's personal and leadership offices while Gelman works 
     there.

  In essence, the language would codify the Clyburn precedent and 
extend the post-employment restrictions to contract employees and their 
firms. This language closes a loophole which is ripe for abuse.
  I appreciate that the language was accepted and remains in the 
legislation that is being considered today.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. 
The minority has said that this bill is just a watered down version of 
the lobbying bill that they brought last year. Nothing could be farther 
from the truth. The Republican Lobbying and Ethics Reform bill was, in 
fact, a sham reform bill. The Democratic Majority made this clear on 
day one. The Republican bill said that members could still take trips 
from lobbyists with pre-certification. The Democrats banned lobbyist-
sponsored travel. The Republican bill tried to ``curb'' gifts from 
lobbyists. The Democrats banned lobbyist gifts and meals.
  During the last election, Democrats made a promise to the American 
people: we vowed to institute new ethical standards for members and to 
break the link between lobbying and legislating. We made good on that 
promise on day one, and today, we make good on the second part of that 
promise by passing a strong lobbying reform bill.
  This bill will require lobbyists to file more frequently--quarterly 
instead of semiannually. For the first time ever, these reports will be 
easily available, through a free, searchable and sortable database. 
These filings will not just be more frequent, but also more detailed: 
lobbyists will now be required to disclose the various ways they make 
money available to assist members of Congress, including contributions 
to members, but also their contributions to Political Action 
Committees, 527 groups, and contributions to foundations named for 
members of Congress.
  Lobbyists will also have to certify that they have complied with the 
House ban on gifts and travel. Unlike the Republican bill, this bill 
puts teeth into that requirement, with increased penalties for lying on 
their filings.
  This bill will also require stealth coalitions to disclose their 
activities--something the Republicans ignored in their bill last 
Congress. In short, this is a strong lobbying reform bill, and one that 
the House should pass on a bipartisan vote.
  With the acceptance of Congressman Van Hollen's bundling bill, the 
House will pass a bill that gives unprecedented transparency into the 
practice of lobbying. That is something that I think everyone agrees is 
a good thing.

[[Page 14181]]

  When combined with the reforms made in the first 100 Hours of this 
Congress, Democrats will have passed the most important lobbying and 
ethics reforms in a generation.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered 
read.
  The text of the committee amendment is as follows:

                               H.R. 2316

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

     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 2007''.
       (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. Disclosure by Members and staff of employment negotiations.
Sec. 102. Wrongfully influencing a private entity's employment 
              decisions or practices.
Sec. 103. Additional restrictions on contractors.
Sec. 104. Effective date.

              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. Quarterly reports on other contributions.
Sec. 205. Prohibition on provision of gifts or travel by registered 
              lobbyists to Members of Congress and to congressional 
              employees.
Sec. 206. Disclosure of lobbying activities by certain coalitions and 
              association.
Sec. 207. Disclosure by registered lobbyists of past executive branch 
              and congressional employment.
Sec. 208. Public database of lobbying disclosure information; 
              maintenance of information.
Sec. 209. Inapplicability to certain political committees.
Sec. 210. Effective date.

            TITLE III--ENFORCEMENT OF LOBBYING RESTRICTIONS

Sec. 301. Increased civil and criminal penalties for failure to comply 
              with lobbying disclosure requirements.

                     TITLE IV--INCREASED DISCLOSURE

Sec. 401. Prohibition on official contact with spouse of Member who is 
              a registered lobbyist.
Sec. 402. Posting of travel and financial disclosure reports on public 
              website of Clerk of the House of Representatives.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Rule of construction.

                  TITLE I--CLOSING THE REVOLVING DOOR

     SEC. 101. DISCLOSURE BY MEMBERS AND STAFF OF EMPLOYMENT 
                   NEGOTIATIONS.

       The Rules of the House of Representatives are amended by 
     redesignating rules XXVII and XXVIII as rules XXVIII and 
     XXIX, respectively, and by inserting after rule XXVI the 
     following new rule:

                              ``RULE XXVII

      ``Disclosure by Members and Staff of Employment Negotiations

       ``1. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall not 
     directly negotiate or have any agreement of future employment 
     or compensation until after his or her successor has been 
     elected, unless such Member, Delegate, or Resident 
     Commissioner, within 3 business days after the commencement 
     of such negotiation or agreement of future employment or 
     compensation, files with the Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct a statement, which must be signed by the 
     Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, regarding such 
     negotiations or agreement, including the name of the private 
     entity or entities involved in such negotiations or 
     agreement, and the date such negotiations or agreement 
     commenced.
       ``2. An officer or an employee of the House earning in 
     excess of 75 percent of the salary paid to a Member shall 
     notify the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that he 
     or she is negotiating or has any agreement of future 
     employment or compensation.
       ``3. The disclosure and notification under this rule shall 
     be made within 3 business days after the commencement of such 
     negotiation or agreement of future employment or 
     compensation.
       ``4. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, and an 
     officer or employee to whom this clause applies, shall recuse 
     himself or herself from any matter in which there is a 
     conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict for that 
     Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee 
     under this rule and shall notify the Committee on Standards 
     of Official Conduct of such recusal. A Member, Delegate, or 
     Resident Commissioner making such recusal shall, upon such 
     recusal, submit to the Clerk for public disclosure the 
     statement of disclosure under clause 1 with respect to which 
     the recusal was made.''.

     SEC. 102. 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. 227. 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 227 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 227 of title 18, United States 
     Code, was a criminal or civil offense before the enactment of 
     this Act, including under section 201(b), 201(c), or any of 
     sections 203 through 209, of title 18, United States Code.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     chapter 11 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

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

     SEC. 103. ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON CONTRACTORS.

       (a) Prohibition.--Chapter 11 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 219 the following 
     new section:

     ``Sec. 220. Restrictions on contractors with Congress

       ``(a) Restrictions.--
       ``(1) In general.--If a person who is an attorney or a law 
     firm, including a professional legal corporation or 
     partnership, or an attorney employed by such a law firm, 
     enters into a contract to provide services to--
       ``(A) a committee of Congress, or a subcommittee of any 
     such committee,
       ``(B) a Member of the leadership of the House of 
     Representatives or a Member of the leadership of the Senate,
       ``(C) a covered legislative branch official, or
       ``(D) a working group or caucus organized to provide 
     legislative services or other assistance to Members of 
     Congress,
     the attorney or law firm entering into the contract, and the 
     law firm by which the attorney entering into the contract is 
     employed, may not, during the period prescribed in paragraph 
     (2), knowingly make, with the intent to influence, any 
     communication or appearance before any person described in 
     paragraph (3), on behalf of any other person (except the 
     United States), in connection with any matter on which such 
     attorney or law firm seeks official action by a Member, 
     officer, or employee of either House of Congress, in his or 
     her official capacity.
       ``(2) Period described.--The period referred to in 
     paragraph (1) is the period during which the contract 
     described in paragraph (1) is in effect, and a period of 1 
     year after the attorney or law firm, as the case may be, is 
     no longer subject to the contract.
       ``(3) Persons described.--The persons referred to in 
     paragraph (1) with respect to appearances or communications 
     by an attorney or law firm are any Member, officer, or 
     employee of either House of Congress.
       ``(b) Penalty.--Any person who violates paragraph (1) shall 
     be punished as provided in section 216.
       ``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the term `committee of Congress' includes any 
     standing committee, joint committee, and select committee;
       ``(2) the term `covered legislative branch official' has 
     the meaning given that term in section 3 of the Lobbying 
     Disclosure Act of 1995;
       ``(3)(A) a person is an employee of a House of Congress if 
     that person is an employee of the House of Representatives or 
     an employee of the Senate;
       ``(B) the terms `employee of the House of Representatives' 
     and `employee of the Senate' have the meanings given those 
     terms in section 207(e)(7);
       ``(4) an attorney is `employed' by a law firm if the 
     attorney is an employee of, or a partner or other member of, 
     the law firm;
       ``(5) the terms `Member of the leadership of the House of 
     Representatives' and `Member of the leadership of the Senate' 
     have the meanings given those terms in section 207(e)(7); and
       ``(6) the term `Member of Congress' means a Senator or 
     Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, 
     the Congress.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The table of sections for chapter 11 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 219 the following new item:

``220. Restrictions on contractors with Congress.''.

[[Page 14182]]

       (2) Section 216 of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``or 209'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``, 209, or 220''.

     SEC. 104. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) Section 101.--The amendment made by section 101 shall 
     take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and 
     shall apply to negotiations commenced, and agreements entered 
     into, on or after that date.
       (b) Section 102.--The amendments made by section 102 shall 
     take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Section 103.--The amendments made by section 103 shall 
     take effect on May 23, 2007, and shall apply with respect to 
     any contract entered into before, on, or after that date.

              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 day of January, 
     April, July, and October of each year''; and
       (C) by striking ``such semiannual period'' and inserting 
     ``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 ``3-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.--Section 4 of the Lobbying Disclosure 
     Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1603) is further amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(3)(A)(i), by striking ``$5,000'' and 
     inserting ``$2,500'';
       (B) in subsection (a)(3)(A)(ii), by striking ``$20,000'' 
     and inserting ``$10,000'';
       (C) in subsection (b)(3)(A), by striking ``$10,000'' and 
     inserting ``$5,000''; and
       (D) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ``$10,000'' and 
     inserting ``$5,000''.

     SEC. 202. ELECTRONIC FILING OF LOBBYING DISCLOSURE REPORTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 5 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act 
     of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1604) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(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.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The requirement in section 5(d) of the 
     Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as added by subsection (a) 
     of this section, that reports be filed electronically shall 
     take effect on the day after the end of the first calendar 
     quarter that begins after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 203. ADDITIONAL LOBBYING DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 5(b) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 
     U.S.C. 1604(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (4) by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) a certification that the lobbying firm, or 
     registrant, and each employee listed as a lobbyist under 
     section 4(b)(6) or paragraph (2)(C) of this subsection for 
     that lobbying firm or registrant, has not provided, 
     requested, or directed a gift, including travel, to a Member 
     of Congress or an officer or employee of either House of 
     Congress in violation rule XXXV of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate or rule XXV of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives.''.

     SEC. 204. QUARTERLY REPORTS ON OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 5 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1604) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Quarterly Reports on Other Contributions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 45 days after the end of 
     the quarterly period beginning on the first day of January, 
     April, July, and October of each year, or on the first 
     business day after the first day of such month if that day is 
     not a business day, each person who is registered or is 
     required to register under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 
     4(a), and each employee who is or is required to be listed as 
     a lobbyist under section 4(b)(6) or subsection (b) of this 
     section, shall file a report with the Secretary of the Senate 
     and the Clerk of the House of Representatives containing--
       ``(A) the name of the person;
       ``(B) in the case of an employee, his or her the employer;
       ``(C) the names of all political committees established or 
     administered by the person;
       ``(D) the name of each Federal candidate or officeholder, 
     leadership PAC, or political party committee, to whom 
     aggregate contributions equal to or exceeding $200 were made 
     by the person or a political committee established or 
     administered by the person within the calendar year, and the 
     date and amount of each contribution made within the 
     quarterly period;
       ``(E) the date, recipient, and amount of funds contributed, 
     disbursed, or arranged (or a good faith estimate thereof) by 
     the person or a political committee established or 
     administered by the person during the quarterly period--
       ``(i) to pay the cost of an event to honor or recognize a 
     covered legislative branch official or covered executive 
     branch official;
       ``(ii) to, or on behalf of, an entity that is named for a 
     covered legislative branch official, or to a person or entity 
     in recognition of such official;
       ``(iii) 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
       ``(iv) 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;
       ``(F) any information reported to the Federal Election 
     Commission under the second sentence of section 315(a)(8) of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (relating to 
     reports by intermediaries and conduits of the original source 
     and the intended recipient of contributions under such Act) 
     during the quarterly period by the person or a political 
     committee established or administered by the person; and
       ``(G) the amount and recipient of any funds provided to an 
     organization described in section 527 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 that is not treated as a political committee 
     under section 301(4) under the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971.
       ``(2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `leadership 
     PAC' means, with respect to an individual holding Federal 
     office, an unauthorized political committee that is 
     associated with an individual holding Federal office, except 
     that such term shall not apply in the case of a political 
     committee of a political party.''.

     SEC. 205. PROHIBITION ON PROVISION OF GIFTS OR TRAVEL BY 
                   REGISTERED LOBBYISTS TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND 
                   TO CONGRESSIONAL EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Prohibition.--The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 
     U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 25. PROHIBITION ON PROVISION OF GIFTS OR TRAVEL BY 
                   REGISTERED LOBBYISTS TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND 
                   TO CONGRESSIONAL EMPLOYEES.

       ``(a) Prohibition.--Any person described in subsection (b) 
     may not make a gift or provide travel to a Member, officer, 
     or employee of Congress, if the person has knowledge that the 
     gift or travel may not be accepted under the rules of the 
     House of Representatives or the Senate.
       ``(b) Persons Subject to Prohibition.--The persons subject 
     to the prohibition under subsection (a) are any lobbyist that 
     is registered or is required to register under section 
     4(a)(1), any organization that employs 1 or more lobbyists 
     and is registered or is required to register under section 
     4(a)(2), and any employee listed or required to be listed as 
     a lobbyist by a registrant under section 4(b)(6).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 206. DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES BY CERTAIN 
                   COALITIONS AND ASSOCIATION.

       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), 
     (iii), and (iv), 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 
     the 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

[[Page 14183]]

       ``(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.--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 during the quarterly period 
     during which the registration would be made.
       ``(iv) No donor or membership list disclosure.--No 
     disclosure is required under this Act, by reason of this 
     subparagraph, with respect to lobbying activities if it is 
     publicly available knowledge that the organization that would 
     be identified under this subparagraph is affiliated with the 
     client concerned 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 subparagraph 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 subparagraph.''.

     SEC. 207. DISCLOSURE BY REGISTERED LOBBYISTS OF PAST 
                   EXECUTIVE BRANCH 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. 208. PUBLIC DATABASE OF LOBBYING DISCLOSURE INFORMATION; 
                   MAINTENANCE OF 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 a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(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); 
     and
       ``(10) retain the information contained in a registration 
     or report filed under this Act for a period of at least 6 
     years after the registration or report (as the case may be) 
     is filed.''.
       (b) Availability of Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Section 6(4) of the Lobbying Disclosure 
     Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1605) is amended 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), 
     make such report available for public inspection over the 
     Internet not more than 48 hours after the report is so 
     filed''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall take effect on the day after the end of the first 
     calendar quarter that begins after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
       (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 the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 
     1995 (2 U.S.C. 1605), as added by subsection (a) of this 
     section.

     SEC. 209. INAPPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN POLITICAL COMMITTEES.

       The amendments made by this title shall not apply to the 
     activities of any political committee described in section 
     301(4) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     431(4)).

     SEC. 210. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as otherwise provided, the amendments made by this 
     title shall apply with respect to any quarterly filing period 
     under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 that begins on or 
     after January 1, 2008.

            TITLE III--ENFORCEMENT OF LOBBYING RESTRICTIONS

     SEC. 301. 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 striking ``Whoever'' and inserting ``(a) Civil 
     Penalty.--Whoever'';
       (2) by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting ``$100,000''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Criminal Penalty.--Whoever knowingly and corruptly 
     fails to comply with any provision of this Act shall be 
     imprisoned for not more than 5 years or fined under title 18, 
     United States Code, or both.''.

                     TITLE IV--INCREASED DISCLOSURE

     SEC. 401. PROHIBITION ON OFFICIAL CONTACT WITH SPOUSE OF 
                   MEMBER WHO IS A REGISTERED LOBBYIST.

       Rule XXV of the Rules of the House of Representatives is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``7. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall 
     prohibit all staff employed by that Member, Delegate, or 
     Resident Commissioner (including staff in personal, 
     committee, and leadership offices) from having any official 
     contact with that individual's spouse if that spouse is a 
     lobbyist under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 or is 
     employed or retained by such a lobbyist for the purpose of 
     influencing legislation.''.

     SEC. 402. POSTING OF TRAVEL AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORTS 
                   ON PUBLIC WEBSITE OF CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF 
                   REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Requiring Posting on Internet.--The Clerk of the House 
     of Representatives shall post on the public Internet site of 
     the Office of the Clerk, in a format that is searchable, 
     sortable, and downloadable, each of the following:
       (1) The advance authorizations, certifications, and 
     disclosures filed with respect to transportation, lodging, 
     and related expenses for travel under clause 5(b) of rule XXV 
     of the Rules of the House of Representatives by Members 
     (including Delegates and Resident Commissioners to the 
     Congress), officers, and employees of the House.
       (2) The reports filed under section 103(h)(1) of the Ethics 
     in Government Act of 1978 by Members of the House of 
     Representatives (including Delegates and Resident 
     Commissioners to the Congress).
       (b) Applicability and Timing.--
       (1) Applicability.--Subject to paragraph (2), subsection 
     (a) shall apply with respect to information received by the 
     Clerk of the House of Representatives on or after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Timing.--The Clerk of the House of Representatives 
     shall--
       (A) not later than August 1, 2008, post the information 
     required by subsection (a) that the Clerk receives by June 1, 
     2008; and
       (B) not later than the end of each 45-day period occurring 
     after information is required to be posted under subparagraph 
     (A), post the information required by subsection (a) that the 
     Clerk has received since the last posting under this 
     subsection.
       (c) Retention.--The Clerk shall maintain the information 
     posted on the public Internet site of the Office of the Clerk 
     under this section for a period of at least 6 years after 
     receiving the information.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 501. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act 
     shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct 
     protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities 
     protected by the free speech, free exercise, or free 
     association clauses of, the First Amendment to the 
     Constitution.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order 
except the amendments printed in part B of House Report 110-167. Each 
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report; by a 
Member designated in the report; shall be considered read; shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment; shall not 
be subject to amendment; and shall not be subject to a demand for 
division of the question.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Conyers

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed 
in part B of House Report 110-167.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Conyers:
       Page 2, in the item relating to section 206 in the table of 
     contents, strike ``ASSOCIATION'' and insert ``ASSOCIATIONS''.
       Page 17, line 21, strike ``association'' and insert 
     ``associations''.
       Page 4, line 11, strike ``this clause'' and insert ``this 
     rule''.
       Page 5, line 24, strike ``or any'' and insert ``any''.
       Page 5, line 24, insert ``or section 872,'' after ``209,''.
       Page 13, line 21, strike ``the Act'' and insert ``the 
     Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995''.
       Page 26, insert after line 2 the following:
       (3) Omission of personally identifiable information.--
     Members of the House of Representatives (including Delegates 
     and Resident Commissioners to the Congress) shall be 
     permitted to omit personally identifiable information not 
     required to be disclosed on the reports posted on the public 
     Internet site under this section (such as home address, 
     Social Security numbers, personal bank account numbers, home 
     telephone, and names of children) prior to the posting of 
     such reports on such public Internet site.
       (4) Assistance in protecting personal information.--The 
     Clerk of the House of Representatives, in consultation with 
     the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,

[[Page 14184]]

     shall include in any informational materials concerning any 
     disclosure that will be posted on the public Internet site 
     under this section an explanation of the procedures for 
     protecting personally identifiable information as described 
     in this section.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 437, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the Chair.
  Members of the House, this is merely a truly technical revision to 
H.R. 2316. Sometimes technical amendments aren't really only technical. 
This one is, because all it does is clarify the application of the 
bill's provisions regarding the posting of financial disclosure forms 
on the Internet.
  The amendment makes clear that Members may omit personally 
identifiable information not required to be disclosed from travel and 
personal financial disclosure forms before these forms are submitted to 
the House Clerk for posting on the Internet. It ensures that the bill's 
heightened disclosure requirements do not become potential fodder for 
identity theft or any other inappropriate processes or purposes. It 
also directs the Clerk to detail the procedures for protecting 
personally identifiable information to Members.
  I am indebted to one of our committee members in particular, the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Louie Gohmert, for working with us to ensure 
that Members receive proper guidance regarding the information that 
they are required to provide, as well as the information they are not 
required to provide.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I support this manager's amendment. It contains 
provisions authored by Representative Gohmert of Texas that would allow 
Members to omit personally identifiable information from the electronic 
reports of their travel and financial disclosure statements if such 
information is not required to be disclosed under House rules. This is 
a reasonable bipartisan provision, and I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Dreier

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 110-167.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Dreier:
       Immediately prior to section 104, add the following new 
     section, redesignate section 104 as section 105, and conform 
     the table of contents accordingly:

     SEC. 104. NOTIFICATION OF POST-EMPLOYMENT RESTRICTIONS.

       Section 207(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) Notification of post-employment restrictions.--After 
     a Member of the House of Representatives or an elected 
     officer of the House of Representatives leaves office, or 
     after the termination of employment with the House of 
     Representatives of an employee of the House of 
     Representatives covered under paragraph (2), (3), or (4), the 
     Clerk of the House of Representatives, after consultation 
     with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, shall 
     notify the Member, officer, or employee of the beginning and 
     ending date of the prohibitions that apply to the Member, 
     officer, or employee under this subsection, and also notify 
     each office of the House of Representatives with respect to 
     which such prohibitions apply of those dates. The Clerk shall 
     also post the information contained in such notification on 
     the public Internet site of the Office of the Clerk in a 
     format that is searchable, sortable, and downloadable.''.
       Section 105 (as so redesignated) as amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       (d) Section 104.--The amendments made by section 104 shall 
     take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 437, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Chairman, I express my appreciation to the 
Committee on Rules for making my amendment in order. And I would like 
to say that this is an amendment which is designed, again, to simply 
strive in our quest to bring the level of this lobbying reform measure 
up to the standard that we had in last year's past bill, H.R. 4975.
  The provision that was included in last year's bill allows for 
greater transparency and disclosure. It adds language, Madam Chairman, 
which simply creates a requirement that full disclosure of the starting 
and ending times for a person who is leaving the employment of the 
Capitol, what their lobbying constraints are.
  Now, this bill originally had a 2-year ban on lobbying once someone 
leaves the Capitol. Chairman Conyers decided that, as the challenge we 
faced last year, making sure we have first-rate staff here is a 
challenge, so they pared back from the 2 years that was in the Senate 
bill and was initially in this bill back to the 1-year level.
  I understand that, again, this is something that we did last year, 
but the thing that we did is we felt strongly about the need for 
disclosure as to exactly what those dates are; and so we called for a 
letter to be written which has the start times and the end times for 
the lobbying ban. That letter goes to the individual, and it goes to 
the office from which that person has left. And it goes actually a step 
further than we did in the past, and it calls for disclosure of that 
information on the Internet so that everyone knows, in fact, that there 
is a ban on that person from engaging in lobbying their former 
colleagues. I hope very much that my colleagues can support that.
  Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of 
the Committee on Judiciary, the gentleman from San Antonio (Mr. Smith).

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I support this amendment. The base 
bill under consideration today is largely a reflection of the 
Republican reform bill the House passed in the last Congress, and that 
was largely authored by the Representative from California (Mr. 
Dreier). But it does not include all of the Republican authored reform 
provisions. One of those authored by Representative Dreier is contained 
in this amendment. It would require that when Members and House 
employees end their service in the House, they be given notice of the 
exact dates in which their post-employment restrictions apply. The 
amendment also would require that that information be made available on 
the Internet, which would provide more accountability and transparency. 
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  And Madam Chair, I once again want to thank Mr. Dreier for his 
continuous efforts to try to achieve open and honest government. Those 
efforts have begun years ago, and they continue today and will 
effectuate the passage of this amendment and this bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Chairman, I'm inclined to reserve the balance of my 
time, but if the gentleman from San Antonio wants to continue with the 
line of argument he was making, I'd yield him the whole rest of my time 
if he wanted to continue to be as gracious as he was.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the 
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Michigan is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, the former chairman 
of

[[Page 14185]]

the Rules Committee has put forward a good, commonsense amendment. It 
was one that I recognized to have been in his previous legislation. As 
a matter of fact, it's improved. And there is absolutely no reason for 
us to have any reservations about it. I commend the gentleman. It's a 
good addition to H.R. 2316. And as Justice Brandeis said famously, 
``Sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant.'' And this is a 
sunlight amendment if I've ever seen one.
  What we want to do is make this more understandable to the American 
people and to the Members of Congress as well, and so I'm very pleased 
to accept the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Chair, I thank the distinguished chair of the 
Committee on the Judiciary and the gentleman from Texas for their very 
kind remarks and support of this effort that we're making to improve 
the level of this legislation. And I'm not going to buy it back from 
the chairman since he's been so gracious.
  So, with that, I'll yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Conyers

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in part B of House Report 110-167.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairwoman, as the designee of the gentleman from 
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), I offer the amendment that is now at the 
desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Conyers:
       Insert the following after section 103 and redesignate the 
     succeeding section accordingly:

     SEC. 104. RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN UNIFORMED OFFICERS.

       Section 207 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(m) Additional Restrictions on Certain Officers of the 
     Armed Forces.--Any person who is a general or flag officer of 
     the Armed Forces and who, within 1 year after the person's 
     retirement or separation from the Armed Forces, receives 
     compensation from any entity under contract with the 
     Department of Defense if the contract or contracts in effect 
     at the time of the receipt of the compensation are in 
     amounts, in the aggregate, greater than $50,000,000 shall be 
     punished as provided in section 216 of this title.''.
       In section 105, as redesignated, add the following at the 
     end:
       (d) Section 104.--The amendment made by section 104 shall 
     apply to any individual who retires or is separated from the 
     Armed Forces more than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 437, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, Members of the House, this is an 
amendment originally proposed by the gentleman from Hawaii, and it is 
designed to ensure that the decisions made by government officials 
aren't tainted by the prospect of private gain after they leave public 
office. That was one of the very first of our goals in this entire 
bill, to end the practice of Members attempting to use their power to 
influence private lobbyists' hiring decisions.
  This amendment furthers that objective by extending the conflict of 
interest standards to generals and flag officers of the Armed Forces 
who serve as top decision-makers in their respective services. It only 
applies to contracts greater than $50 million in size, and it mandates 
a cooling-off period for 1 year.
  Now, we have a huge military budget, a growing one, and 
unfortunately, many questions have arisen in recent years about the 
manner in which some of these contracts have been negotiated. Some have 
even received prison sentences as a result of serious conflicts of 
interest that occurred during the conduct of these negotiations.
  Each of these contracts involving military people affect the security 
of our Nation, the welfare of our men and women in uniform, and the 
public trust of the taxpayers. The provision of the gentleman from 
Hawaii will ensure that there is not even the appearance of a conflict. 
It will provide an assurance that the public's defense dollars are 
spent on the security of our Nation and the welfare of our troops 
rather than from private gain from our top military officials. It's a 
measure that the gentleman from Hawaii has discussed with me in great 
detail. And I urge its favorable consideration.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I would like to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak) who, prior to his current 
public service to our country, also served as a Vice Admiral in the 
Navy.
  Mr. SESTAK. Madam Chair, several days ago, I withdrew an amendment on 
an independent ethics commission, as the leadership discussed that 
imminently there would be something forthcoming.
  I grew up in the military, and I bring this point up, from the 
Vietnam days until last year, and we were used to having 
investigations, outside investigations, whether with Milai or whether 
it was recently the USS Cole.
  But during that entire period of time, 30-plus years, I learned that 
the best leadership is leadership by example; that type of leadership 
where others want to emulate your standards.
  My question, therefore, is, how can this Congress look across the 
Potomac River at the Pentagon, to those men and women who have served 
30 to 40 years in the cloth of this Nation and say, you cannot work for 
any company, including General Motors, if they have more than $50 
million of contracts, and then not do the same to ourselves where 
Congressmen can walk out this door today and work for a lobbying firm, 
proscribed from certain activities, but work and get compensation.
  If not us, why them? Why them, if not us?
  I will be disappointed if this Congress passes this. I can support 
this amendment if it is for us, and I would like to see it for us. I 
know leadership, however, and this is not leadership.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I would yield as much time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Chairman, let's go over what this does do and 
why it's here.
  This amendment places a 1-year ban on flag and general officers in 
the Armed Services from receiving compensation from any company that 
does greater than $50 million in business with the Department of 
Defense. The rationale is very, very straightforward. It assures that 
large corporations, relying on DOD business, do not take advantage of 
loopholes in the post-employment ethics laws right now. That's what 
this is addressing, what exists right now.
  Current laws govern conduct-based actions. Conduct-based actions and 
restrictions that are in there now are meaningless because there's 
what's called behind-the-scenes and in-house provisions. I didn't make 
this up. This is what's going on right now. If I'm going to get 
lectured on ethics, let's talk about ethics. Former flag and general 
officers cannot overtly attempt to influence government officials. We 
know that. The $50 million ensures that small businesses seeking access 
to the DOD market are protected and people can go to work for them.

                              {time}  1540

  It does not impact officers pay grade O-6 and below. We are talking 
about the top people up here making the top money making the top 
decisions with Department of Defense organizations.
  The amendment protects senior officers from large DOD prime 
contractors seeking to gain undue influence during their time in 
service. You think you walk out the door of the Pentagon and down the 
stairs and by immaculate conception can go to work for one of these DOD 
corporations and not have

[[Page 14186]]

tried to influence that job beforehand or negotiate that job before you 
walk out the door?
  Take public universities. From the publication that just came out in 
March of 2007, of all the universities in the country, only two 
universities in the country are doing more than $50 million worth of 
business. So that is open that you can go to.
  Dwight Eisenhower, more than 40 years ago, way back in 1961, warned 
us about the military industrial complex that was emerging in our 
country. And I am quoting: ``Until the latest of our world conflicts, 
the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of 
plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But 
now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; 
we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast 
proportions.''
  I think President Eisenhower's words speak for themselves. The 
amendment speaks for itself. This is an implementation of an ethics 
rule that should apply to the Pentagon, and I would think that people 
of goodwill would want to embrace it.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), a member of our 
Republican leadership team.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment and take issue with the 
suggestion from the other side that somehow our generals and flag 
officers are tainted by the offers of employment upon leaving military 
service.
  We are talking about individuals who have spent their entire 
professional lives serving in the United States of America. Our men and 
women in the uniformed services consistently hold themselves to a 
higher standard of ethical and moral conduct. They serve as role models 
for Americans all across this Nation. They deserve our respect, 
gratitude, and admiration.
  This amendment imposes employment restrictions on general and flag 
officers that do not apply to any other officer or employee of the 
executive or legislative branch. In fact, as the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania who spoke before said, this amendment would ensure that 
our Nation's senior military leaders are governed by more restrictive 
postemployment rules than Members of Congress are.
  Current postemployment prohibitions and restrictions in title 18 
already apply to officers and employees of the executive and 
legislative branches, including general and flag officers. Current law 
does not generally prohibit employment, but rather restricts what 
individuals can do for 1- or 2-year periods following government 
service.
  Finally, Madam Chair, this amendment hints of an antimilitary 
sentiment that will have an adverse impact on military officers serving 
in military grades below general and flag rank.
  Our Nation's men and women serving in the military today have made 
tremendous sacrifices in the service of our country. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment and send a message to our Nation's 
senior military leaders that we appreciate their service, recognize 
their sacrifice, and honor their integrity.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), a senior member of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Mr. WOLF. Madam Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
  But let me ask your side. I had an amendment to say that CIA station 
chiefs and people who were ambassadors cannot go out and work for the 
Khartoum government. Many on your side talk about the genocide in 
Darfur. I have been before the Rules Committee three times, and I have 
never had an amendment made in order. Now you give him an amendment, 
which may be a good amendment or maybe not, but I don't get any 
opportunity to offer my amendment.
  Many on your side say, we are concerned about Darfur. This would have 
done more. There was a CIA station chief who left the CIA, working for 
the Khartoum government, and you would not even allow us to offer an 
amendment. Yet you go to the rallies and you speak out against Darfur.
  I rise in opposition this amendment, and I rise against the activity 
of the Rules Committee. You all are pushing too much. And you are 
pushing people on this side.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Would you yield? You are pointing your finger at me.
  Mr. WOLF. I am pointing at the Rules Committee. I am pointing at 
everybody on this side who would not give me an amendment to stop the 
genocide in Darfur.
  Madam Chairman, I continue to grow more and more frustrated that my 
side of the aisle is not being heard.
  I have been to the Rules Committee no less than three times this 
year--most recently last night--seeking amendments to bills coming 
before the House. Each time I have offered substantive changes, aimed 
at improving legislation. I have not been offering partisan amendments 
that would gut bills.
  The amendment I sought to have debated as part of this bill would 
have closed the revolving door on former ambassadors and CIA station 
chiefs from representing countries in which they served for five years. 
Currently, an ambassador can leave the service of the United States one 
day and be hired the very next as an agent of foreign nation where they 
had served. These officials see every decision the United States makes 
in relation to that country. They have access to intelligence, policy 
documents and other confidential information. But under today's rules, 
the day they leave they have every legal right to use that same 
information on behalf of a foreign nation. These are people who have 
been entrusted with great responsibility. And they don't always work in 
the most friendliest of countries, or countries who have the United 
States best interests at heart.
  My amendment would have ended this practice. Regrettably, it wasn't 
ruled in order, yet Mr. Abercrombie's amendment, which aimed at closing 
the revolving door for flag and general officers from going to work for 
huge defense companies, was. I don't understand. Your side talks about 
wanting to work in a bipartisan fashion. I don't see it. My amendment 
drives at the same thing as Mr. Abercrombie's, yet was roundly 
dismissed. This issue has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat. It 
has to do with what is right.
  Last year I learned that a former State Department official and 
former CIA station chief, trained at the expense of the American 
taxpayer, were lobbying on behalf of Sudan, the same government that is 
playing a role in the genocide in Darfur.
  No other government is a more established enemy of human dignity. Not 
only is the government widely linked to organizing and arming militias 
who have raped and killed innocent women, men and children, pillaged 
villages and displaced millions in Darfur, the Khartoum government gave 
safe haven to Osama bin Laden from 1991 to 1996 and allows the 
terrorist group Hamas to operate within its borders.
  We all say we want to end the genocide yet we have no problem with 
rogue govermnents hiring Washington-based lobbyists. Yet the Rules 
Committee won't allow an amendment barring former high ranking 
diplomats and CIA station chiefs from representing country's like 
Sudan.
  Don't even get me started on Saudi Arabia, where not just one, but 
several former ambassadors to Saudi Arabia have been on the Kingdom's 
payroll.
  Severe human rights abuses and religious persecution are status quo 
in Saudi Arabia. Our own State Department has flatly said religious 
freedom does not exist in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Wahhabi 
doctrine, which is at the root of our global war on terror, is taught 
and encouraged by Saudi Arabia.
  Read the attached piece from CQ that ran in February of 2006 about 
former U.S. Ambassadors to Saudi Arabia--the home to 15 of the 19 al 
Qaeda hijackers--who have or are presently on retainer by the Saudi 
government. It is extremely troubling.
  During the Reagan Administration no lobbyist would have dared to even 
suggest representing a country like the Soviet Union. The clients 
signed up by some in the lobbying business today are among the world's 
most unsavory governments, including major human rights abusers and 
direct threats like China.
  It saddens me to learn that reputable Washington lobbying firms take 
up the mantle of a Chinese state-run entity in their efforts to 
``merge'' with a private American company. Is there no consideration 
given to the fact that the Chinese government poses a national security 
threat to the United States, including an

[[Page 14187]]

organized spy network, which I have heard described in great detail in 
FBI briefings?
  China blatantly disrespects free trade norms and intellectual 
property law. It persistently violates human rights, imprisoning and 
torturing Catholic priests, Protestant house church leaders, Tibetan 
Buddhists, Uyghur Muslims, and Falun Gong practitioners. China 
consistently stifles political dissent and free expression. Yet, big K 
Street firms don't think twice about representing them.
  Nor do they think twice about the fact that China is providing guns 
and ammunition to the government of Sudan, which is complicit in the 
genocide that is taking place in Dafur. More than 450,000 people have 
died and China has done nothing to stop the violence. The PRC, in fact, 
is helping fuel the violence.
  Sadly, we didn't get to debate this today. I hope in the future that 
the Rules Committee, and your side, will look at the aim of the 
amendment before just dismissing them out of hand.

 American Diplomats Tend To Become Saudi Lobbyists--But Maybe Not for 
                              Much Longer

               (By Jeff Stein, National Security Editor)

       Back in August 2002, a congressional delegation was 
     traveling around Saudi Arabia, home to 15 of the 19 al Qaeda 
     hijackers who less than a year earlier had launched the Sept. 
     11 attacks on the United States.
       On one leg of the trip, in a big, white embassy van, 
     Republican Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan, a former 
     FBI agent, turned to the U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, 
     Robert Jordan. He asked Jordan, in light of how the Sept. 11 
     attacks had revealed the Saudis' role in nurturing al Qaeda-
     connected charities and religious schools, whether Jordan, a 
     big-time Houston oil and gas lawyer, would be the first U.S. 
     ambassador to not go to work for the Saudis after leaving his 
     post.
       Jordan, who had George W. Bush as a client before he went 
     to the White House, considered Rogers' question for a moment, 
     and then politely declined to ``take the pledge,'' according 
     to a witness who recalled the episode.
       Not that it mattered: Jordan's firm, Baker Botts LLP--that 
     would be James A. Baker III, secretary of State in the first 
     Bush administration and lawyer for the second Bush in the 
     2000 Florida election deadlock--already had a host of 
     business clients in the royal kingdom, with offices in Riyadh 
     and Dubai.
       In any event, Jordan in 2003 joined the long list of U.S. 
     ambassadors and other former American officials working 
     directly or indirectly for the Saudi royal family.
       Rogers last week introduced a bill that would bar federal 
     employees from representing foreign governments for four 
     years after they leave public service. Also last week, the 
     House overwhelmingly approved a resolution (H. Res. 648) that 
     sharply curtails lobbyists by foreign agents on the House 
     floor.
       Representative Frank R. Wolf, R-Va., plans similar 
     legislation, but more narrowly targeted diplomatic and 
     intelligence officials. He called the practice of 
     ambassadors--and former CIA officials--representing the 
     Saudis, or other governments where they had worked, 
     ``scandalous.''
       ``It's a great honor to be an American ambassador, to 
     represent the United States,'' Wolf said by telephone. ``And 
     we have some great ambassadors. But with that, to whom much 
     is given, much is required.''
       Reached in Houston, Jordan said he doesn't remember ``all 
     the details of that conversation,'' but added: ``At that time 
     I certainly didn't have any intention of representing Saudi 
     interests. It was premature in any event, because I was still 
     pretty much in office.''
       Pressed further, he said, ``I remember someone bringing it 
     up, and it may well have been Congressman Rogers.''
       Rogers declined to comment on the matter.
       Actually, it would be big news if a senior U.S. diplomat in 
     the Middle East did not accept the warm embrace of the Saudis 
     or other despots upon leaving the region.
       They are sprinkled all over Washington, particularly in 
     such well-known Saudi-supported think tanks as the Middle 
     East Institute (MEI).
       Two former American ambassadors to Saudi Arabia lead the 
     MEI--Wyche Fowler Jr. (chairman) and Edward Walker 
     (president). Former ambassador to the United Arab Emirates 
     and deputy assistant secretary for the Near East David Mack 
     is MEI's vice president. Also at MEI is Richard Parker, 
     former ambassador to Algeria, Lebanon, and Morocco, and 
     Michael Sterner, former ambassador to UAE and deputy 
     assistant secretary of Near Eastern Affairs.
       Chas. W. Freeman Jr., another former U.S. ambassador to the 
     kingdom, is president of the Saudi-backed Middle East Policy 
     Council. Another ambassador, Walter Cutler, leads the Saudi-
     backed Meridian International Center.
       From the Saudi point of view, all this is a good thing.
       The legendary former Saudi ambassador to Washington Prince 
     Bandar bin Sultan was quoted in The Washington Post a few 
     years back as saying, ``If the reputation then builds that 
     the Saudis take care of friends when they leave office, you'd 
     be surprised how much better friends you have who are just 
     coming into office.''
       Rogers' bill would prohibit U.S. officials from leaving 
     office and lobbying ``on behalf of any foreign entity.''
       Wolf's bill ``will be much more narrow, focused primarily 
     on ambassadors and [CIA] station chiefs,'' said an aide.
       Wolf is concerned about Saudi Arabia's influence. But he's 
     also watching China.
       Last July he sent a blistering letter to the Washington 
     powerhouse firm of Akin Gump, which represented the China 
     National Offshore Oil Corp. during some of its aggressive 
     takeover bids here last year. One of its partners was a 
     member of the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory 
     Board.
       ``That's just not appropriate,'' Wolf said.

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I support your amendment; so leave me out of it. It 
is unfair for you to do that.
  Mr. WOLF. We don't have a vote on it, and it was not made in order. I 
can't bring it up. And the genocide continues.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of my 
amendment which places a one-year ban on flag and general officers of 
the Armed Services from receiving compensation from any company that 
does greater than $50 million in business with the Department of 
Defense.
  This ban will take place 120 days from the enactment of the 
legislation.
  The rationale is to ensure former flag and general officers and large 
corporations relying on DoD business do not take advantage loopholes in 
the post-employment ethics laws.
  Current laws governing conduct-based actions and restrictions are 
meaningless because of ``behind-the-scenes'' or ``in-house'' provisions 
where former flag/general officers cannot overtly attempt to influence 
government officials, but can provide an unfair business advantage by 
providing their new colleagues in the private sector with valuable 
knowledge immediately after leaving the Department of Defense.
  The $50 million ceiling ensures small businesses seeking access to 
the DoD market are not restricted from hiring former general or flag 
officers as employees or consultants. Moreover, this does not impact 
officers paygrade O-6 and below.
  Why include all flag and general officers? While not all flag and 
general officers are involved in procurement, they can be involved in 
the development of future military systems and operational requirements 
or have ``official responsibility'' for an acquisition program.
  This amendment will protect senior officers from large DoD prime 
contractors seeking to gain undue influence during their time in 
service. The ``prime'' contractors in the DoD industry are so pervasive 
and ingrained that they have been referred to as ``quasi-agencies'' in 
the media. One private company received over $24 billion in DoD 
contracts, an amount equal to the budget request for the Department of 
Justice for Fiscal Year 2008 budget request totals $24.02 billion.
  Another concern is the impact on the ability of these former officers 
to teach at universities. Well over 1,000 schools are listed in the 
Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges and 
Nonprofit Institutions: FY 2004 Report released March 2007--only two 
schools received more than $50 million in DoD funds (Johns Hopkins and 
University of Texas at Austin).
  I urge my colleagues to support closing loopholes in our ethics laws 
and vote in favor of this amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Castle

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in part B of House Report 110-167.
  Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Castle:
       Insert the following after section 208 and redesignate the 
     succeeding sections, and conform the table of contents, 
     accordingly:

[[Page 14188]]



     SEC. 209. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING LOBBYING BY IMMEDIATE 
                   FAMILY MEMBERS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the use of a family 
     relationship by a lobbyist who is an immediate family member 
     of a Member of Congress to gain special advantages over other 
     lobbyists is inappropriate.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 437, the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware.
  Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The legislation before us, which I support, has in it a provision 
banning lobbying by spouses in the office of the individual whose 
spouse it is. And I am very supportive of that. I think it is something 
that we should do, but I think it should go a little further than that. 
And this is a sense of Congress in which we are going to cast a wider 
net in terms of being careful about who is lobbying.
  I am concerned that family members other than just spouses, obviously 
including children, parents, brothers, sisters, direct family members, 
lobbying can be extremely maybe unfairly influential in terms of what 
happens in the Congress of the United States. Obviously, if the spouse 
of a committee chair come to you, and you are on that particular 
committee, that could have an adverse influence as far as your 
decisionmaking is concerned. And I think we need to be careful about 
that.
  I have done this, though not as a specific prohibition, but as a 
caution in the form in which we find it. And I also noted a recent poll 
suggesting that 80 percent of Americans believe it is wrong for 
lawmakers and their staffs to have contact with family members of other 
lawmakers who are lobbyists.
  I believe in openness and transparency. I think it is essential to 
all that we do. And I believe if somebody has an unfair, unstated 
advantage in terms of what they are doing, it is something that we in 
Congress should pay attention to.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I am very delighted to accept this 
amendment. It expresses a sense of Congress that is perfectly 
consistent with what we are doing. I am pleased to accept it, and we 
can move on to the next amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
the work on the bill and for the acceptance of this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Cardoza

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed 
in part B of House Report 110-167.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Cardoza:
       Insert after title IV the following new title and 
     redesingate the succeeding title accordingly:

      TITLE V--ADDITIONAL CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS

     SEC. 501. CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter D of chapter 227 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 3587. Increased imprisonment for certain offenses by 
       public officials.

       ``(a) General Rule.--In any Federal criminal case in which 
     a public official is convicted of an offense against the 
     United States--
       ``(1) consisting of conduct during the course of official 
     duty, intended to enrich that official; and
       ``(2) involving bribery, fraud, extortion, or theft of 
     public funds greater than $10,000;
     the sentencing judge may increase the sentence of 
     imprisonment by an amount of up to 2 years. The sentencing 
     judge may double the sentence of imprisonment that would 
     otherwise be imposed in that case: Provided, however that in 
     no instance may the sentencing judge be allowed to increase 
     the sentence by more than 2 years.
       ``(b) Definition.--In this section, the term `public 
     official' means--
       ``(1) an elected official of the United States or of a 
     State or local government;
       ``(2) a presidentially-appointed official; and
       ``(3) an official appointed to a State or local 
     governmental office by an elected official of a State or 
     local government.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of subchapter D of chapter 227 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new item:
``3587. Increased imprisonment for certain offenses by public 
              officials.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 437, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cardoza) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Unfortunately, recent scandals have somewhat tarnished the reputation 
of Congress and stretched the bonds of trust between the public and 
their government. My amendment is quite simple and will help to restore 
that bond between public officials and the people that we represent.
  My amendment gives Federal judges discretion to increase criminal 
sentences in cases where public confidence in government has been 
violated. If a public official has been convicted of bribery, fraud, 
extortion, or theft of public funds greater than $10,000, a sentencing 
judge has within his discretion to double the length of the sentence up 
to 2 years for those public officials convicted of ethics violations.

                              {time}  1550

  The 110th Congress has already taken steps to ensure that public 
officials adhere to the highest ethical standards and are more 
accountable for their actions. Banning meals, restricting congressional 
travel, and tightening the lobbying rules are all important first steps 
that we have already taken. However, more needs to be done.
  With public faith in government officials weakened by scandals, we 
need to ensure that those who break these laws are punished 
appropriately. Beyond breaking the law, the perpetrators of these 
crimes violate the public trust by defying their fiduciary 
responsibility to our Constitution. For government to function 
effectively, the public must be able to trust the people making the 
decisions, and as public officials, we must hold ourselves to a higher 
standard.
  This amendment signals that breaches of the public trust will not be 
condoned. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment and join me 
in providing a deterrent to illegal behavior in the future and helping 
rebuild public trust in government officials.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and I 
ask unanimous consent to speak in favor of it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Michigan is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. I would just like my friend to know that this amendment 
meets with our standards. I want to commend the gentleman from 
California, because it allows judges to deal effectively and 
appropriately with extraordinary abuses of public trust, and that does 
not have any mandatory conditions to it whatsoever. I am pleased to 
accept it.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, the 
distinguished Chair. I appreciate his comments. I think it's a worthy 
amendment, and I ask the House to support it.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Conyers

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the unfinished 
business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) on which further proceedings 
were

[[Page 14189]]

postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 152, 
noes 271, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 421]

                               AYES--152

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Arcuri
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Butterfield
     Camp (MI)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCaul (TX)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz
     Serrano
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Space
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--271

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson
     Carter
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McNerney
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Rogers (MI)
       

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Berman
     Bordallo
     Campbell (CA)
     Clay
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeGette
     Emerson
     Engel
     Jones (OH)
     Lewis (GA)
     McMorris Rodgers
     Oberstar
     Radanovich

                              {time}  1622

  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Ms. HARMAN, Ms. BEAN, Ms. ESHOO, 
Ms. HOOLEY, Ms. FOXX, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Ms. 
JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. CARSON, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, 
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas and Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas and Messrs. 
PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, RODRIGUEZ, HIGGINS, TANNER, WALZ of 
Minnesota, ISRAEL, SALAZAR, LANTOS, GORDON, ROTHMAN, HONDA, DONNELLY, 
MORAN of Virginia, HOLT, DENT, MEEKS of New York, TOWNS, KLEIN of 
Florida, WELCH of Vermont, ROSS, DAVIS of Alabama, BERRY, LANGEVIN, 
MOORE of Kansas and AL GREEN of Texas changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD and Mr. HALL of Texas changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan changed his vote from ``no'' to ``present.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Tierney) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Tauscher, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2316) to 
provide more rigorous requirements with respect to disclosure and 
enforcement of lobbying laws and regulations, and for other purposes, 
pursuant to House Resolution 437, she reported the bill back to the 
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on 
the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Chabot

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. CHABOT. I am, in its current form.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Chabot of Ohio moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2316 to 
     the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report 
     the same

[[Page 14190]]

     back to the House forthwith with the following amendments:
       At the end of title IV, add the following new section:

     SEC. 403. LIMITING GIFTS TO MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AND EMPLOYEES 
                   OF THE HOUSE FROM STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

       (a) Gifts From State and Local Governments.--Clause 
     5(a)(3)(O) of rule XXV of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives is amended by striking ``, by a State or 
     local government,''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Clause 5(b)(1)(A) of rule XXV of 
     the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by 
     inserting ``a State or local government or'' before ``a 
     private source''.
       Insert the following after section 103 and redesignate the 
     succeeding section accordingly:

     SEC. 104. RESTRICTION ON CONGRESSIONAL EMPLOYEES REGARDING 
                   FORMER EMPLOYERS.

       (a) Restriction.--Chapter 11 of title 18, United States 
     Code, as amended by this Act, is further amended by inserting 
     after section 220 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 221. Additional restriction on congressional employees

       ``(a) Restriction.--Any person--
       ``(1) who is a congressional employee,
       ``(2) who, before becoming employed as a congressional 
     employee, was employed as a lobbyist, and
       ``(3) who, within 1 year after leaving employment as a 
     lobbyist, knowingly makes, in carrying out his or her 
     official responsibilities as a congressional employee, any 
     communication to or appearance before--
       ``(A) the organization that employed the person as a 
     lobbyist, if the person was not self-employed,
       ``(B) any entity that was a client of the person while 
     employed as a lobbyist, or any entity that was a client of 
     the organization described in subparagraph (A) while the 
     person was employed as a lobbyist, or is a client of that 
     organization during that 1-year period, on a matter relating 
     specifically to that organization or client,

     shall be punished as provided in section 216.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `congressional employee' means--
       ``(A) an elected officer of either House of Congress; and
       ``(B) any employee to which any of the restrictions 
     contained in paragraphs (1) though (5) of section 207(e) 
     apply;
       ``(2) the term `lobbyist' means a person that is registered 
     or required to register as a lobbyist under section 4(a)(1) 
     of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, and any employee of 
     an organization that is registered or required to be 
     registered under section 4(b)(6) of that Act; and
       ``(3) the term `client' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 3(2) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     chapter 11 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 220 the 
     following new item:

``221. Additional restriction on congressional employees.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to individuals who become congressional employees 
     on or after January 1, 2007.
       In section 203, strike ``Section 5(b)'' and insert ``(a) 
     Gifts.--Section 5(b)''.
       Add the following at the end of section 203:
       (b) Requests for Congressional Earmarks.--Section 
     5(b)(2)(A) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 
     1604(b)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``bill numbers'' and 
     inserting the following: ``bill numbers, requests for 
     Congressional earmarks (as defined in clause 9(d) of rule XXI 
     of the Rules of the House of Representatives for the One 
     Hundred Tenth Congress),''.
       In section 204, strike ``Section 5'' and insert ``(a) Other 
     Contributions.--Section 5''.

       Add at the end of section 204 the following:
       (b) Contributions Bundled for Certain Recipients.--
       (1) In general.--Section 5 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act 
     of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1604) is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Quarterly Reports on Contributions Bundled For 
     Certain Recipients.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 45 days after the end of 
     the quarterly period beginning on the first day of January, 
     April, July, and October of each year, each registered 
     lobbyist who bundles 2 or more contributions made to a 
     covered recipient in an aggregate amount exceeding $5,000 for 
     such covered recipient during such quarterly period shall 
     file a report with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk 
     of the House of Representatives containing--
       ``(A) the name of the registered lobbyist;
       ``(B) in the case of an employee, his or her employer; and
       ``(C) the name of the covered recipient to whom the 
     contribution is made, and to the extent known the aggregate 
     amount of such contributions (or a good faith estimate 
     thereof) within the quarter for the covered recipient.
       ``(2) Exclusion of certain information.--In filing a report 
     under paragraph (1), a registered lobbyist shall exclude from 
     the report any information described in paragraph (1)(C) 
     which is included in any other report filed by the registered 
     lobbyist with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of 
     the House of Representatives under subsection (e).
       ``(3) Requiring submission of information prior to filing 
     reports.--Not later than 25 days after the end of a period 
     for which a registered lobbyist is required to file a report 
     under paragraph (1) which includes any information described 
     in such section with respect to a covered recipient, the 
     registered lobbyist shall transmit by certified mail to the 
     covered recipient involved a statement containing--
       ``(A) the information that will be included in the report 
     with respect to the covered recipient;
       ``(B) the source of each contribution included in the 
     aggregate amount referred to in paragraph (1)(C) which the 
     registered lobbyist bundled for the covered recipient during 
     the period covered by the report and the amount of the 
     contribution attributable to each such source; and
       ``(C) a notification that the covered recipient has the 
     right to respond to the statement to challenge and correct 
     any information included before the registered lobbyist files 
     the report under paragraph (1).
       ``(4) Definition of registered lobbyist.--For purposes of 
     this subsection, the term `registered lobbyist' means a 
     person who is registered or is required to register under 
     paragraph (1) or (2) of section 4(a), or an individual who is 
     required to be listed under section 4(b)(6) or subsection 
     (b).
       ``(5) Definition of bundled contribution.--For purposes of 
     this subsection, a registered lobbyist `bundles' a 
     contribution if--
       ``(A) the bundled contribution is received by a registered 
     lobbyist for, and forwarded by a registered lobbyist to, the 
     covered recipient to whom the contribution is made; or
       ``(B) the bundled contribution will be or has been credited 
     or attributed to the registered lobbyist through records, 
     designations, recognitions or other means of tracking by the 
     covered recipient to whom the contribution is made.
       ``(6) Other definitions.--In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `contribution' has the meaning given such 
     term in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     431 et seq.), except that such term does not include a 
     contribution in an amount which is less than $200;
       ``(B) the terms `candidate', `political committee', and 
     `political party committee' have the meaning given such terms 
     in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et 
     seq.);
       ``(C) the term `covered recipient' means a Federal 
     candidate, an individual holding Federal office, a leadership 
     PAC, a multicandidate political committee described in 
     section 315(a)(4) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(4)), or a political party committee; 
     and
       ``(D) the term `leadership PAC' has the meaning given such 
     term in subsection (e)(2).''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall apply with respect to the second quarterly period 
     described in section 5(f)(1) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act 
     of 1995 (as added by paragraph (1)) which begins after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and each succeeding 
     quarterly period.

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to 
recommit be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard. The Clerk will continue 
to read.
  The Clerk continued to read.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. CHABOT (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  We have been waiting for 5 months now to see on the House floor a 
package of reforms that largely reflect those that were in the 
Republican reform bill that passed the House last Congress over a year 
ago.
  Now that the majority has finally scheduled this reform legislation 
for consideration, the House has an opportunity to build on 
Republicans' previous reform efforts. This motion to recommit does just 
that. To strengthen

[[Page 14191]]

the legislation, this motion to recommit would do the following: It 
would close the existing loophole that allows State and local 
government entities to give gifts and travel to Members and their staff 
that other entities can't give.
  This motion to recommit also contains a provision that could be 
described as a reverse revolving door provision. It would prohibit a 
congressional employee who was a registered lobbyist prior to his or 
her congressional employment from knowingly making during the course of 
official business any communication or appearance before their former 
private employer on a matter relating specifically to that former 
private employer for a period of 1 year.
  This motion to recommit would also require lobbyists to disclose 
which special projects they lobbied for. If a special interest lobbyist 
is having closed-door meetings with Members of Congress regarding 
programs that do not benefit all Americans but only benefit a small 
group of people in one part of the country, then this motion to 
recommit would require those projects be disclosed.
  Finally, this motion to recommit includes H.R. 2317 in the form that 
passed the House earlier today. With the inclusion of the amendment 
adopted by the motion to recommit, H.R. 2317 now requires that bundled 
contributions to political action committees, often referred to as 
PACs, be disclosed.
  Let me be clear: Mr. Emanuel said during the debate on this bill that 
this bill is the bill that will be conferenced with the Senate bill. 
Only by passing this motion to recommit can we guarantee that the vital 
fix we make to the bundling provisions in the previous motion to 
recommit will be conferenced with the Senate bill. This motion to 
recommit is the true test of Members' commitment to what they voted for 
earlier today.
  So if you voted for the previous motion to recommit and you really 
want the fix included in the conference, you must support this motion 
to recommit as well.
  The majority has brought to the floor a package that does not quite 
reach the standard set by House Republicans last Congress; but we all 
have this last opportunity today to show America that not only will we 
raise that standard to meet our efforts last Congress, but we will 
raise that standard even higher. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
passing this motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago I heard a Member of 
the Democratic leadership say we have ended meals and gifts from 
lobbyists. That is true only if you approve this motion to recommit. 
There is a huge, huge loophole right now in this bill. It doesn't 
include lobbyists who lobby for State and local governments or for 
public universities. It is what I call the Jack Abramoff exemption.
  Under this legislation, unless we pass the motion to instruct, Jack 
Abramoff could take any Member of this body out to dinner at the 
Capital Grille tomorrow and pay $300 for your meal because one of his 
biggest clients was the government of Saipan which is a territorial 
government. He would not be included; unless we include this motion to 
recommit, the Jack Abramoff loophole or exemption will still exist.
  This is not a game of gotcha. This legislation was introduced last 
year, and it was offered to the Democratic leadership earlier this 
year. We didn't need to come to this. It should have been part of the 
bill. There are some very good things in this bill. This would make the 
bill far better.
  State and local governments and public universities spent $132 
million last year alone lobbying Congress; $132 million last year 
alone. None of the lobbyists hired by those institutions are covered in 
this legislation. Lobbyists for State and local governments and public 
universities have spent $875 million since 1998, none of which would be 
covered by this legislation unless you include and unless you vote for 
the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Michigan continue to 
reserve his point of order?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this is a level of hutzpah tonight to have 
Jack Abramoff's name being brought up by the Republicans, which is why 
we are on the floor here legislating. This is what brought it all on. I 
am so delighted that you chose to give it the right name.
  Now let's be reasonable about this. We have not had the opportunity 
to even get the vaguest idea of what this recommit motion was about. 
And I ask my colleague, as one who has worked with the Judiciary 
Committee Republicans without exception, what is wrong with 5 minutes 
notice about it? We got no notice, and so we had to waste 435 Members' 
time until we could find out what was in the motion to recommit. I just 
ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, particularly the 
leadership because I don't ascribe this to Lamar Smith, the ranking 
member, at all. But let's get to the substance.
  From our brief review of what we could hear and read about this 
matter, this motion to recommit deals with several issues: The ability 
of the State and local governments and Indian tribes to make gifts, a 
new revolving door limitation on former lobbyists, a requirement that 
lobbyists disclose when they are lobbying on earmarks, and new 
restrictions on bundling.
  Now I wish we had time to review the motion in detail. But I have 
worked hard to make this process bipartisan and will continue to do so.
  My inclination is to accept this amendment today; and I will tell you 
why, we have no objection to combining the bundling provisions with the 
rest of the lobbying disclosures. They do go together. We started out 
this process, and we thought it would appeal to more Members, but if 
now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle wish to combine them, 
I find no objection with it. It gives us one bill. We can go into 
conference and we will work our way there. This chairman has at least a 
50 percent chance of becoming the conference chairman.
  So, without any further ado, we accept the amendment of the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 346, 
noes 71, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 422]

                               AYES--346

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake

[[Page 14192]]


     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--71

     Abercrombie
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barton (TX)
     Bishop (GA)
     Boyd (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Davis (IL)
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kilpatrick
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Matsui
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Neal (MA)
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pickering
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Welch (VT)
     Wicker
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Hulshof
     Meehan
       

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Berman
     Blunt
     Brown, Corrine
     Campbell (CA)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeGette
     Emerson
     Engel
     Jones (OH)
     Lewis (GA)
     McMorris Rodgers
     Oberstar
     Wexler

                              {time}  1657

  Mr. PAYNE and Ms. WOOLSEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. HINOJOSA and Mr. NADLER changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  Mr. MEEHAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``present.''
  So the motion to recommit was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House 
in the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 2316, back to the 
House with an amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Chabot:
       At the end of title IV, add the following new section:

     SEC. 403. LIMITING GIFTS TO MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AND EMPLOYEES 
                   OF THE HOUSE FROM STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

       (a) Gifts From State and Local Governments.--Clause 
     5(a)(3)(O) of rule XXV of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives is amended by striking ``, by a State or 
     local government,''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Clause 5(b)(1)(A) of rule XXV of 
     the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by 
     inserting ``a State or local government or'' before ``a 
     private source''.
       Insert the following after section 103 and redesignate the 
     succeeding section accordingly:

     SEC. 104. RESTRICTION ON CONGRESSIONAL EMPLOYEES REGARDING 
                   FORMER EMPLOYERS.

       (a) Restriction.--Chapter 11 of title 18, United States 
     Code, as amended by this Act, is further amended by inserting 
     after section 220 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 221. Additional restriction on congressional employees

       ``(a) Restriction.--Any person--
       ``(1) who is a congressional employee,
       ``(2) who, before becoming employed as a congressional 
     employee, was employed as a lobbyist, and
       ``(3) who, within 1 year after leaving employment as a 
     lobbyist, knowingly makes, in carrying out his or her 
     official responsibilities as a congressional employee, any 
     communication to or appearance before--
       ``(A) the organization that employed the person as a 
     lobbyist, if the person was not self-employed,
       ``(B) any entity that was a client of the person while 
     employed as a lobbyist, or any entity that was a client of 
     the organization described in subparagraph (A) while the 
     person was employed as a lobbyist, or is a client of that 
     organization during that 1-year period,
     on a matter relating specifically to that organization or 
     client,
     shall be punished as provided in section 216.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `congressional employee' means--
       ``(A) an elected officer of either House of Congress; and
       ``(B) any employee to which any of the restrictions 
     contained in paragraphs (1) though (5) of section 207(e) 
     apply;
       ``(2) the term `lobbyist' means a person that is registered 
     or required to register as a lobbyist under section 4(a)(1) 
     of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, and any employee of 
     an organization that is registered or required to be 
     registered under section 4(b)(6) of that Act; and
       ``(3) the term `client' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 3(2) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     chapter 11 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 220 the 
     following new item:
``221. Additional restriction on congressional employees.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to individuals who become congressional employees 
     on or after January 1, 2007.
       In section 203, strike ``Section 5(b)'' and insert ``(a) 
     Gifts.--Section 5(b)''.
       Add the following at the end of section 203:
       (b) Requests for Congressional Earmarks.--Section 
     5(b)(2)(A) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 
     1604(b)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``bill numbers'' and 
     inserting the following: ``bill numbers, requests for 
     Congressional earmarks (as defined in clause 9(d) of rule XXI 
     of the Rules of the House of Representatives for the One 
     Hundred Tenth Congress),''.
       In section 204, strike ``Section 5'' and insert ``(a) Other 
     Contributions.--Section 5''.
       Add at the end of section 204 the following:
       (b) Contributions Bundled for Certain Recipients.--
       (1) In general.--Section 5 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act 
     of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1604) is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Quarterly Reports on Contributions Bundled For 
     Certain Recipients.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 45 days after the end of 
     the quarterly period beginning on the first day of January, 
     April, July, and October of each year, each registered 
     lobbyist who bundles 2 or more contributions made to a 
     covered recipient in an aggregate amount exceeding $5,000 for 
     such covered recipient during such quarterly period shall 
     file a report with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk 
     of the House of Representatives containing--
       ``(A) the name of the registered lobbyist;
       ``(B) in the case of an employee, his or her employer; and
       ``(C) the name of the covered recipient to whom the 
     contribution is made, and to the extent known the aggregate 
     amount of such

[[Page 14193]]

     contributions (or a good faith estimate thereof) within the 
     quarter for the covered recipient.
       ``(2) Exclusion of certain information.--In filing a report 
     under paragraph (1), a registered lobbyist shall exclude from 
     the report any information described in paragraph (1)(C) 
     which is included in any other report filed by the registered 
     lobbyist with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of 
     the House of Representatives under subsection (e).
       ``(3) Requiring submission of information prior to filing 
     reports.--Not later than 25 days after the end of a period 
     for which a registered lobbyist is required to file a report 
     under paragraph (1) which includes any information described 
     in such section with respect to a covered recipient, the 
     registered lobbyist shall transmit by certified mail to the 
     covered recipient involved a statement containing--
       ``(A) the information that will be included in the report 
     with respect to the covered recipient;
       ``(B) the source of each contribution included in the 
     aggregate amount referred to in paragraph (1)(C) which the 
     registered lobbyist bundled for the covered recipient during 
     the period covered by the report and the amount of the 
     contribution attributable to each such source; and
       ``(C) a notification that the covered recipient has the 
     right to respond to the statement to challenge and correct 
     any information included before the registered lobbyist files 
     the report under paragraph (1).
       ``(4) Definition of registered lobbyist.--For purposes of 
     this subsection, the term `registered lobbyist' means a 
     person who is registered or is required to register under 
     paragraph (1) or (2) of section 4(a), or an individual who is 
     required to be listed under section 4(b)(6) or subsection 
     (b).
       ``(5) Definition of bundled contribution.--For purposes of 
     this subsection, a registered lobbyist `bundles' a 
     contribution if--
       ``(A) the bundled contribution is received by a registered 
     lobbyist for, and forwarded by a registered lobbyist to, the 
     covered recipient to whom the contribution is made; or
       ``(B) the bundled contribution will be or has been credited 
     or attributed to the registered lobbyist through records, 
     designations, recognitions or other means of tracking by the 
     covered recipient to whom the contribution is made.
       ``(6) Other definitions.--In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `contribution' has the meaning given such 
     term in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     431 et seq.), except that such term does not include a 
     contribution in an amount which is less than $200;
       ``(B) the terms `candidate', `political committee', and 
     `political party committee' have the meaning given such terms 
     in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et 
     seq.);
       ``(C) the term `covered recipient' means a Federal 
     candidate, an individual holding Federal office, a leadership 
     PAC, a multicandidate political committee described in 
     section 315(a)(4) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(4)), or a political party committee; 
     and
       ``(D) the term `leadership PAC' has the meaning given such 
     term in subsection (e)(2).''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall apply with respect to the second quarterly period 
     described in section 5(f)(1) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act 
     of 1995 (as added by paragraph (1)) which begins after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and each succeeding 
     quarterly period.

  Mr. BOEHNER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CONYERS. 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 396, 
noes 22, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 423]

                               AYES--396

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--22

     Abercrombie
     Boyd (FL)
     Brown, Corrine
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Gohmert
     Hastings (FL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Mack
     Meeks (NY)
     Murtha
     Paul

[[Page 14194]]


     Schakowsky
     Shadegg
     Tanner
     Towns
     Watt
     Whitfield
     Young (AK)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Hulshof
       

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Akin
     Berman
     Campbell (CA)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeGette
     Emerson
     Engel
     Hunter
     Jones (OH)
     Lewis (GA)
     McMorris Rodgers
     Oberstar
     Westmoreland


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1705

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________