Medicare Prescription Drug Emergency Guarantee Act of 2006

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 783 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, it was 11:00 this morning that I first called up the rule for consideration of this extraordinarily important lobbying and ethics reform measure. As I began my remarks, I talked about the fact that over the past 4 months, we have been meeting with outside organizations. We have been meeting with Democrats and Republicans in this House. We have been meeting with congressional experts to glean as much information as we possibly can from a wide range of sources.

The point I want to make is we began at about 11:00 this morning. I felt at that point we had a great deal of input over the past 4 months since we began dealing with this critically important issue which has to do with the credibility of this institution. As we began that debate, I thought why don't we get a little more input; and so for that reason, I moved to withdraw the resolution, and that is exactly what we did. We decided to proceed with more input from Members on this issue. And having gained more information, more input from our colleagues, we are now reconvening and further considering this important measure.

You know, the issue of reform is something of which I have been very, very proud over the years I have been privileged to serve here. The Republican Party is the party of reform. We have led reform initiatives for Congress after Congress, and what we are doing here today is another indication of our strong commitment to the issue of reform.

We know that there is a problem of corruption. We also know that it is not a one-party issue. It is a problem that has existed on both sides of the aisle. I remember a quote from our very distinguished former colleague who served as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Dan Rostenkowski, who one time said, You know, if everybody is unhappy with a piece of legislation, it is probably a pretty good bill.

And that is exactly what is the case right here. I do not know of anyone who is ecstatic with this piece of legislation. I have read the editorials out there from some of the people who have provided me with input on this issue.

I have listened to Democrats, and I will tell you, since January, I could not come to the House floor without a Democrat coming up to me and saying, You cannot ban privately funded travel. We must continue to maintain privately funded travel. It is critical. And yes, I have heard similar statements from our side of the aisle.

I mention the fact that there was input from outside organizations. Some have been very critical of this legislation, Mr. Speaker. But I am pleased that some of the harshest critics of this legislation have been able to have a great deal of input in this legislation. I have been very proud to have had meetings with the leadership of Common Cause, Democracy 21 and other organizations.

One of the recommendations that came to us from Mr. Wertheimer was that we prevent registered lobbyists who are former Members of Congress from having access to the House floor and the gym. We, I am very happy to say, with a strong bipartisan vote, were able to make sure that we prevented former Members of Congress who are registered lobbyists from having access to the floor and to the gym.

One of the concerns out there has been the lack of transparency when it comes to the campaign contributions that lobbyists make and the lobbying activity that they engage in. That was another recommendation that was put forward by the leadership of Democracy 21 and Common Cause. I am very pleased that in this legislation we include that issue, and we address it to make sure that transparency and accountability is addressed, and we do bring this forward.

Could we do more? Of course we could do more. I hope in conference we will be able to address these issues when we move ahead with this. I also want to say that the issue of reporting from lobbyists, and it is done right now under current law on a semiannual basis, it was the recommendation of the leadership of Democracy 21 and of Common Cause that we go from semiannual reporting to quarterly reporting.

I know there were a wide range of other recommendations that those and other organizations made that have not been incorporated, but I get back to the argument that we have been able to take a number of very important issues that have been put forward by Democrats and Republicans and include them in this legislation.

Would I like to do more? Sure, I would like to do more. I hope very much that as we take this bill, passing it out of this House and go to a conference with our colleagues in the Senate, that we will be able to do more.

I see the distinguished former chairman of the ethics committee Mr. Hefley here, and I know he has a number of concerns. I have already told him that as we take this first step in addressing the issue of moving ahead to a conference, I want to address the concerns that Members have that have not heretofore been addressed in this first process in the legislation and do that.

Now, over the past 4 months we have seen five committees of jurisdiction hold hearings and markups on this issue. The Rules Committee, with which I am the most familiar, held three original jurisdiction hearings, and we held a markup on this legislation. We had 13 outside witnesses who came and provided their recommendations to us, and we had input from a wide range of Members as we went through this process.

I know that our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, on the Government Reform Committee, Mr. Hastings, who is chairman of the ethics committee and also has been very involved working with the Rules Committee on this,

and also Mr. Ehlers, chairman of the Administration Committee, have all worked diligently so we can put together a piece of legislation which will allow the American people to have a greater opportunity to see what it is that takes place here, to ensure that the tragic problems of corruption that we have witnessed will never happen again. That is our goal. I believe this legislation provides bold, strong, dynamic reforms which will move us in the direction towards doing just that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, let me just say again, as we know very well in this institution, listening to Members talking about a wide range of issues is a very important thing. We have been talking about, over the past few hours, some of the concerns that were raised by a number of our Members.

The issue of increasing transparency and accountability is very important, and I will say that I believe this package with this excellent rule that we are coming forward with to allow us to debate a wide range of issues is the right thing to do and will provide the best structure for our first step as we prepare to move to a conference with our colleagues in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I would say that input from her side has been very important. And, yes, I have over the past few hours been talking to a number of Democrats who have been providing recommendations to me as well, and I thank my friend.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I was smiling as I presented it.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that we are, with this package, going to implement real reform.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart), the very distinguished vice chairman of the Rules Committee who has long been a champion of institutional reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to first congratulate my friend. And I know that he is going to have a wonderful baby boy or girl before too terribly long.

And I will say in response to the issue of corporate aircraft, that is an issue that is addressed by the Federal Election Commission, and those are regulations which are promulgated by them. And that is the reason that we have not addressed this issue there in light of the fact that those regs come forward there.

I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.

If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, what I am talking about is the use of corporate aircraft for campaign events that is handled by the Federal Election Commission. The Federal Election Commission is the one that promulgates those regulations, because those corporate aircraft are used for campaign events for the political process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished former chairman of the House Committee on Ethics, my good friend from Ft. Collins, Colorado (Mr. Hefley).

My recommendation is that you not touch it.

Would the gentleman yield on that point?

I thank my friend for yielding, and I would simply say to my friend that he has brought forward a wide range of very, very important issues, many of which he addressed as chairman of the Ethics Committee himself. And I will, again, as I said in my opening remarks, I am very happy to make the commitment that we recognize that this process is the first step on our road towards dealing with this, and it is our goal that as we move beyond this rule to consider the legislation that we get into a House-Senate conference.

I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the majority leader.

If the gentleman would yield, if he has any time left. I will say that I agree with exactly what the gentleman said. I wish there could have been more in this bill too. But, again, getting input from so many on both sides of the aisle has been a challenge.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me say once again that I am very proud of the reform agenda that we have implemented and continue to implement in a wide range of areas including institutionally right here on ensuring that we have a free- flowing debate on a wide range of issues, a guaranteed motion to recommit, which I know my colleagues will have on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence), the distinguished chairman of the Republican Study Committee.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

As I listen to critics of this legislation, you would think that the package that we have is a huge step backward. Let me first say to my friend Mr. Scott that his amendment was not germane to the bill, and all of the amendments that we have made in order are germane to the bill. We, in fact, used that as a guide in proceeding here.

When one thinks about what has or has not happened, again, this criticism is leveled towards what is not in the bill, failing to recognize what is in the bill.

This bill doubles the fines for lobbyists who fail to disclose. It adds the possibility of jail time for failing to comply with the act. It adds oversight to make sure disclosure information is accurate, and it gives the public full on-line access to disclosure reports, all things that are needed and are improved with the passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I am very pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Scottsdale, Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? I would be happy to yield the gentleman time.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to engage in a colloquy with my friend.

I have the greatest respect for him as a fellow Californian. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, as we look at this issue, will the gentleman not acknowledge that the problem of corruption we face in this town is a bipartisan issue, that it crosses party lines and it is not just a Republican issue?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).

I yielded twice as much, 100 percent more, than what the gentleman yielded to me.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the gentleman from Minnesota to proceed, and then if my friend from California would like to ask me a question or something, as soon as we are done with the gentleman from Minnesota, I will be happy to yield to my friend from California.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I would simply say in response to my friend, as he knows very well, we have really gone a long way toward making sure there is greater transparency on that issue, so the so-called ban on lobbying, the cooling-off period, is made clear with lines that we draw. I think it is really moving in the direction to which my friend has referred.

Mr. Speaker, at this juncture I would like to yield 30 seconds to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I would reclaim my time.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I would simply say that this measure is designed to deal with lobbying and ethics reform for the first branch of government, the legislative branch; and it is for that reason that we have not gotten into the executive branch issue to which my friend referred.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that I have 8\1/2\ minutes remaining and my colleague from Rochester has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining, I think it would be probably useful for us to proceed with hearing some of her arguments.

Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my dear friend from California, the distinguished minority leader, to whom I am happy to yield at any time whatsoever, that on the issue of prescription drugs, we are very proud of the fact that more than 30 million Americans, many more than had been anticipated, are today saving millions and millions of dollars because of the Medicare prescription drug package that we put into place.

On the issue of energy issues, we are outraged at the increase in gasoline and fuel costs. But I will tell you, I am really perplexed, because as they decry the issue of global warming, you would think that they would be ecstatic at the fact that gasoline prices have gone through the roof.

But, unfortunately, it is their policies, their refusal to pursue ANWR in a responsible way to deal with the issue of boutique fuels and to deal with the issue of refinery capacity that has been a problem.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a very hardworking member of both the Rules Committee and the Committee on Ethics, my friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Speaker how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a hardworking member of the Rules Committee, the distinguished chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

As many of my colleagues have said, this has been obviously a challenging time for us. We are dealing with some very serious problems in this institution. They are bipartisan. They cross party lines. And that is why the Speaker and I and others felt very strongly about the need to do what we can to do what we possibly could to ensure that we reached out to both Democrats and Republicans and a wide range of individuals and outside groups and all for recommendations.

I am happy that many of those issues have been addressed, and I think it is very important for us to ask each Member to look at the bill as a whole and answer these very important questions: Does it increase transparency? Does it increase accountability? Does it put more information in the hands of the American people? Does it protect the first amendment right of citizens to petition their government? Does it strengthen the integrity of the United States Congress?

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely convinced that the answer to every single one of those questions is a resounding ``yes'' on every single count. No matter what some have argued on the other side, if they want to maintain the absolute status quo, it creates the potential to continue many of the problems that we have faced.

Virtually everyone has acknowledged that while they may not believe that this bill goes as far as we would like, this is the first step in a process that will allow us to join with our colleagues in the other body to deal in a conference with the measure that I hope is even stronger than this very important first step that we are taking.

I think that the vice chairman of the Rules Committee Mr. Diaz-Balart put it very well when he said that anyone who casts a vote against this rule is saying no to the issue of reform. No, I don't want to proceed with bringing about the kinds of institutional changes that will play a role in enhancing the level of integrity to which the American people can hold this great deliberative body.

We hear everyone talking about reform. Voices for reform are out there, and they are very prevalent in the media, here on the House floor, day after day after day. But in just a few minutes we are going to have the opportunity to transform those voices for reform into votes for reform. This is our opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, with that I urge an ``aye'' vote on this rule so that we can move ahead with this very, very important reform effort.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, we are about to vote on a rule for a so- called lobbying reform bill that The Washington Post has said ``is simply a joke.'' ``Or more accurately,'' it goes on to say, ``a ruse aimed at convincing what the leaders must believe is a doltish public that the House has done something to clean up Washington.'' A ruse. That is what this is.

And to the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, if you think that what is being proposed today maintains a high ethical standard for this House, either your standards are too low or you have no interest, no interest, in cleaning up the culture of corruption that the Republicans have in this House of Representatives.

This Republican leadership so-called Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act holds no one accountable and provides little transparency to the activities of lobbyists or anyone else. It is an embarrassingly trivial response to the culture of corruption that has thrived under the Republican Congress.

And this corruption has a cost to the American people, as others of my colleagues have said. This corruption has come at great cost to the American people in terms of prices at the pump, a Medicare prescription drug bill that does little to lower the cost of spiraling health drug costs, and waste and fraud in the gulf coast and in Iraq.

This bill is a missed opportunity, a missed opportunity. As House Democratic Leader, I would have hoped that we could have worked together with the leadership of this House of Representatives to put forth something

that truly threw up the windows and pulled back the shades to let in the fresh air. But that didn't happen because of this ruse.

I wouldn't even think of yielding to you. You have all the time in the world.

I come to this floor with great sadness. I come here as one who has served on the Ethics Committee for 7 years, at a time when we worked in a bipartisan fashion to maintain a high ethical standard. I take very seriously our responsibility to the American people to do their business here, not the business of the special interests of the lobbyists.

That is why it is such a pity that we really don't have transparency in this rule and in this bill, where we can come to the floor with an open rule, where all points of view can be considered and all positive initiatives can be considered and voted up or down. Let's leave that up to the debate.

We certainly can do better than this. That wouldn't be difficult.

Democrats are offering a motion to recommit that breaks the link between K Street lobbyists and the Congress of the United States. It says it ``bans.'' It is unequivocal. It is unambiguous. It bans gifts and travel from lobbyists and from organizations who employ lobbyists. It prohibits use of corporate jets for official travel. It just prohibits it. You can't do it. It shuts down the K Street Project, in which lobbying firm jobs are traded for legislative favors. And it shuts down the revolving door. What a disgrace, this revolving door that is spinning so fast. It prohibits Members, senior staff and executive branch officials from lobbying their former colleagues for 2 years after leaving office. Two years. I think it should be longer, but that is a compromise.

Today, the Republican majority brings forth a rule that is itself an abuse of power. The Republican Rules Committee has refused to let this House debate bills that 165 Democrats cosponsored. The Republicans have refused to let this House debate even Republican serious proposals directed at cronyism and corruption in government contracting. The Republicans have refused to let this House debate any serious attempt to end the culture of corruption.

They call this bill the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act? The Washington Post calls it a joke. The sad thing is, it is not a very funny joke, because, once again, the American people are paying the price.

My colleagues have listed some of the abuses of power. Mr. Waxman in particular talked about what the impact is on the American consumer from some of those abuses of power.

Imagine that the person managing the bill on prescription drugs left this House and soon was representing the pharmaceutical industry for $2 million a year in salary. How much does it cost to sell the seniors down the river? Well, about $2 million a year, if you are the manager of the prescription drug bill. That is why Americans, middle-income seniors, will be paying more at the pharmacy because of the corruption that was involved in writing this bill, a bill where the pharmaceutical industry insisted that there be a prohibition in the bill against the Secretary of HHS for negotiating for lower prices. It was in the bill because the pharmaceutical industry insisted upon it. They had their representatives at the table. America's seniors did not. Who do you think came out on top in that bill writing?

We have talked about a time when the American taxpayer has the burden of that, plus paying a price at the pump because of the corruption in writing the energy policy for this country, behind closed doors, refusing to reveal what went into writing that legislation.

And that legislation, do not take it from me, the Republican Department of Energy stated at the time that the energy bill proposed and passed by the Republicans in this Congress would increase the price at the pump. They said it at the time.

So not only are the consumers paying the price at the pump and an increased cost in their home heating oil and cooling oil as we go into the summer months; they gave a gift, they, the American taxpayers, we gave a gift to the oil companies.

That same bill that increased the price at the pump that people are now paying nearly $3 a gallon for, they, those oil companies, those same oil companies got subsidies of $12 billion in the energy bill. They got royalty relief, royalty holidays of several more billion dollars.

And to make matters worse, in the most recent tax bill that is being prepared to come to this floor, they will get $5.5 billion more in tax breaks. What are they taking the American taxpayer for? What are they thinking of? It is such an insult to the intelligence of the consumer and the taxpayer.

Wait a minute, at a time of record, of record profits, historic and obscene profits, these companies are paying enormous fees. The CEO of Exxon is getting a retirement package of $400 million. Record profits. High subsidies from the taxpayer, and high prices at the pump, a very raw deal for the American consumer.

All of it born from the culture of corruption in this House of Representatives. We must break that link. We are here for the interests of the American people, for the public interest. The Republicans are here for the special interests. They are the handmaidens of the pharmaceutical industry. They are the handmaidens of the energy companies. They do not know any other way to do it.

And that is why we get not only bad policy, not only corruption in this House, not only a cost of that corruption to the taxpayer and to the consumer, but we have a ruse of a bill that tries to masquerade as reform on this House of Representatives.

I feel really sad about this. I feel sad for the American people. They expect and deserve better. And we can give that to them in our motion to recommit that I talked about earlier. It bans the gifts and travel. It breaks the link. It stops the revolving door. It also says that if you are convicted of a felony in the performance of your duties as a Member of this House, you do not get your pension. You do not get your pension.

And as I said, again, this whole thing about jet travel and the rest, our motion to recommit would prohibit corporate travel for official purposes. So I hope that our colleagues will understand that we certainly can do better and that the American people are watching; that we can present substantive reforms, some that we should be debating today. I can assure my colleagues that these reforms, that if we have these reforms, we will end this culture of corruption. I also assure you that if the Democrats win the Congress next year, they will be implemented on the first day, the first day of the first session of this next Congress.

So let us start fresh with this. The American people, as I say, expect and deserve better. We can clear the slate by rejecting, all-out rejecting this ruse, this pathetic, pathetic little tiny step that is a missed opportunity for a high ethical standard and is an excuse to keep the culture of corruption that is here.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and if the opportunity presents itself, to support the Democratic motion to recommit. I want to in closing commend the ranking Democrat on the Rules Committee, Congresswoman Slaughter. She has been a relentless crusader for a high ethical standard in this House for not only lobby reform and all kinds of other reform, but for injecting a level of civility into how we should have debate on the floor of the House that respects the views of Democrats and Republicans, because we respect the people who sent all of us here, not just having Republicans heard and Democrats blocked out.

So Congresswoman Slaughter, I commend you for your leadership. I thank you for your courage. I urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to join my colleagues in making a point that seems to be lost on the leadership of this House: this is not simply a ``lobbyist problem'' we are facing. Ensuring that lawmakers comply with existing ethics rules and enhancing lobbyist disclosure requirements are important goals . . . and even on this measure, . . . the so-called ``Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act'' falls embarrassingly short.

What started as a limited but seemingly earnest attempt at reform has been progressively hollowed out over the past several weeks in--you guessed it--closed-door meetings with lobbyists. The result is not surprising. Reporting requirements for lobbyist-hosted fundraisers? Gone. No more bargain rates on corporate jets? Gone. A study to examine lobbyist employment contracts? Gone.

But again, this is not simply a lobbyist problem. House Democrats have tried in earnest to offer a plan for reform that takes a hard look in the mirror and examines what Congress must do to clean up its own house.

My colleagues Dave Obey, Barney Frank, Tom Allen and I have introduced a fourteen-point plan that would address not only individual abuses, but also the abuses of the legislative process. Our proposal would end the practice of keeping votes held open long enough to twist recalcitrant arms into compliance. It would prevent legislation from being slipped into conference reports without conference approval. It would require House-Senate conferences to actually meet and vote. And it would give Members of Congress at least a full day to examine the contents of any legislation we are voting on.

We have testified before the Rules Committee in favor of this comprehensive approach. During Rules Committee markup of this bill and again during the hearing on the rule last night, numerous amendments were offered and defeated--mostly on party-line votes--that would have implemented these reforms. The Democratic Substitute, which was also denied a fair hearing last night, recognized the need to take a comprehensive approach to lobbying and ethics reform. At each step in the process, our attempts at genuine, bipartisan reform were turned away.

So what did we get instead? It's no surprise: a bill that could serve as a case study in everything that is broken in our legislative process--of everything we should be ``reforming.'' We get a so-called ``Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act'' that offers neither accountability nor real transparency. We get a minority party--and many Members of the majority--completely shut out of the process once again, their amendments denied, their advice and concerns unheeded. We get a restrictive rule that makes in order just nine out of the 74 amendments offered--and only one sponsored by a Democrat without a Republican cosponsor--and allows for only one hour of debate on what should be one of the most significant bills we consider all year.

This leadership had a real chance to enact real reform, not for the sake of an aggrieved minority . . . not for the sake of election-year politics . . . but for the sake of our institution, for its integrity and its capacity to govern. Instead, they seem to think they can convince the American people that they're cleaning up our House, when all they're doing is sweeping our problems under the rug.

Well Mr. Speaker, the American people will not be so easily fooled. And I assure you that those of us in this body who want real, comprehensive reform will not rest until we have successfully enacted such a measure. But this is not such a measure. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know who left me the $5 up here to buy my vote. I am not sure here.

I will keep my hands up here where you can see them.

Mr. Chairman, I have enormous respect for you and the committee, and you know that I do. But I am not happy with this rule. And I am not happy with this rule because I think it doesn't allow the House to consider real and meaningful ethics reform.

Now, you do lobbyist reform. But in terms of the ethics process reform, I don't think we really have much of that here. The rule does not allow the House to consider many of the provisions that would strengthen the integrity of the House and help restore public confidence. And I think actually we are missing an opportunity here.

I introduced a bill, along with Representative Hulshof, who was my colleague on the Ethics Committee, to strengthen the Ethics Committee in ways not allowed under this rule. Our bill is cosponsored by many Democrats and Republicans, and not just Democrats and Republicans, but the left and right wing of both parties. So philosophically it crossed lines too. And yet our amendment will not be considered in this rule.

Our amendment had broad and sweeping disclosure across the board. All gifts over $20 disclosed, all privately funded travel disclosed, all lobbyist registrations, all passengers on corporate jets, all Members' financial disclosure statements, all disclosed on the Internet in real- time. Most of this is not in the bill. And yet it would allow Members to, our bill that we wanted as an amendment, would allow Members to continue privately funded travel, which I think is important.

I yield to the gentleman.

I won't belabor the point any more, except to just simply say there was a lot of good opportunity here, I think, to really strengthen the ethics process. And I know there are some who would like to do a commission to that again. The ethics process works. It did work and it worked very well for a long time. It needs to be tweaked a little bit, and that is what this bill would do.

I see the majority leader on the floor. I would be happy to yield.

You said one side of the aisle is not interested in the Ethics Committee proceeding and working. There is enough blame to go around, I have to say. Both sides of the aisles have fouled this process up now. And we need to work together to get it back together. The Ethics Committee needs to work, and anything we do in the Ethics Committee reform process has to be bipartisan, or nonpartisan. You can't have an Ethics Committee that is partisan, and it has to be nonpartisan. So I would like to work with the majority leader, and I would like to ask

that if we are not going to have this as an amendment to this bill, that we have the opportunity to have a freestanding bill on the floor in the foreseeable future, in the near future, which would encompass much of what I have described here.

Mr. Speaker, I just lost my $5 here.

I don't want to take any more time because I know this is going to, we need to go ahead and get on with this thing. But I think we do have a serious opportunity here to do some really good things. And there are some really good things in this bill. I just don't think it goes far enough if we are really to have the reform kind of package that many of us would like to see.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this oppressive, undemocratic rule, a rule inconsistent with the great traditions of the people's House. So many amendments that were proposed by good Members of this body were not allowed to be considered today. And let me give you three examples. Number 1, no amendment was allowed to deal with the issue of Members getting rides on corporate jets. Let me put this in perspective for you

with real numbers. Today my wife is 35 weeks pregnant. A few weeks ago, I priced what does it cost if this happens in the middle of the night and I need to try to get home quickly to be with her when she goes into labor: $12,000 on a charter service for me to get home to Little Rock to be with my pregnant wife. Do you know what the first class ticket costs with Northwest Airlines? $680. So an alternative for me is to call up one of my good corporate friends and say, can I catch a ride on your plane? I will give you $680, and neither one of us will say, oh, by the way, that means you gave me an $11,300 gift. I think that people should be able to ride on planes. But they should pay the fair market value. That amendment should have been allowed to be discussed and brought on the floor.

Second, the chairman and I had a discussion at the beginning of this session about my feelings. I had an amendment proposed in the Rules Committee yesterday to greatly restrict the ability of former Members who are registered lobbyists to be on the floor and participate in some of these activities that we know as the Members dining room and the parking garage and the gym and all these kinds of things. Because here is the issue: when my constituents come from Arkansas, they have to go through the security. Members who are registered lobbyists do not. When my constituents come from Arkansas, they don't get to go to the Members' dining room. When my constituents come from Arkansas they don't get to roam through the halls and go in the back rooms of the committee rooms. Former Members who are registered lobbyists do.

My amendment was not allowed on the floor to be considered. If you don't like it, vote against it; but let me have this discussion.

Third, an amendment that deals with lobbyist-funded meals was not allowed. An amendment to deal with the ban on lobbyists-paid meals was not allowed. Are we so dependent on lobbyist-funded meals for our lunch money that we won't even let an amendment come on the floor of the House? Well, I have got a solution. I have got $5. I will leave it over here on this podium. If any Member is so dependent on not having lunch money, so dependent on lobbyist-funded meals, take the $5. But let us have a vote on these very important amendments.

Vote against this rule. It is a bad rule, undemocratic.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, me going back to Little Rock, Arkansas, to be with my wife as she goes into labor is not a campaign event. That is not the issue. We are talking about people catching rides for all kinds of reasons.