To eliminate floor privileges and access to Member exercise facilities for registered lobbyists who are former Members or officers of the House.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is the fox adjusting the lock on the hen house door. I intend to submit for the record before the end of the day an article from 1995 when the then Speaker of the House set up the K Street Project. K stands for kleptomania or kleptocracy. I'm not sure exactly what the K stands for, but this project was set up in 1995; and what is going on today is an absolutely predictable result of what was done in 1995 when the

lobbyists were told, Don't hire any Democrats. You only hire Republicans. You only give to Republicans. You don't give to Democrats.

For us to come out here today and put a bill up here as though it were going to do anything, when it is proposed by the people who put the K Street Project together in the first place, is absolutely unbelievable. This House is in a delusional state that anything is changing on behalf of the people.

The fact is that this is what you get when you have a K Street Project in place. And they are not fixing it this way, and they want to wrap us all around it and say, well, you'll help us fix it this way by keeping some old Member out of the gym from playing basketball with me. Come on, they have all got my phone number. They have got everybody's phone number in this whole building. And for you to think that this silly little piece of legislation is going to do one thing about cleaning up this town is simply nonsense.

We ought to be talking about public funding of elections. Then we would be talking about reform. But you are not going to reform it by keeping a couple of guys off the floor or a couple of guys out of the gym or whatever. That is simply not going to work, and it is foolish. Everyone should vote ``no'' on this rule.

[From the Washington Post, Nov. 27, 1995]

Speaker and His Directors Make the Cash Flow Right

(By David Maraniss and Michael Weisskopf)

In the annals of the House Republican revolution, a pivotal

moment came last April when an unsuspecting corporate

lobbyist entered the inner chamber of Majority Whip Tom

DeLay, whose aggressive style has earned him the nickname

``the Hammer.'' The Texas congressman was standing at his

desk that afternoon, examining a document that listed the

amounts and percentages of money that the 400 largest

political action committees had contributed to Republicans

and Democrats over the last two years. Those who gave heavily

to the GOP were labeled ``Friendly,'' the others

``Unfriendly.''

``See, you're in the book,'' DeLay said to his visitor,

leafing through the list. At first the lobbyist was not sure

where his group stood, but DeLay helped clear up his

confusion. By the time the lobbyist left the congressman's

office, he knew that to be a friend of the Republican

leadership his group would have to give the party a lot more

money.

It didn't take long for the word to spread around town

about the Hammer and his book. By some accounts--apocryphal

as it turns out--DeLay even made lobbyists turn to their

contribution totals and initial them, like a report card.

Such stories actually make DeLay's job easier. When an aide

once asked whether efforts should be made to quell the

legend, DeLay leaned back in his chair and said, ``No, let it

get bigger.''

Inside the House Republican leadership, the former pest

exterminator from Houston is the enforcer. His mission is to

ensure that money flows along the same stream as policy, that

the probusiness deregulatory agenda of the House Republicans

receives the undivided financial support of the corporate

interests that benefit from it. His motto is an unabashedly

blunt interpretation of the dictums of Speaker Newt Gingrich:

``If you want to play in our revolution, you have to live by

our rules.''

The role of money in the revolution has been obscured by

the titanic clash with President Clinton and the Democrats

over balanced budgets and the reshaping of the federal

government, but it is part of that larger struggle. Money is

at the center of Gingrich's transformation of the House. With

the new alignment of ideological allies in the business and

political worlds, there are unparalleled opportunities for

both the people who give the money and the people who receive

it.

It is such an obvious quid pro quo that it goes almost

unnoticed. From House Republicans come measures that gratify

industry: weakening environmental standards, loosening

workplace safety rules, limiting the legal liability of

corporations, defunding nonprofit groups that present an

opposing view. From the beneficiaries of that legislation

come millions of dollars in campaign contributions.

``The Republicans have a wonderful situation,'' said one

trade association president, a longtime Democrat. ``They

don't have to prostitute themselves. They are ideologically

in sync'' with the corporate PACs. ``Every politician dreams

of being able to meet your conscience and raise money at the

same time.''

Yet money is also the source of increasing tension among

House Republicans that could ultimately weaken them, if not

tear them apart. The conflict, in essence, is between

ideology and populist reform. One wing wants to collect as

much corporate money as possible to sustain and expand the

revolution. Another wing fears that this will disillusion

voters who brought the Republicans to power to change the

traditional ways of doing business in Washington. Gingrich

stands in the middle aware, people around him say, that his

tenure could depend in part on his ability to resolve the

conflict.

Gingrich, DeLay and their comrades have set in motion a

historic shift in campaign giving. As recently as 1993 the

National Republican Congressional Committee, the main vehicle

for fundraising for House GOP candidates, was millions of

dollars in debt. But by soliciting contributions from the

corporate world through a combination of tenacity,

cheerleading and intimidation--``playing offense'' all the

time, as DeLay describes it--the revolution has established a

formidable money machine. The turnaround has been dramatic.

House Republicans received 58 percent of the money from the

top 400 PACs during the first six months this year and their

numbers are rising every month. Last year two of every three

PAC dollars went to the ruling Democrats. The trend is

evident in all industries, including those with traditional

Democratic ties.

The Transportation Political Education League, for example,

gave only 3 percent to the Republicans last year but 42

percent this year. The No. 1 corporate contributor to the GOP

in 1995, United Parcel Service, which worked closely with

DeLay and the leadership in fighting federal workplace safety

regulations, also made a decisive partisan transformation,

its contributions going from 53 percent Democratic to 71

percent Republican in one year.

The once-threadbare NRCC raised a record $18.7 million from

January through June, four times as much as its Democratic

counterpart. Its two elite organizations, which offer private

sessions with House leaders at the Capitol Hill Club, are

suddenly fat and happy: 225 corporations and political action

committees have joined the House Council at $5,000 apiece,

and 150 are enrolled in the Congressional Forum for $15,000

to $20,000 each. Rep. Bill Paxon of New York, the NRCC's

chairman, estimates that he has met privately with ``200 to

300'' chief executive officers of Fortune 500 companies to

make his pitch.

``If you believe in the revolution and what's happening,

then it's time to follow common sense,'' Paxon tells them.

``Why do you support the enemy? Why do you give money to

people who are out there consciously every day trying to

undermine what's good for you?'' He often leaves, Paxon says,

with a financial pledge.

Another $20 million, double the Democratic number, has come

to the party in unrestricted contributions known as soft

money, used for party rebuilding efforts, voter drives and

policy initiatives. Leading the way in the soft money realm

this year have been tobacco companies that, concerned about

regulation by the Food and Drug Administration, gave a record

$1.5 million to the Republicans during the first six months,

tenfold what they gave two years ago.

Gingrich, DeLay, Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas and

Republican Conference Chairman John Boehner of Ohio all have

established separate PACs this year with goals of raising

millions of dollars more. Gingrich's new PAC, dubbed ``Monday

Morning'' in honor of a refrain from his swearing-in speech,

has already raised more than $330,000, with pledges of an

additional $60,000 since its inception a few months ago.

Advised by kitchen cabinets of industry lobbyists, these

leadership fund-raising operations will distribute money to

Republican congressional candidates, strengthening the bond

between the revolution and industry while reinforcing the

loyalty of House colleagues to Gingrich and his lieutenants.

The freshman class, 73 Republican newcomers who consider

themselves the vanguard of the revolution, has proved as

ambitious in the fund-raising realm as elsewhere. They have

bumped up the average price of a fund-raising ticket fourfold

from the previous term to $1,000, hired professional

consultants to run their events and solicit contributions,

and formed steering committees of lobbyists to advise them.

Almost all have liquidated their campaign debts in the first

10 months of their first term, and more than half belong to

the NRCC's $100,000 Club, having at least that much cash

ready for next year. The average Republican freshman raised

$123,000 in the first six months, nearly double the amount of

their Democratic colleagues.

Even reform-minded freshmen who oppose PACs have pursued

them aggressively. Sam Brownback of Kansas solicited

Washington lobbyists to contribute to a fund-raising event

for him soon after he had returned from Ross Perot's United

We Stand convention in August. There he had given a speech

denouncing the Washington lobbying scene as ``a domestication

process where you bring in new, fresh legislators and then

you start to try to tame them and assist them with gifts and

meals and trips almost like you would a horse with a sugar

cube.'' Several lobbyists who received Brownback's fund-

raising invitation angrily turned him down.

A few days after the House Republicans took power last

January, DeLay turned to one of his most trusted allies in

the lobbying community, David Rehr of the National Beer

Wholesalers Association, and said, ``I want you to do

something with the freshmen just to get them on the right

course.'' Rehr was a member of a small group of Washington

lobbyists who had remained loyal to the Republicans

throughout the long period of Democratic control. His

informal duties now included serving as a PAC adviser to both

DeLay and the NRCC.

Rehr set up a seminar at NRCC headquarters entitled ``Seven

Steps in Liquidating Your Debt and Building for the Future,''

and more than a quarter of the freshman class attended. Rehr

instructed them to set up steering committees of PAC

supporters to be their ``eyes and ears'' in the Washington

community. He suggested that they contact the NRCC and House

committee chairmen for a list of PACs relevant to their

committee assignments.

Make contacts personally, Rehr, whose own PAC contributed

$144,492 to the House Republicans in the first six months

this year, advised the freshmen. If a PAC opposed them during

the campaign, they should not take it personally. Those PACs,

he said, should now be considered ``additional prospects.''

Rehr is among a new breed of Capitol Hill operators on the

rise, fortyish, ideological and fervently committed to the

House revolution and its two primary bankers, DeLay and

Paxon. The lobbyists span the corporate world, commanding

networks of business allies along with large PACs of their

own organizations. Dan Mattoon of BellSouth, another lecturer

at the NRCC seminar, is the leadership's main link to local

telephone companies. Bob Rusbuldt, a top insurance lobbyist,

taps the financial resources of the related fields of

mortgage banking and real estate. Jim Boland of Philip Morris

draws from the tobacco industry and its food subsidiaries.

Freelance lobbyists such as former Bush White House aide

Gary Andres bring lists of diverse clients and the ability

to penetrate new fund-raising channels.

The Republican takeover has been a time for ``cashing in,''

as a PAC director close to Gingrich put it, and also a time

for ``getting right.'' Lobbyists whose PACs or clients once

gave heavily to Democrats have been eager to show they found

religion, leading to such scenes as the one late one recent

night at one of the steak and cigar restaurants fashionable

along Pennsylvania Avenue.

``Man,'' said a lobbyist approaching a GOP leadership aide

and pleading to be restored to good graces, ``just want to

tell you, we've given like 70 percent to you guys now.''

DeLay, for his part, has launched what has come to be known

as the ``K Street Strategy,'' named for the downtown

Washington avenue lined with lobbying headquarters, law firms

and trade associations. The strategy is to pressure those

firms to remove Democrats from top jobs and replace them with

Republicans.

Headhunters now call DeLay's office in search of

recommendations. When one corporation lobbyist sought a

meeting with the whip, DeLay telephoned the firm's CEO and

complained that his agent in Washington was ``a hard-core

libera1.'' If the company wanted to get in to see him, DeLay

added, ``you need to hire a Republican.'' The hard-core

liberal lobbyist was soon transferred to London.

One drug company hired a Democrat to head its office, but

after he was unmasked at a DeLay fund-raiser, he called the

whip's office the next day to plead that his firm not be

scorned by the House Republicans. His position was only

temporary, he said, and he would soon be replaced by someone

more aligned with the revolution.

``There are just a lot of people down on K Street who

gained their prominence by being Democrat and supporting the

Democrat cause, and they can't regain their prominence unless

they get us out of here,'' said DeLay. ``We're just following

the old adage of punish your enemies and reward your friends.

We don't like to deal with people who are trying to kill the

revolution. We know who they are. The word is out.''

At times, Republican leaders have had to choose between

friends, and money may have been a factor. When the Commerce

Committee voted on a sweeping telecommunications deregulation

bill in May, for example, its legislation appeared to favor

AT&T and other long-distance firms over the regional Bell

companies. A last-minute amendment by Chairman Thomas Bliley

would have complicated entry of the seven regional Bells into

the long-distance market. AT&T has a plant in Bliley's

Richmond district and a new PAC profile: reversing a past

preference for Democrats, it has given 58 percent to GOP

lawmakers this year.

But the baby Bells, with combined PAC donations double

those of AT&T and with influential lobbyists such as Mattoon,

appealed the decision. Help came from Paxon and deputy whip

Denny Hastert of Illinois, both Commerce Committee members

who had voted for the Bliley provision as part of the May

bill. But after hearing from Bell lobbyists, they argued for

change at a Speaker's Advisory Group meeting in early July,

contending that the Bells would be prevented from competing,

a participant said. Gingrich directed Bliley to ``rescrub''

the bill, and by mid-July the Bliley provision was deleted.

Two weeks before the new bill passed the House, Pacific

Telesis Group's chief executive hosted a fund-raiser for

Gingrich at his San Francisco home, raising $20,000.

Paxon said he was guided by his ``driving passion'' for

deregulation, not fund-raising calculations, in siding with

the Bells. ``I haven't sat down with a legislative

calendar,'' he said, ``and said this is the time to go after

this industry group.''

But some fund-raising efforts have been less than subtle.

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer lectured

corporate leaders not to give to Democrats. In an Oct. 23

letter, signed by the Oklahoma GOP delegation, corporate

lobbyists were told that they were expected to support

freshman Tom Coburn in his tough reelection race.

``As you are courted by others to get involved in this

race, we want to make our position clear,'' the letter read.

``We strongly support our good friend and colleague, Tom

Coburn, and we will be unified as we work on his behalf. We

trust you will join us in our effort and certainly not oppose

us.''

That letter was mild compared with a similar dispatch

earlier in the year from DeLay, a no-nonsense missive that

helped establish his reputation as ``the Hammer.'' Days

before freshman Randy Tate of Washington state was to hold a

fund-raiser in Washington, DeLay sent out a letter listing

the exact sum each PAC had given to the losing cause of

Tate's Democratic opponent in 1994, Mike Kreidler.

While he was ``surprised to see you opposed Randy Tate,''

DeLay wrote, ``you now have the opportunity to work toward a

positive future relationship.'' The note got more demanding--

``your immediate support for Randy Tate is personally

important to me and the House Republican leadership team''--

before closing with an offer of redemption: ``I hope I can

count on you being on the winning team. ``

The aftermath of that letter captures DeLay's unapologetic

mode of operation. A reporter received a copy of it and

called DeLay's PAC director, Karl Gallant. Gallant asked

the reporter how he obtained the letter. When he was told

it came from a lobbyist, Gallant responded, ``That tells

me it's effective. They want you to write a negative story

so we'll back off. You just made my day.''

DeLay agreed, distributing the article to his colleagues.

``It had great impact,'' DeLay said later. ``It raised him

(Tate) a bunch of money. We know who we sent the letters to

and who we got checks from.''

One other result: Kreidler recently decided not to

challenge Tate in 1996, citing as one factor his difficulty

in raising PAC money.

For Gingrich, learning the value of fund-raising has been a

gradual process. Staffers at the NRCC in the 1970s and early

1980s would roll their eyes when the small-college history

professor with mutton-chop sideburns strolled through the

door, knowing they were in for a long day of lectures on the

Ming dynasty and a barrage of expensive ideas for promoting

his conservative opportunity society. ``In those early days

Newt was very naive about money,'' said Steve Stockmeyer,

then the executive director of the NRCC. ``He was always

coming up with ideas on how to spend it, not raise it.''

But despite his early naivete about the ways of money,

Gingrich, more than DeLay or any other figure, was most

responsible for turning the revolution into a money machine.

Two years ago the financial situation for the Republicans

seemed bleak. They were ``walking in the valley of the shadow

of death,'' as Paxon, installed by Gingrich as chairman of

the NRCC, put it.

They were the minority party in the House and Senate and

without the White House. Their fund-raising relied largely on

a direct-mail list that had become utterly obsolete. Of the

more than 1 million names on it, only one in 10 had given to

the party in recent years. Many were in nursing homes or

dead. But by April 1994 Gingrich had become convinced that

the Republicans would seize control of the House that year.

He went over to the NRCC and wrote personal appeals for funds

claiming that the Republicans would soon be in the majority.

``Gingrich was for my purposes the whole ballgame when we

wanted to raise money,'' said Grace Wiegers, then director of

fund-raising for the NRCC and now the head of Gingrich's

leadership PAC, Monday Morning.

In August and September he met individually with more than

150 Republican members, assigning fund-raising tasks and

goals to each. Incumbents from safe seats were asked to raise

$50,000 for Republican challengers or vulnerable colleagues.

Ranking minority members of House committees made pledges to

Gingrich to raise even larger amounts traveling for other

candidates on the road.

When the revolution arrived, Gingrich had a system already

in place for maintaining and expanding the money operation.

DeLay would be his hammer. Paxon would serve as cheerleader.

Majority Leader Armey would position himself as ideological

arbiter, attacking corporations for funding nonprofit

agencies that opposed the revolution. Conference Chairman

Boehner would nourish business coalitions, bringing them in

for regular Thursday sessions to plan how the corporate world

could advance conservative policy. Committee chairmen Bliley

of Commerce, Archer of Ways and Means and Bud Shuster of

Transportation would cultivate industries in their turfs.

The lines between elected revolutionaries and their

business cohorts occasionally blurred. Lobbyists helped DeLay

write his regulatory moratorium bill. Shuster raised money

for the revolution with the assistance of his former

political aide, Ann Eppard, a lobbyist whose clients included

Amtrak, Conrail, Federal Express and the Pennsylvania

Turnpike Authority, all of whom had issues pending before

Shuster's committee.

Eppard maintains a close relationship with her old boss. At

the same time that she was soliciting money from industry for

the ``Bud Shuster Portrait Committee'' which commissioned a

painting of the chairman in his committee room, she was also

sending out fundraising letters for Republican candidates.

One to industry colleagues on behalf of a Virginia candidate

ended with the boldfaced assertion: ``This dinner is of

personal importance to Chairman Shuster.''

Given the place Gingrich assigned to fund-raising, his

handshake agreement with President Clinton in June to form a

bipartisan commission on campaign finance reform took his

allies by surprise. More than any other act, it revealed the

tensions within his revolution.

At the next meeting of the House leadership, the tone, said

one participant, was, ``Why the hell did you go and do

that?''

Armey, responsible for scheduling the revolution's

legislative agenda, worried about how he would be able to fit

the issue into an already packed calendar. DeLay, and to a

lesser degree Paxon, questioned whether the timing was right

and whether the Republicans should cede anything to Clinton

and the Democrats now that the revolution's money machine was

operating so effectively. Gingrich's response was that the

handshake ``buys us time.'' He needed to think the issue

through, he said.

Another wing of Gingrich's House, represented by populist

freshmen Brownback and Linda Smith of Washington, along with

veteran moderate Christopher Shays of Connecticut, was

pushing Gingrich from the other side. If the Republicans did

not clean up Washington and prove that they were not

continuing business as usual, they said, the revolution would

collapse from a fatal flaw of political hubris. If reform did

not happen on the Republican watch, said Shays, it would

become ``our Achilles'' heel'' While Shays and Brownback took

Gingrich's handshake with Clinton as a sign that he supported

reform, Smith was skeptical. She said she thought he was just

stalling.

Gingrich found himself in a familiar position: on both

sides of a debate and looking for another way entirely. He

understood the call for reform and had a lingering resentment

toward PACs for funding the Democrats when they controlled

Congress. But he also, he and his aides say, felt equally

strongly that the revolutionaries should not unilaterally

disarm themselves while they were engaged in a more profound

struggle of what he called the ``Information Age.''

The real fight, Gingrich told his aides, was not over money

but information and how it is disseminated. Money was one

weapon in that struggle and important to the movement as a

way to counter the American mass media, which the speaker

considered largely hostile to the revolution.

Gingrich said as little as possible about the issue after

the handshake, promising that at some point he would deliver

a white paper on the subject. As months went by, the

reformers grew increasingly agitated. At Shays's request,

Gingrich met with the reformers in his office late on the

afternoon of Sept. 29 just before the Columbus Day break.

While Shays hoped to discuss another reform issue involving a

gift ban, the meeting devolved into a tense confrontation

over campaign finance reform between Gingrich and Smith, who

had just planted a story with conservative columnist Robert

Novak in which she said that the leadership was not telling

the truth about their intentions on reform.

``He got so mad. He kicked the staff out and yelled at

them, he was so unhappy,'' Smith recalled. The session was

``testy and pointed,'' according to Brownback. Gingrich was

overwhelmed by other concerns that day, including Medicare

and Bosnia. He was late for a meeting at the White House, and

freshman Smith kept jabbing at him.

Noting that Smith was working with Common Cause and United

We Stand in pushing campaign reform, Gingrich told her that

she had to decide whether she wanted to be an outsider or

work with the House leadership. ``Whatever you decide is okay

with me,'' he said. ``We just have to know.''

Smith wanted to know why Gingrich needed a time-consuming

commission, why he could not just support legislation

eliminating PACs, as he had when he was in the minority. She

told the speaker that he tried to carry too much of the

burden himself and that he should let others take the load on

this issue.

Then, according to Smith's recollection of the scene,

corroborated by others in the room, ``Newt looked at me and

said, Nobody can do it but me! I have the most experience.

I'm the only one who can do this. I'll just have to take some

time this week and write a paper on it.' ``

Shortly after that meeting the leadership announced that

the Oversight Committee would hold hearings on campaign

finance reform starting Nov. 2 and that Gingrich would be the

first to testify. One aide took memos from a group of

informal advisers, including Stockmeyer, the former NRCC

director who now ran the National Association of Business

PACs. PACs were invented as a reform in the 1970s, he noted,

and another round of reforms doing away with them would

probably create a system that was worse.

Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky sent a letter over to the

House noting that the Republicans had killed campaign finance

reform before the 1994 elections--``proof positive that this

issue is not a hindrance to us at the polls.'' In a

handwritten P.S., McConnell added: ``We'd be foolish to

throwaway our ability to compete.''

Another Gingrich aide began piecing together his speech. He

plunged into a long assigned reading list and followed up on

the speaker's request to compare the amount of money spent in

political campaigns with what is spent in advertising

products. Companies spent $100 million selling two stomach

acid pills recently, he discovered, one-sixth of the total

amount spent on all congressional campaigns last year. One of

the great myths of American politics, Gingrich concluded, was

that campaigns are too expensive. He believed that most of

the criticism of the campaign system came from ``nonsensical

socialist analysis based on hatred of the free enterprise

system.''

Smith was sitting one row behind Gingrich and off to his

right when he delivered those conclusions at the hearing. She

wanted to watch his eyes and his facial expressions as a

means of gauging his earnestness, she said, but as he

continued to attack the reformers, including some of the

groups she had been working with, she became increasingly

distraught.

``His anger at the media drove what he said,'' she

concluded. She retreated to her office, where she reached a

final decision on Gingrich's earlier ultimatum to her. She

would work from the outside.

Gingrich's lieutenants expressed satisfaction with his

speech. If reform is inevitable, they say, it will not

involve the elimination of PACs and it will not diminish the

role of money in the revolution. DeLay said he would work the

system until PACs gave an appropriate amount to the

Republicans. ``Ninety percent would be about right,'' he

declared. DeLay has a running competition with Gingrich over

who can raise more money. There are scores of revolutionaries

doing the same thing, but he is not worried that they might

trip over each other.

``It's a big country,'' said the Hammer.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H.Res. 648) to eliminate floor privileges and access to Member exercise facilities for registered lobbyists who are former Members or officers of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking my friend from Arkansas for pointing to some of the important aspects of this legislation.

We are committed to bold, strong, dynamic reform for this institution. The Republican Party, Mr. Speaker, has stood for reform ever since I can remember. When I was in the minority, we had the privilege of working on the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, and that committee made a wide range of recommendations that would have focused on improving the deliberative nature of this institution, the transparency that is necessary, and the accountability. Unfortunately, when we Republicans were in the minority, they were not implemented. When we won the majority in 1994, we proceeded with very sweeping reforms which focused on lobbying and a wide range of other areas.

I have always argued, Mr. Speaker, that when we are completed with reforms, what we should do is proceed with more reform; and it needs to be done in a way in which we recognize the deliberative nature of this institution. I love this institution, Mr. Speaker. I proudly describe myself as an institutionalist. But we have a problem that needs to be addressed.

We have just begun this process of beginning the reforms for the Second Session of the 109th Congress. We have been working on reforms in the past session of Congress and in Congresses before that, but today we begin the work following the President's great State of the Union message on the issue of reform; and that is why this measure that we are moving forward with is one that we believe is very important, very transparent and gets at a problem that does exist.

The fact of the matter is, every single American has the constitutional right to petition their government. It is a precious right that we need to protect, and we need to do everything possible to ensure that every American can in fact come to their elected representative and state their opinion.

Concern has come forward from a number of Members, and this has existed really since the beginning of time, or since the beginning of this institution, where we have now seen former Members who are registered lobbyists come to the House floor and engage in lobbying activity. It is against the rules, it is not supposed to happen, but in fact it has happened. That is why this resolution is designed to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that former Members of Congress who are registered lobbyists do not have any kind of advantage over the average American when it comes to access to Members of the United States House of Representatives.

This resolution is clear. It says for the House of Representatives, the House floor and the gym, that former Members of Congress are not able, if they are registered lobbyists, to have access there. We believe that this is a concern that needs to be addressed; and I hope very much that we will be able to, as I have been very pleased in the past several weeks to work in a bipartisan way on the passage of this measure.

Let me state, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first step in our process of greater reform. My friend from Arkansas has come forward with some very interesting ideas. He testified before the Rules Committee. I will say to him right now that I am very happy and pleased to look at the proposals that he has offered and consider them legislatively.

This is the first day of the Second Session of the 109th Congress, but there are a wide range of reforms that Speaker Hastert and I and others have proposed. There are a wide range of reforms that have been proposed by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

So I am convinced we can, in a bipartisan way, work to increase the level of transparency and make sure that there is a greater degree of accountability to this institution. This step is one that we can begin with; and it is one that should enjoy, as I said, strong bipartisan support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend and classmate, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Financial Services.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, I thank my friend for yielding, this is the first step in the beginning of the 109th Congress second session in dealing with this issue of reform, and we are open to making any kind of modification. I will tell you the notion of having convicted felons having access to the House floor obviously we find that abhorrent, and so I will just assure my friend that that is an issue that we are more than happy to address.

Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to yield the gentleman additional time if it is necessary. The gentleman was not here on the floor when I gave my opening statement, and from the private conversation that you and I have had, I would like to again state for the record, Mr. Speaker, that this is simply a first step in dealing with the issue of comprehensive reform of the lobbying and ethics process to which my friend referred.

I would like to for the record say that. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman.

I want to simply say once again, Mr. Speaker, that all of the items that he has outlined, whether it is dealing with the issue of a gift ban, greater transparency and accountability, looking at the issue of privately funded travel, all of these are issues, as the gentleman knows and as others know, that Speaker Hastert is committed to addressing in a comprehensive way.

And it is our intention, I hope very much that as we craft legislation, that we will be able to do so in a bipartisan way. We felt strongly, Mr. Speaker, that at the outset here, as we begin the second session of the 109th Congress, that this issue which falls within the jurisdiction of the Rules Committee, which I am privileged to chair, could be addressed on the opening day to make it clear that we are committed to comprehensive reform.

And so anyone who would lead someone to believe otherwise is just plain wrong. So I would simply say to my colleague that I do look forward to working. He has very, very creative, good, interesting and important ideas in the legislative package that he has put forward, and I am committed to looking at every single one of those as we craft our legislation.

I am happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that the Republican Party has been and continues to be the party of reform. We are committed with this first step that we are taking today, with this package, that addresses something that is just not right.

Former Members of Congress, who are registered lobbyists should not have access to the floor of the House of Representatives, and that is something that we are going to do. It is not a Band-aid. No one is arguing that this is comprehensive reform. This is a first step towards the large process which will allow us to address the concerns that have come forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let me just state that the process of suspension of rules is a time honored structure that has existed here which requires a super majority. This measure will not pass unless two-thirds of the Members, a bipartisan coalition of Members, vote in support of it.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), the distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, my friend from Miami.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on both sides?

I do not have any more speakers on this side. We are expecting no requests.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

Mr. Speaker, I will just clarify again. If former Members of Congress, who are registered lobbyists, being paid to represent interests, are not allowed to even enter the Chamber when we are doing our work here on the House floor, it is very clear there will not be a problem. I thank my friend for yielding.

Right, but the best way to enforce this, of course, is just to ensure that those who are paid lobbyists do not even get to come on to the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, just a quick comment. I will say that every single one of those items that my friend from Arkansas has mentioned, Mr. Speaker, we are more than willing to look at and consider as we work on this issue of comprehensive reform. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, I am just reading from the committee report here, Mr. Speaker, and it is very specific in saying that you referred to ``educational functions from the restrictions of this clause, such as a joint meeting to receive a message from a foreign head of state,'' and last night the State of the Union message would have obviously been an exemption; ``a tour when the House is not in session'' when no Members of Congress are on the House floor. I suppose they could be conceivably when the House is not in session but I do not know when they have ever been. Or for Former Member's Day, when there is a conclave of former Members of the House and Senate who come here to the House floor for the former Members' meeting.

So we are very specific and I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the gentleman by simply saying we all know what it is that we are trying to do here, and I believe that we are in a position where we will address those things.

The prospect of the kind of gathering taking place in the cloakroom, which my friend just outlined, is obviously outrageous, and I will say that I am determined to make sure that it does not happen. I will say that, again, all of the issues that my friend has brought forward we look forward to addressing in comprehensive legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to close this debate by saying again that we do have a problem that exists, and we are committed to bringing about major institutional reform. Increasing the level of transparency and disclosure is a high priority. We have seen guilty pleas from lobbyists who have done things that are absolutely reprehensible, and we want to do everything that we can, in a bipartisan way, to ensure that those things never happen again.

Every American has the right to petition their government. Every single American has the right to petition their government. We do not believe that anyone should have an unfair advantage over any other American when it comes to that. That is why what we are doing here today is the right thing to do. Former Members of Congress who are registered lobbyists should not be on the House floor when the House of Representatives is doing its business.

Today, we begin the work of the Second Session of the 109th Congress, and it is very apparent that we will be able to enjoy strong bipartisan support for this first step on the road to reform. There are many other things that need to be addressed. The Speaker of the House has been working on this. I have been working with him on this issue, and he is committed to getting input from Members on both sides of the aisle and to work in a bicameral way with our colleagues who serve in the other body.

I have had countless meetings with Democrats and Republicans. I have been listening to proposals, and I believe that we are going to have an opportunity to address those understandable concerns so that the American people will once again be able to hold this institution in high regard. It is a challenge. This is the greatest deliberative body known to man, but I believe that it is our responsibility to do what it is that we are going to do here today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry, if I might. Because of the State of the Union last night, and we always have the tradition of lots of former Members, I have two or three parliamentary inquiries that I would like to ask about the rules of the House governing this debate today.

Under rule IV, clause 4, if I might read it, because I think most Members may not have looked at this in a while: ``former Members, Delegates and Resident Commissioners; former Parliamentarians of the House; and former elected officers and minority employees nominated and elected as officers of the House shall be entitled to the privileges of admission to the Hall of the House and rooms leading thereto only if,

``(1) they do not have any direct personal or pecuniary interest in any legislative measure pending before the House or reported by a committee; and,

``(2) they are not in the employ of or do not represent any party or organization for the purpose of influencing, directly or indirectly, the passage, defeat or amendment of any legislative measure pending before the House reported by a committee or under consideration in any of its committees or subcommittees.''

In Mr. Dreier's proposal today, it specifically includes all registered lobbyists, any former Members that are registered.

My inquiry is this: Under the current rules that we are operating under today, do the rules prohibit any registered lobbyist who is a former Member from being on the floor of the House today or in the rooms adjoining thereto?

Mr. Speaker, I would like a further amplification on that. Clearly, a registered lobbyist, since Mr. Dreier's legislation specifically refers to registered lobbyists, who are former Members, have a direct personal interest in this legislation pending today. I am not sure how that application, perhaps I have not been clear in my question, how a registered lobbyist who is a former Member could be on the House floor today when Mr. Dreier's legislation specifically involves registered lobbyists who are former Members.

My inquiry is: Are those Members, former Members, who are registered lobbyists, are they not under current rules prohibited from being on the floor today because they would have, obviously, a personal interest in this, the intent of Mr. Dreier's bill?

Mr. Speaker, my question is: If a former Member, who is currently a registered lobbyist, may that former Member, who is currently a former lobbyist, be on the floor today during the consideration of this bill?

Mr. Speaker, that is what my understanding was.

Mr. Speaker, I do. Under the rules that I just read, it refers to the Hall of the House and rooms leading thereto. I assume that means the Speaker's Lobby and the two cloakrooms. Is that the Speaker's interpretation of that rule?

Mr. Speaker, my third parliamentary inquiry, under current rules, I see no exemption, under the current rule, for any kind of an educational function to occur during the consideration of this measure; is that correct?

Mr. Speaker, my fourth parliamentary inquiry, this bill is now under our suspension calendar. Is it the Speaker's ruling that no amendments are allowed to broaden the application of this rule?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for the time. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for his courtesy yesterday in letting me testify before his committee and then this discussion today.

Unfortunately, this has been a rushed process. Our first day back in the new session and we start out with a bill being presented without amendment, with very little understanding of it. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) pointed out, it already is against the rules of lobbying that we have been hearing about on the House floor, as he indicated in his floor comments just a short time ago, is already

against the rules. The problem on the House floor is enforcement, and so any changes we are making about lobbying on the House floor is essentially just a repeat of what is already the rule.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, as you pointed out, you indicated, under the current rules the activities you have heard about are already not allowed under our current rules.

Well, that is what the current rule is. It is not just about lobbying on the floor. It is privilege. This is the current rule, the privilege of admission to the hall of the House. That is the current rule.

Let me continue with my comments.

To me I agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Meehan) comment. This is probably not the greatest place to start but it is a place to start, but our goal ought to be this. Our goal ought to be for Joe Q. Arkansas back home, that wants to come to the Nation's capital and lobby, how can he be treated fairly and equally alongside everyone else. We have a situation now where former Members, who are well sought after when they leave this body or the Senate to be lobbyists, they have privileges that Joe Q. and Jane Q. Arkansas do not have.

What are some of those? First of all, when they pull their car into one of the House parking lots, they show their former Member's ID, they are waved right in. They get a parking place. They do not have to stand in the security lines. They can just walk. They are bypassed on around. They can roam all through the halls of the Capitol or any of the office buildings in the House or the Senate side. They have access to the Members' dining room where only Members, and I have been lobbied at the Members' dining room. They have access to memorial services. I have been actually lobbied at the memorial service for a former Member that had passed away. They can roam the halls at all hours, day or night. They can go to the rooms behind the committees that Joe Q. Arkansas cannot do.

So our goal ought to be to provide equality with people from back home.

Mr. Speaker, based on that comment, I am going to vote for the gentleman's bill today. I am very disappointed if we come to the end of this year and I do not have an opportunity to present these ideas on the floor of the House for debate.

I have an alternative I filed yesterday, and I encourage Members to take a look at, H. Res. 663, and it says if you register as a former Member to be a registered lobbyist, you do not get the former Members' privileges. Once you no longer are a registered lobbyist you get them back. It seems to be very, very clear, and we do not have to get into this mumbo-jumbo about the gym versus not the gym and all those kinds of things.

There is also a section of the bill being proposed today that I think may be a weakening of current law. Under current law, this is what it says currently: The Speaker shall promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to implement this rule and to ensure its enforcement. That language is being changed under the proposal by Mr. Dreier, and it says, ``The Speaker may promulgate regulations that exempt ceremonial or educational functions from the restrictions of this clause.''

First of all, we will not have the opportunity, I do not believe, to vote on whatever regulation the Speaker puts out. Educational function can be all kinds of things in this body. For example, my fear is that it could be interpreted to be, during the heat of a close vote on a Medicare prescription drug bill, that very well respected former Member Billy Tauzin could be brought over here to meet with 12 undecided Members, not to lobby, but to educate these undecided Members on what this bill means. Somebody is going to have to explain to me, it is very clear from the way of the language of this bill is written, that the intent is that former Members who are registered lobbyists who have a personal or pecuniary interest or are lobbying on behalf of whatever is on the floor of the House would be allowed, under the Speaker's exemption to come and perform an educational function in one of these rooms back here.

I do not think that Joe Q. Arkansas is going to have that opportunity. Jane Q. Arkansas is not going to have that opportunity. That is the problem when we pick on one little portion about this. We do not have hearings, we do not have discussion, we do not get people like Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein and the Heritage Foundation to really thrash this stuff through and have the Members thrash it through.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the language of the bill says educational functions. There are already exemptions for ceremonial events, but you are still going to have to explain to me when we have a vote on whatever regulation the Speaker comes out on this, and why Billy Tauzin, coming over here during the heat of a close vote on Medicare, would not be able to have scheduled for him in the cloakroom an educational function to educate undecided Members at 2 a.m. on what a bill means, not to lobby.

So I think that is one of the things that people have not talked about, are not aware it is in the bill. I am going to support this bill, but I think this is a very, very poor way, in a rushed manner, in a nontransparent manner to begin this discussion of reform of this body.

Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, this is a proposal to change the rules, when a provision says the Speaker may promulgate regulations, under the rules of the House, will there or will there not be a vote of approval of those promulgated regulations by the Speaker on the definition of educational functions?

You're a great reader, Mr. Speaker.

I am sorry, when the Speaker promulgates regulations, regardless of a minor change or a major change, my inquiry is: Does that or does that not require a vote of the body?

I will stand with you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 648, Mr.

Dreier's provision to eliminate floor privileges and access to Member exercise facilities for registered lobbyists who are former Members or officers of the House.

Since the founding of our country, interest groups, or ``factions,'' as Madison called them in 1787, were seen as both a boon and a bane to giving the American people fair representation. Fully 90 years before votes were finally given to African Americans and former slaves, and 150 years before universal suffrage, our Founding Fathers understood the dangers of interest groups and the biased effect they can have on policy and law.

Unfortunately, in 2006, the interest groups now have the higher hand at the expense of our citizens and constituents. The pockets of powerful Members of Congress, and the unequal access former Members of Congress have, supercede their responsibility to their constituents. This is unequal access to democracy.

Reforms are desperately needed, and for once, we have bipartisan agreement. The difficulty now, is determining where reform is needed urgently and unequivocally, and seeing it through to established law.

As a co-sponsor for the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006, which we will all be considering soon enough, I can say that today's bill should be the beginning of many reforms.

The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006:

Limits gifts and travel: Bans gifts, including meals, tickets, entertainment and travel, from lobbyists and non-governmental organizations that retain or employ lobbyists, prohibits lobbyists from funding, arranging, planning or participating in congressional travel.

Regulates Member travel on private jets: Requires Members to pay full charter costs when using corporate jets for official travel and to disclose relevant information in the Congressional Record, including the owner or lessee of the aircraft and the other passengers on the flight.

Shuts down the K Street Project: Makes it a criminal offense and a violation of the House Rules for Members to take or withhold official action, or threaten to do so, with the intent to influence private employment decisions.

Slows the revolving door: Prohibits former Members, executive branch officials and senior staff from lobbying their former colleagues for 2 years; eliminates floor and gym privileges for former Members and officers who are lobbyists; and requires Members and senior staff to disclose outside job negotiations.

Ends the practice of adding special interest provisions in the dead of the night: Prohibits consideration of conference reports and other legislation not available in printed form and on the Internet for at least 24 hours; requires full and open debate in conference and a vote by the conferees on the final version of the legislation; prohibits consideration of a conference report that contains matters different from what the conferees voted on.

Toughens public disclosure of lobbying activities: Requires lobbyists to file quarterly reports with more information, including campaign contributions, fundraisers and other events that honor Members, and the name of each Member contacted. Report must be in electronic format, searchable on the Internet; increases civil and criminal penalties for lobbyists who violate the rules.

The most obvious place to begin these reforms is here, where we conduct business every day. It is unconscionable that we would allow this access to special interest groups in a place where citizens of this country are not allowed to step. The House has played favorites, against the people we took an oath to protect and serve.

Lobbyists should not be allowed on the floor, or in exercise rooms maintained for the well-being and personal use of congressional Members, staff, and employees.

I am ashamed that we have to urge my Republican colleagues to adopt more effective measures. It should be a no-brainer. Let's start with this simple reform and keep it going until we succeed in delivering the government ``of the people, by the people, and for the people,'' back to the people.

It is for these reasons that I vigorously support drawing a clear ethical line at that door and preventing unjust and unethical influence in our place of business. I urge my colleagues to also extend their support for H. Res. 648 and renew our dedication to our constituencies and ethical principles.

Mr. Speaker, just over a year ago, on the very first day of the last session of Congress, I stood on the floor and watched the Republican majority force through a new set of House rules, rules designed to destroy the House Ethics Committee and to protect the leadership and their Members from any measure of real accountability.

And ironically they called it an ethics reform package. As a result of that package we still do not have a working ethics committee today.

On that day the word ``corruption'' became synonymous with Congress in the minds of many of the American people. 2005 went on to be a year defined by corruption in a way never before seen. The magnitude of the Republican culture of corruption overwhelming this House has only been exceeded by the high cost of that corruption for every man, woman and child in this country.

From the Medicare legislation affecting the health of our seniors, to the safety of our troops in Iraq, to the energy bills that determine if families can afford to heat their homes during the winter and drive their cars, nothing has proved too precious to avoid being sold for a price.

But despite this shameful record today, the Republican majority asks us to believe they have now seen the light and they are suddenly committed to producing an ethical Congress. And so we are opening this year with another ethics rules change.

It is a reform that I support, because the stranglehold lobbyists have over our process is indeed a tremendous problem facing our Nation.

The fact that there are 34,000 registered lobbyists in Washington today, 63 for each Member of Congress, demonstrates just how much power special interests wield in this Congress. And clearly, former Members of this body who lobby should not have special access to lawmakers on the floor or the gym.

But let me be clear, that this rules change is so minor in relation to the magnitude of the problem that it does not amount to a drop in the ocean. In fact, I suspect it is illegal already.

First, we know that they should not be here, but we have ignored that rule and done nothing to enforce it. But more importantly, shifting the blame for the rampant corruption in Washington only to lobbyists is part of an effort to avoid the central issue.

Corrupt lobbyists like Jack Abramoff have done much harm to this country, but they can only be as corrupt as those in power allow them to be. Let me say that again. They have done a lot to harm the country, but they can only be as corrupt as those in power allow them to be.

A true responsibility for corruption begins and ends here in this Chamber with those who pull the strings. Lobbyists are simply the symptom. The disease is here. Because after all, lobbyists are writing the bills that come out of this House because the Republican leadership wanted it that way. House rules are being ignored and our ethics process destroyed because the Republican leadership wants it that way.

We now have a government that is too corrupt to sustain itself any longer, too undemocratic to even pretend to be a democracy. We simply cannot allow Band-aid packages like the one presented today to take the place of real reform. It is self-evident now that those who put America up for sale have neither the ability nor the credibility to lead us in a new direction.

It is going to take a lot more than preventing former Members from going to the House gym to produce an ethical Congress. If we ever hope to restore true democracy to our government, it is going to take a fundamental change in the culture of this institution, one devoutly to be wished and felt and certainly a thing that we will work hard for on this side.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has more speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.