Congratulating charter schools and their students, parents, teachers, and administrators across the United States for their ongoing contributions to education, and for other purposes.

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

This amendment would further weaken an already appallingly weak bill by striking the criminal penalties for corrupt lobbyists that knowingly violate disclosure requirements. The amendment would strike out provisions in the bill that were agreed to by the Judiciary Committee that would hold lobbyists criminally responsible for violating the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 by failing to disclose their contacts with Members of Congress with criminal intent and replace them with finds.

The provision in the base text establishes criminal penalties for whoever knowingly and willfully or knowingly, willfully and corruptly fails to comply with any provision of the bill. I do not see why we should object to this. These new criminal penalties are to lobbyists who knowingly and willfully or knowingly, willfully and corruptly lie on their disclosure forms. Is the lobbyist who corruptly lies in his disclosure form not deserving of the criminal sanction? This amendment would strike those tough criminal penalties and instead replace them with monetary fines.

We know from reading in the newspaper that Mr. Jack Abramoff made $66 million defrauding Indian tribal clients alone. Does anyone think that a $100,000 fine would deter Mr. Abramoff from making his $66 million corruptly? It is a drop in the bucket. In fact, this amendment is worsened by the fact that it adds a requirement to the intent element of the civil penalty of the Lobbyist Act, corruptly and with intent to evade the law, which is an almost impossible standard for the prosecutor to meet.

The proponent of this amendment has argued that the language included in the current criminal provision is vague and undefined; we went through that in the committee. But I don't believe this argument is accurate. The term ``corruptly'' appears in title 18 at least 15 times, even appearing in the Federal Bribery Statute. Moreover, according to Black's Law Dictionary, the term ``corruptly'' means ``to act knowingly and dishonestly with the specific intent to subvert or undermine the integrity of something.'' I do not think the definition can get any clearer than that.

This bill is already so weak and limited that it is virtually powerless to prevent future abuses. This amendment would remove one of the few tough deterrents in the bill. I would note that the provision for criminal penalties applies to lobbyists, not to Members of Congress, unless those lobbyists are former Members or acting in violation of the current rules on lobbying illegally.

So we do think that this amendment, although I am sure the gentleman is offering it with all good faith, is misguided, and we do oppose and urge our colleagues to oppose.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just note that the bill puts in new disclosure requirements and also tough enforcement of those requirements, which the gentleman's amendment would essentially remove.

I was a little surprised to hear the argument that the penalty invites suborning perjury on the part of prosecutors. I have never heard that argument advanced in the situation of any other criminal penalty, bribery or drug cases or any other kind of criminal penalty. And I must say that I have yet in my many, many years as an attorney run into a case where a prosecutor suborned perjury in the way described by the gentleman. Maybe he has run into a different situation in his State. But I think to suggest that prosecutors are going to engage in misconduct is misleading, and also it is revealing that that concern is only expressed when it is to protect corrupt lobbyists.

Let us remember that the standard that is being outlined in this bill is corruption. Knowingly, willfully and corruptly is the standard, and that has to be proven with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that is the due process protection that we generally rely on in our great country.

I would just note in concluding that recently a Roll Call editorial described this bill as, ``This bill all but shouts to voters that the GOP is not serious about reform and that it values its ties to K Street more than the public's trust.''

I would say that the gentleman's amendment is an elevation of that concern for K Street that this House should reject rather soundly.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, I would note that laws already exist to prevent this activity and that to some extent this amendment is redundant and that the enforcement of current laws would solve the problem. And when it comes to lobbyists who are making the kind of money that Mr. Abramoff made, the $50,000 fine may well not be a deterrent.

Nevertheless, I think an additional deterrent to some lobbyists for violating the gift rules is useful. I would note that the primary responsibility falls upon Members of Congress for not accepting extravagant gifts. This amendment really looks to the gift giver instead of the guilty gift receiver.

Nevertheless, I think it is a useful component of a bill, and I do support it, and I believe that many on this side of the aisle do support it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just, in closing, note that this is not a bipartisan amendment, unless either Mr. Castle or Mr. Gerlach has made a party decision that we don't yet know about. However, we don't oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment; and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), our colleague, and one of the authors of the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, section 502 of the underlying bill establishes mandatory ethics training for staff and voluntary training for Members. This amendment would not change the voluntary nature of Members' ethics training, but it would require the Ethics Committee to post the names of Members who have not taken the training.

I guess the purpose of this amendment is a worthy one. Members and staff should certainly know the ethics rules and should go back and refresh their memory of the ethics rules every couple of years. We all support that proposition, and in my opinion most Members are conscientious and know the ethics rule and do their best to follow them. But if posting Members' name on a Web site will make them more likely to go and get the training, then that is a good result.

But let us be honest here. A couple of new ethics seminars are not going to solve this problem. A Wall Street Journal-NBC poll released today found that almost 80 percent of the American people disapprove of the job Congress is doing. The public has watched this Congress bend and break the rules over the past few years, and I think they have had it. It is going to take more than ethics seminars to convince these people that we are interested in cleaning up Congress.

Even if this amendment is adopted, and I believe it will be, this bill is not going to change anybody's mind that the majority, who are running this House, are serious about cleaning up the mess that is here.

With that, I would note that although many of us go in person for classes, those of us who come from places like Silicon Valley really do our reading over the Internet. For those Members who have not visited the Ethics Committee site, there is a wealth of information online and available and very easy to access from home at any hour of the day or night, and that is a very good alternative for Members whose schedules are very pressed.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, at least until the ranking member of the House Administration Committee arrives.

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

I will support this amendment. I don't, frankly, know that this has ever been an issue that I have heard of or seen in the press that someone has converted a leadership PAC to personal use. It shouldn't happen and, therefore, I don't have a problem supporting the amendment.

To the extent that it is difficult for the FEC to make a judgment call on what is personal use and what is not, this doesn't compound it because they already have to make that judgment when it comes to re- election PACs.

I would just note that, like the rest of the bill before us, this is okay, but it really doesn't accomplish the real problem solving that the country is crying out for. I don't think that any of our Members on this side of the aisle oppose, but even approving this will not clean up the ethics swamp that the country is so very concerned about.

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

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

As I mentioned earlier, we are supporting this amendment, even though it solves a problem that apparently has not yet come into play.

But what this amendment and this bill fail to do is to fundamentally reform a culture of corruption. It does not end the practice of lobbyists giving gifts to Members of Congress and their staffs. It does not end the practice of Members using corporate jets, does not require disclosure of lobbyists bundling contributions to Members of Congress. It does not end the practice of leaving votes open to twist arms and lobby Members on the floor of the House. It does not do anything to close the revolving door from government service to personal gain. It does nothing to clean up our campaign finance system, to take special- interest money out of politics.

The bottom line is that, although we are supporting this amendment, it really doesn't actually reform the system that has the American people so concerned and rightly so.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the ranking member of the House Administration Committee, my colleague from California, the Honorable Juanita Millender-McDonald.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I do not object to this amendment, but like the underlying bill, I think it fails to seriously address the scandals that have made so many Americans distrustful of this Congress.

Requiring mandatory ethics training for registered lobbyists is probably a good idea. But I didn't think that classes for lobbyists were the major issue facing the country.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I will not oppose the amendment.

Members should recognize that the amendment is redundant at best and really does not do anything to strengthen the lobby laws.

This amendment creates a redundancy in the U.S. Code by adding language that is already covered. Section 201(a)(3) already and currently prohibits receiving a personal benefit in exchange for ``any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding, or controversy.'' This amendment would add to that language ``including an earmark as defined in section 501(d) of the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act,'' but

earmarks are already covered under the current code because it is already a decision or action, and thus the language in the amendment is unnecessary. But, as I told my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, I do not oppose redundancies in the committee or on the floor.

I would note, however, that if those across the aisle wanted real reform in the way of earmarks, they would support a measure that would prohibit Members from offering or withholding an earmark to influence how another Member votes. And if those across the aisle wanted real reform, they would require real disclosure of earmarks.

I would note further that, in proof of the redundancy comment I made at the start of my comments, our former colleague from the 50th Congressional District in California is living proof that the statute works. He is in prison today for bribery. And I have often thought, although he was convicted of bribery, he actually took money to sell out the military; and, as far as I am concerned, that is treason as well. Our military has the right to expect the very best that we can buy for them by way of intelligence, equipment. They deserve the very best. What they do not deserve is a Member of Congress selling them out for money, and that is what happened in that case.

I would note that there were discussions of having some kind of earmark reform in this bill, and it is a measure of how discombobulated the majority is. I believe that the appropriators were unable to come to agreement with the authorizers, and what we have ended up with actually is a bill where you can sneak those earmarks in in the dead of night. You can sneak them in; and although it is a bribe that we are talking about, the real reform, the transparency that would prevent that, is missing from this bill.

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

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

I would just note that we are today dealing with this rather small effort to do lobbying reform and missing, I guess, sort of ``the check is in the mail'' on earmark reform. I do not believe for a minute, and as a matter of fact, former Congressman Cunningham himself admitted that what he did was wrong, that he knew it was wrong. He sold his country. He sold his vote.

The fact is that he was convicted of bribery, and he is in prison today. We need to have greater transparency on these earmarks. That is really a very serious issue that is completely missing.

I don't oppose the Flake amendment. It doesn't really do anything, but I don't oppose it. We would really accomplish something if we were to publish the earmarks, if we were to make sure that earmarks could not be included in the dark of night; if we were to make sure that this mess was cleaned up, then we would actually be yielding something for the American people. I don't believe that we are.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just like to note it is the entire system that is a problem here. It is a culture that leads to corruption that we are trying to correct here. I don't think the gentleman's amendment succeeds in that, although I am sure he is sincere in offering it, and the underlying bill does not succeed in cleaning up that swamp.

Again, I do not object to the amendment, but I wish this whole bill were a lot more than it is.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California, and I thank her for service on the Ethics Committee.

I, too, believe that this is an amendment that certainly moves us forward, but it is not the panacea.

And I rise because I now understand that this is clearly a partisan bill because this is not a bill to really do anything. It is a bill to bash and to look like you are doing something.

I did not offer the Jackson-Lee amendment because I realized that, rather than doing real lobbying reform, the other side wants to bash innocent spouses and children. That is what they want to do. They wanted to make light of an amendment that I was offering to ensure the clarity of the fact that if you had no inside knowledge or benefit to the fact that your spouse or anyone else was involved in culpable behavior, that you, as an innocent spouse, and an innocent child, should not be, of course, the, if you will, the victim of that criminal behavior.

On the other hand, in the Judiciary Committee, when we had the right kind of amendment, Mr. Van Hollen offered an amendment that would require additional quarterly disclosures by lobbyists, including disclosures of the names of Federal candidates and office holders, their leadership PACs or political committees for whom fundraising events are hosted by lobbyists, and information regarding payment for events honoring Members.

Guess what? That was eliminated from the final bill, even though it was passed successfully in the Judiciary Committee.

So this is not a serious attempt for lobbying reform. It is an attempt to eliminate amendments of Democrats. Bring one on the floor so that you can bash it, rather than looking seriously at the language that the Jackson-Lee amendment had, which was to clarify to make sure that we get those who are the true culprits.

If the spouse and the child is involved in the bad behavior, then eliminate all their benefits. If they are not, then you should protect them so that they are not the victims of this bad behavior.

But I see, Mr. Chairman, you are not interested in serious lobbying reform. All you are interested in doing is bashing other Members, bashing spouses,

bashing children and representing that this is a bipartisan bill. It is not a bipartisan bill. You have eliminated all the amendments, and it is not a bipartisan bill.

I hope that we will be able to get on track and find our way in the real manner of collaborative work so that when Members try to go to the other side and speak intelligently about an amendment, they won't get the back hand of someone who thinks that they can just ``diss'' you just because you are on the minority.

We need to be working on this issue in a bipartisan manner. And I welcome some of the very progressive amendments. And I when I say progressive, don't think I am labeling you, but the very smart amendments that add more requirements.

And I think the idea of training certainly moves us forward. But as the gentlewoman from California said, we have left out an enormous amount of real reasonable response to this question.

So I hope that in the final analysis that we will go back to the drawing board and be able to assess, if you will, the importance of real collaboration.

I will just simply say that this idea of using innocent spouses and children, opposing a proposed amendment, which I did not offer because I understood that this was going to be a scapegoat that would cause people not to see the true issue, which is to clarify those who had nothing to do with the bad behavior.

And to the American public and my colleagues, I think we can understand the concept in America of due process and innocent until proven guilty. Let us get to the bottom line of making sure that our house is in order, but when it comes to those innocent individuals, let us make sure that we have clear language to protect innocent children and spouses who are determined to be without fault.

The Office of Personnel Management is a regulatory agency, not a lawmaking body, as the Congress is; and I thought it was important for my amendment to have been offered and accepted to clarify the protection of families. But the majority was opposing it because they wanted sound bites not real enforceable legislation. It was not offered because I did not want political play to get in the place of serious legislation.

With that, Mr. Castle, let me say you have something that is a good idea, but we could clearly do more; and I ask my colleagues to vote against this false representation of lobbying reform, H.R. 4975.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to explain my amendment. The need for the amendment I offer is not obvious at first glance but the harm it corrects would be apparent to all Members as soon as they have a chance to think about it.

I share the discomfort that comes with writing laws that govern ourselves, rather than laws that govern the Nation. However, we are legislators just as much as we are politicians. We must rise to the occasion, excel beyond expectations, and sensibly construct guidelines that will secure our honesty and accountability .

What will Americans read in the newspaper tomorrow, or see on the news this evening? We do not want to appear like a classroom of children turning out their pockets when we accuse each other of stealing candy. We want to stand together as a legislature and raise our own standard of conduct and value of ethics proudly, in a bipartisan manner, as colleagues.

Until this week, this lobbying reform bill was succeeding. Differences of opinion were discussed openly, language and subject matter was debated publicly, and compromises were made with the larger goal of improving and correcting the involvement of interest groups in legislative work.

However, without an open rule, it is difficult to continue asserting that this is a bipartisan effort, and it is impossible to say that this is a transparent process. If we are struggling to make lobbying more accountable and transparent, how can we create these laws in an unaccountable and nontransparent manner? The hypocrisy is as obvious as it is embarrassing.

I am pleased that the Rules Committee was open to consideration of each amendment, and I thank Chairman Dreier and every Rules committee member for the opportunity to offer my amendment preserving the rights of spouses and children to benefit from pensions without bearing the burden of disproving guilt by association.

However, I am disturbed by the abruptness and the brevity with which privately funded travel was discarded in the committee print of the bill. Although the Lungren/Miller amendment that will be in order today is better, I believe that stifling any Member's opportunity to grow and learn is myopic, and I believe that many of these trips are crucially educational.

We, as Members of Congress, have a duty to act as witnesses for human rights considerations, for foreign policy interests, and for domestic troubles. Travel can be vital continuing education.

We must put ethical guidelines in place, but not without thinking them through thoroughly. We all understand and agree that major changes must take place in lobbying reform. We must concentrate on what is most responsible, most practical, and most cogent.

Overall, I am disappointed in this bill, and disappointed that there are those among us who would sabotage the legislative process--such as subcommittee and committee hearings and markups and floor debates--in order to achieve their own ends. We need lobbying reform because we need to return the policy discussion to the American people, and take it out of the hands and pockets of over-privileged insiders and favor- traders.

We have a long history of lobbying reform, dating back to the passionate debates of the Federalist Papers. Interest groups, or ``factions,'' to use the contemporary term, provided both an immeasurable value to democracy, and yet interest groups also bring the threat of undue influence. According to Madison:

Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an ailment

without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a

less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to

political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would

be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to

animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive

agency. (Federalist Paper #10)

I am inclined to agree. I urge my colleagues to allow the debate today to assist in building lobbying reform that will withstand criticism many years from now, and that we may look upon as noble, fair, and correct.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

But let me say to the distinguished gentleman, I did not have time to yield; and I thank you for your graciousness. But I think if we had had the gracious discussion that you offered now on the floor of the House previously where we could have discussed the idea of a full debate on this matter, there might have been a different response by myself the proponent of the amendment to protect innocent spouses and children shown to be without fault in any manner of corruption. I think we are all committed, as you have said, to the idea of getting the ones who are guilty, but the innocent we should protect.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I will simply say, I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding, and I would like to, as I said a moment ago, support the amendment and say that I think this amendment is evidence of a strong bipartisan commitment to our dealing with the issue of reform.

Accountability is what this measure is all about, and Mike Castle is someone who has demonstrated a very strong commitment to increased accountability, transparency and disclosure. And when we look at the issue of gifts, heretofore the responsibility has simply fallen on the shoulders of Members of Congress. We believe that when those who are out there are trying to shower gifts onto Members, that they in fact should have some responsibility.

That is exactly what the Castle-Gerlach amendment is getting at. I think it is a very good and very helpful addition to the legislation, and I would also like to join in congratulating Mr. Gerlach, who also is a very strongly committed reformer for this institution.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the gentleman for his leadership on this issue.

Again, this is an indication of our ability to work in a bipartisan way to deal with a question that constantly came to me from Democrats on the other side of the aisle who talked about the notion of imposing a travel ban, and some Members on our side. I believe Mr. Lungren and all of those Members, Mr. Berman from California and Mr. Cole on the Rules Committee, have worked very diligently, and I look forward to accepting this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I think it is very important for us to hear from our very good friend from California, Mr. Berman; and I hope he may be able to offer some comments on this as one of the lead authors on this important amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding, and I rise in strong support of this amendment.

Once again, we are demonstrating a very strong bipartisan commitment to dealing with the issue of institutional reform.

Mr. Sodrel has come forward with a very creative and thoughtful idea to enhance our goal of accountability; and he is doing it in a bipartisan way by getting our Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), to join as a cosponsor, as well as the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis). I think that is a brilliant move on his part, and I think it will strengthen this piece of legislation as we aspire to the goals of once again creating a higher level of respect by the American people and is necessary for this great institution. I congratulate the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Sodrel).

Mr. Chairman, I simply rise in support of the committee process itself.

I was not aware of the fact that Members who have leadership PACs would be in a position to convert those funds to personal use when they choose to leave this institution. And it was because of the three hearings that we held in the Rules Committee that it came to the surprise, I think, of virtually everyone that the law that was put into place two and a half decades ago preventing Members of Congress, or at least one and a half decades ago, preventing Members of Congress from converting their campaign funds to personal use once they leave this institution does not apply to the so-called leadership PACs.

And I simply want to congratulate my friend, Mr. Gingrey, who came forward with this very, very thoughtful idea that emerged from the hearing process itself, and has now offered this amendment, which I think should enjoy very strong bipartisan support. It once again will underscore in this legislation the accountability and the transparency that is very important for the American people to see in this place. And so I am in strong support of the Gingrey amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, once again, we have seen our friend from Delaware charge towards a greater offer of enhancing this piece of legislation. One of the things that we have been saying time and time again is that brighter, clearer lines are imperative as we look at this legislation. And it seems to me that as we look at where it is that we are going, everyone who is impacted by this legislation should have an opportunity to understand it. That is exactly what the Castle amendment does. And I appreciate the fact that he has spent so much time and effort going through the legislation, working to improve it. So I strongly support the amendment and urge my colleagues to join in support of the Castle amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I really was somewhat saddened. I am always pleased to yield to Members when they ask me for time, regardless of what side of the aisle they are on, because I am interested in rigorous debate.

As the chairman of the Rules Committee, I was very proud to make in order the Jackson-Lee amendment that would have allowed for a full debate and a discussion on the issue of spouses being the beneficiary of pensions. We in this legislation have provided flexibility to the Office of Personnel Management to ensure that they could, in fact, when a spouse, a victim, as my friend has described them, has potentially been in a position where they could lose their pension.

We are now in the midst of the Castle amendment, which is enjoying bipartisan support, as is virtually every other amendment that we have considered on the floor this afternoon. And yet I am talking about an amendment, the Jackson-Lee amendment, that I made in order in the Rules Committee and she chose not to offer that amendment; instead, stood up and said that I am not committed to reform. And I am happy that the Chair, in fact, admonished the Member to address the comments to the Chair.

We would not be here today, Mr. Chairman, were it not for the strong commitment of Speaker Hastert and the Republican leadership to the issue of institutional reform; and we want to make sure that no one is victimized by abhorrent behavior that takes place by lobbyists or by individual Members. But we also believe strongly in the issue of accountability, and that is exactly what we are getting at by providing the flexibility to the Office of Personnel Management.

I think that, on the issue of accountability, once again, as I said, Mr. Castle has done a great job of ensuring that there is a clear understanding of

exactly what the new definition will consist of when we pass this legislation.

I thank my friend for yielding, and I thank my friend from Houston for her thoughtful comments, and I still am, again, sorry that she would not yield to me. I would be happy, if Mr. Castle has the time, to yield to her at this time if she would like to respond to any of the comments that I have made.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.

I believe that as we look at the issue of earmark reform, Mr. Chairman, it is very important for us to realize that our attempts to rein in the size and scope of the Federal Government is a high priority. My friend has worked on that, and I believe that this amendment itself goes right at that goal of especially the question of people seeing some sort of self-enrichment through the appropriations process here. I thank my friend for his contribution, and I am proud to strongly support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important for us to note that last week, as we were prepared to consider the vote on this rule, a strong commitment was made by the Speaker of the House, the majority leader, and others on the leadership team; and I, as the author of this legislation, have been very pleased to make a commitment that, as we look at the issue of earmark reform, it should be broad. And we want to do everything that we can to ensure that the kind of abuse a number of people have talked about in the past does not take place.

It is important to note that we have seen a 37 percent reduction in the number of earmarks under the very able leadership of Chairman Jerry Lewis on this issue, and he is committed to further earmark reform. But we also are committed to dealing with this issue in a similar way to the way it has been addressed in the Senate, and that is to ensure that it is broad based and crosses from appropriators to authorizers as well. So I think that the conclusion that my very good friend from California has drawn is an inaccurate one.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that reform is very, very difficult work to do; and I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), my very good friend, a lead reformer.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just say that this product we have here today, due to the leadership of Speaker Dennis Hastert, has been a 4-month-long process. We just heard very moving remarks from our friend from Missouri. It is absolutely imperative that we recognize that the motion to recommit is nothing but a sham that would slow the process of reform. It is imperative that we defeat this motion to recommit and pass this measure so that we can move on to the Senate to bring about real, meaningful reform.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 781), congratulating charter schools and their students, parents, teachers, and administrators across the United States for their ongoing contributions to education, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 781.

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

Mr. Speaker, this resolution honors the Nation's charter schools; the parents; the teachers; of course, the students; administrators; and other individuals involved with their hard work and dedication to run quality public education.

This week, May 1 through May 7, has been designated National Charter Schools Week. During this week, charter school organizations and others around the United States recognize these schools for their continued contribution to education. The Nation's charter schools deliver high- quality education and challenge students to reach their potential.

When President Bush took office in 2001, there were only about 2,000 charter schools nationwide, where today there are approximately 3,600 serving over 1 million students in 40 States, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. In Nevada, we have 18 charter schools serving approximately 5,000 students. I am very proud to have been involved with Nevada's first legislation in 1997 to introduce and to pass our first charter school legislation.

We also have an example of a charter school that is nationally recognized, and that is the Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy, and it serves as a model for other schools across the country. It is designed to enhance a student's character, respect, motivation and self-discipline. Agassi Prep, as the school has been nicknamed, specifically is to improve skill levels and combat lowered academic expectations among the community's most challenged children. Advanced technology, small class size, and extended school hours are just a few of the practices that Agassi Prep utilizes to achieve a higher standard of education.

I commend the charter schools in the State of Nevada and across this great Nation for recognizing the immense need for improved education and for their commitment to improving student achievement for students who attend these schools.

Nationwide, charter schools serve a very special need. Many of the schools under their charter take care of kids with special needs, from hearing to speaking to other challenges. Even in the State of Nevada, we have a charter school that was designated through its charter to serve children from the State of California that are juvenile delinquents.

Charter schools provide a great service to our communities, grade schools, all different levels of schools across the country, to provide parents, communities, leaders, business, all members of the community access and the ability to be involved in education.

Nearly 56 percent of charter schools report having a waiting list, and the total number of students on such waiting lists is enough to fill another 1,000 average size charter schools across the Nation. By allowing parents and students to choose their public schools or charter schools, we can stimulate change and benefit all public school students.

In exchange for flexibility and autonomy, public charter schools are held accountable by their sponsors for improving student achievement and for their administration. A charter school is just that. A charter school is a school with a contract of performance. If they do not perform, if they do not provide excellence in education, these schools can lose their charters.

Charter schools must meet the same No Child Left Behind student achievement accountability requirements as other public schools and often set higher and additional individual goals to ensure that they are all high quality and truly accountable to the public.

According to the Center for Education Reform, as many as 15 studies find that students who frequently enter charters significantly are below the normal grade level. These students then achieve the same or even higher gains as compared to their surrounding districts' demographically compared schools or even the State averages.

A report from America's Charter School Finance Corporation called ``Take Me on a Reading Adventure'' cites research from several States that show greater gains and/or higher scores in reading for charter schools as compared to their traditional school peers.

Charter schools have enjoyed broad bipartisan support from the administration, Congress, State Governors and legislators, educators, and parents across this great Nation. The Seventh Annual National Charter School Week, held this week, May 1 through May 7, 2006, recognizes the significant impacts, achievements, and innovations of our Nation's charter schools. Through this resolution, Congress today acknowledges and commends the charter school movement and the charter schools' students, teachers, parents, and administrators across the United States for their ongoing contributions to education and improving and strengthening our Nation's public schools.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), chairman of the full committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I strongly applaud my colleagues across the aisle for their support, and certainly recognize the District of Columbia and its advancement in the charter school arena.

I reflect back to 9 years ago in Nevada when we passed our first charter legislation, and I remember a lot of

naysayers. As a member of the State senate at that time, I received numerous nasty calls and lots of different opinions on the impact of charter schools on traditional public education.

The problem was, at that time, in those days, a lot of the naysayers didn't realize that this would remain and would be a public school. But it truly is an example of success nationwide.

If we look at the classroom in the last 100 years, it looks just about like it did 100 years ago. If you look at the operating room in a hospital, it changed substantially, with new technologies and new techniques.

The one thing that has worked so well with charter schools is that so many diverse groups that were opposed to this have come together and have found and shown nationwide the success of helping children have the finest education; no matter what their background, what their physical handicap, that they can truly have a success.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here today to recognize charter schools across the Nation. To those of our forefathers, just a short decade ago, especially here in the District of Columbia, to my friend, the gentlewoman who is the Congresswoman here, I thank them for their support.

Again, this is just the beginning. The more we can encourage charter schools across the Nation to encourage parents, teachers, administrators, business leaders and community leaders to get involved, the better we are going to help our children.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to conclude by saying there certainly have been challenges with some charter schools across the country, schools that possibly were underfunded, possibly weren't organized properly. But the advantage of a charter school is that if it does not succeed, they lose their charter, and immediately, as a public school should, a traditional public school system, there is a fail-safe security system in place. So there is no doubt there have been examples where the charters have not been a success, as there have been in other schools, traditional public schools, traditional high schools, traditional grade schools, that have not succeeded. Again, there are numerous, numerous stories of success, but those areas that have not performed properly have lost their charters. I think it is important to note that is one of the advantages with the charter system.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time and encourage support for this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment today with my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach). The amendment is simple, so I will be relatively brief.

Let me take a moment to thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for his tremendous work in preparing this ethics legislation. I know the process he has been through; I have been to a lot of the meetings. There is a lot of disagreement even within his own party, including me on some issues, and I realize the difficulty of putting this together. I would just like to thank him for his great work on this particular piece of legislation.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, maybe I should stop right there.

One way I think we can strengthen the laws governing gift giving from lobbyists to legislators and their staffs is to hold all individuals liable for knowingly breaking the law. Currently, Members and staff are responsible for making sure that they do not accept gifts or meals that violate the current gift limit of $50. Our amendment would also hold liable those individuals who knowingly offer gifts in violation of the law. It is simply common sense that anyone who intends to break the law should be held responsible. With this commonsense amendment, we bring intentional gift-giving violations under the civil penalties already established in the Lobbying Disclosure Act which are currently set at up to $50,000.

If there is a silver lining in the clouds surrounding the recent ethics problems in Congress, it is the opportunity to enact meaningful reform. Personally, I think the bill could go much farther by establishing greater disclosure and reporting requirements.

I firmly believe that full transparency has the potential to minimize abuses of the system. Unfortunately, an individual who wants to violate the law will usually find a way no matter what we do here today.

Regardless, we have a responsibility to pass the strongest bill possible here today, and I think this amendment moves us in that direction. Personally, I believe in transparency. I believe in the education of everybody including lobbyists, staff members and Members of Congress. In terms of ethics laws, I believe in enforcement of the ethics laws as it involves all of us. And that is simply what this amendment does, is move in that direction.

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

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentlewoman from California. She is absolutely right. The greatest responsibility, in my judgment, is on us, Members of Congress, or on staff people or whatever. And it probably is slightly redundant, too. That is probably also correct.

But the point I am trying to make here is that if everybody is educated and everybody is aware of this and everybody can be responsible for it, maybe we can prevent some of the problems from happening. Maybe we can't, but I just hope that we can.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished sponsor of the bill, the chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.

Mr. Chairman, finally, I would just say Mr. Gerlach and I presented almost identical amendments, and that is how it became the Castle-Gerlach, Gerlach-Castle amendment, because they were very similar.

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

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

I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment today. The way to prevent further abuses of power may not be readily apparent, but by adopting this commonsense amendment to require ethics training for lobbyists, we will be one step closer to achieving greater accountability and transparency.

My amendment would require that all registered lobbyists complete a mandatory 8 hours of ethics training each Congress. Ethics training would entail instruction by the Committee on Standards on the code of conduct and disclosure requirements applicable to Members, officers and employees of the House, including the rules relating to acceptance of gifts, travel and meals and financial disclosure requirements. Any registered lobbyist failing to complete ethics training each Congress would be subject to penalties.

If we have learned anything over these few years, we have learned that many people in many different capacities, from lobbyists to Members and even staff, abuse the laws and rules that govern this body. We are seeing high-level abuses of power, the exchange of favors and the neglect of basic ethical standards.

There is absolutely no reason that we shouldn't educate registered lobbyists on the rules and laws that we have written and adopted to govern the House of Representatives.

When a lobbyist registers, they are saddled with pamphlet after pamphlet of rules and regulations. What they can and cannot do is more often learned through word of mouth. Ethics training to clearly outline the rules would be welcome. With the adoption of this amendment, there will be no uncertainty about what the rules are and how to follow them.

Requiring ethics training for registered lobbyists helps us begin to repair a system that has failed to regain the confidence of the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say, finally, before I yield to the chairman of the Rules Committee, that this just goes along with my whole thinking that if we can educate everybody as to precisely what these rules are, then maybe we can prevent some of the abuses. Some of them we are never going to prevent, but maybe we can prevent some of the abuses. And that is the reason for this amendment.

I yield to the chairman of the Rules Committee.

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

Let me just say at the outset that what we have just heard essentially is about an amendment that was not presented, not this particular amendment, and perhaps about the bill; and I appreciate the support of the amendment by both sides here.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.