Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4975) to provide greater transparency with respect to lobbying activities, and for other purposes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I was smiling as I presented it.

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.

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

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

My recommendation is that you not touch it.

Would the gentleman yield on that point?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would reclaim my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill because it does nothing to reduce corruption and lobbying.

Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment that was adopted in the Judiciary Committee. That language was subsequently stripped from the bill by the Rules Committee. That amendment would have simply required a study of the practice by which some lobbyists appear to be charging percentage contingent fees for obtaining earmarks in appropriations bills. Now, when you combine that idea with the K Street Project where you are supposed to be hiring a Republican lobbyist who is supposed to be contributing back to the legislators, you can see just how ugly a practice this can be. My amendment would have simply asked for a study of the prevalence of that practice.

Mr. Chairman, these kinds of contracts are illegal when lobbyists are representing foreign governments and are illegal in some activities involving the Executive Branch. They are illegal in 39 State legislatures. However, it does not appear to be illegal lobbying Congress under Federal law. The Congressional Research Service in a memorandum dated September 21, 2000 cites a legal treatise which says that these contracts furnish the strongest incentive to the exertion of corrupting and sinister influences and are utterly void against public policy.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was cited in that same memorandum as saying that they have a tendency in such contracts to provide incentives towards corruption. In fact, an 1853 Supreme Court case said that common law will not lend its aid to enforce a contract to do an act which is inconsistent with sound morals or public policy, or which tends to corrupt or contaminate by improper influences the integrity of our social or political institutions.

Mr. Chairman, true lobbying reform ought to remove corruption from lobbying, and if we are going to be serious about that, we ought to at least study the prevalence of these contracts which everybody knows has a corrupting influence. By removing the amendment, it is clear that that was not the purpose of the bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation.

Congressional Research Service,

Washington, DC, Sept. 21, 2000.

memorandum

Subject: Contingency Fees for Lobbying Activities.

From: Jack Maskell, Legislative Attorney, American Law

Division.

This memorandum is prepared in response to requests from

congressional offices for information about whether one may

lawfully have a contingency fee arrangement for ``lobbying''

activities in which the fee for such lobbying activities is

contingent upon the success of ``lobbying'' efforts in having

legislation passed in the United States Congress.

There is no statute under federal law which expressly

addresses the issue of contingency fees with respect to all

lobbying activities generally before the Congress.

Contingency fees may be expressly barred, however, under

certain circumstances. There is in federal law an express

prohibition against contingency fee arrangements with respect

to seeking certain contracts with the agencies of the Federal

Government. Activities which might generally or colloquially

be called ``lobbying,'' but which involve making

representations on behalf of private parties before federal

agencies to obtain certain government contracts, may thus be

subject to the contingency prohibitions. The reason for such

ban has been explained as follows: ``Contractors'

arrangements to pay contingent fees for soliciting or

obtaining Government contracts have long been considered

contrary to public policy because such arrangements may lead

to attempted or actual exercise of improper influence ....''

Contingency fees are also prohibited for lobbying the

Congress by persons who must register as agents of foreign

principals under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The

prohibition is upon agreements where the amount of payment

``is contingent in whole or in part upon the success of any

political activities carried on by such agent.'' The covered

``political activities'' of such agents under the Foreign

Agents Registration Act include any activity which the agent

``intends to, in any way influence any agency or official of

the Government of the United States ... with reference to

formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign

policies of the United States ...,'' and thus include the

activities of ``lobbying'' Members and staff of Congress on

legislation or appropriations.

Although there is no general, express federal law barring

all contingency fees for successful lobbying before Congress,

there is a long history of judicial precedent and traditional

judicial opinion which indicates that such contingency fee

arrangements, when in reference to ``lobbying'' and the use

of influence before a legislature on general legislation, are

void from their origin (ab initio) for public policy reasons,

and therefore would be denied enforcement in the courts. In

some instances contingency fee arrangements based on the

success of legislation have been upheld in a few courts,

however, when the duties contracted for were professional

services that did not involve traditional, statutorily

defined ``lobbying'' or the use of personal influence before

the legislature, or where the client had a legitimate claim

or legal right to be asserted in a matter before the

legislature (e.g., ``debt legislation'').

The concern of potential temptations from overzealousness

and undue influences which certain ``all or nothing''

contingency arrangements might engender has also been the

reason behind the public policy disfavoring contingency fees

in the case of lobbying the legislature. As summarized in one

legal treatise: ``Agreements under which the compensation for

procuring or influencing legislative action is made

contingent upon the success of the undertaking furnish the

strongest incentive to the exertion of corrupting and

sinister influences to the end that the desired legislation

may be secured, and there is a long line of cases which holds

that if the agreement is one in which the compensation is

contingent upon success in accomplishing the end sought, it

is utterly void as against public policy.''

The United Stats Supreme Court addressed the issue in

Hazelton v. Sheckells, in 1906. In that case the Court

refused specific performance of a contract to convey a deed

as compensation for services where ``the services

contemplated as a partial consideration of the promise to

convey were services in procuring legislation upon a matter

of public interest, in respect of which neither of the

parties had any claim against the United States.'' As

established in the conveyance document, such agreement

``was in substance a contingent fee,'' dependent upon the

passage of legislation by the Congress. Justice Oliver

Wendell Holmes, writing for the Court, explained that it

was the ``tendency'' in such contract agreements to

provide incentives towards corruption, and not necessarily

any actual corrupt activity in a particular contract or

case, that made these contingent arrangements void for

public policy reasons. Thus, the Court found that even

though the services in this case were legitimate, that

``[t]he objection to them rests in their tendency, not in

what was done in the particular case,'' especially since

if there had been undue or improper influence ``it

probably would be hidden and would not appear.'' The Court

stated that ``in its inception'' the contingency fee

arrangement ``necessarily invited and tended to induce

improper solicitations, and it intensified the inducement

by the contingency of the reward.'' The Court found that

earlier Supreme Court precedent had established ``that all

contracts for a contingent compensation for obtaining

legislation were void,'' and refused to enforce the

contract in question.

The judicial disfavor expressed by the Supreme Court for

contingency contracts for lobbying on general legislation

dates back at least to 1853, when in Marshal v. Baltimore &

Ohio R.R., supra, the Court with reference to secret

contingent contracts explained:

``It is an undoubted principle of the common law, that it

will not lend its aid to enforce a contract to do an act . .

. which is inconsistent with sound morals or public policy;

or which tends to corrupt or contaminate, by improper

influences, the integrity of our social or political

institutions. . . . Legislators should act from high

consideration of public duty. Public policy and sound

morality do therefore imperatively require that courts should

put the stamp of disapprobation on every act, and pronounce

void every contract the ultimate or probable tendency of

which would be to sully the purity or mislead the judgments

of those to whom the high trust of legislation is confided.

``. . . Bribes in the shape of high contingent

compensation, must necessarily lead to the use of improper

means and the exercise of undue influence. Their necessary

consequence is the demoralization of the agent who covenants

for them; he is soon brought to believe that any means which

will produce so beneficial a result to himself are ``proper

means''; and that a share of these profits may have the same

effect of quickening the perceptions and warming the zeal of

influential or ``careless'' members in favor of his bill.''

In a more recent federal case on this subject, a United

States Court of Appeals in 1996, in Florida League of

Professional Lobbyists, Inc. v. Meggs, upheld against a

constitutional challenge on First Amendment

grounds the State of Florida's specific legislative ban on

contingency fee contracts for lobbying. The court there

reaffirmed, albeit reluctantly, the long-recognized judicial

precedents concerning the general public policy against such

contingency fees for lobbying. The court noted that there was

no direct precedent overturning the older Supreme Court cases

directly on point on contingency fees and lobbying, but did

seem sympathetic and responsive to the plaintiff's arguments

that more modern cases on the First Amendment and

compensation for advocacy might eventually warrant a

different outcome on this issue:

``Florida points out that in cases decided well before the

articulation of `exacting scrutiny,' the Supreme Court

specifically held that contracts to lobby for a legislative

result, with the fee contingent on a favorable legislative

outcome, were void ab initio as against public policy . . .

[citations omitted]. The League does not contest the

applicability of these older decisions to this case. And, we

are persuaded that these decisions permit a legislature to

prohibit contingent compensation. The League, however,

suggested at argument that the extensive, interim

developments of First Amendment law established conclusively

that the Supreme Court today would strike a contingent-fee

ban on lobbying.

``This prediction may be accurate, but we are not at

liberty to disregard binding case law that is so closely on

point and has been only weakened, rather than directly

overruled, by the Supreme Court.''

As to State statutory bans on contingency fees for

lobbying, it should be noted that as of this writing most of

the States (39) have existing in their state codes an express

prohibition against such contingency fees for lobbying

activities. See, for example, Alabama (Sec. 36-25-23(c),

Michie's Ala. Code); Alaska (sec. 24.45.121 (a)(6), Alaska

Statutes); Arizona (sec. 41-1233(1), Arizona Rev. Statutes);

California (Government Code, Sec. 86205(f), Annotated Calif.

Codes); Colorado (sec. 24-6-308, Colorado Rev. Statutes);

Connecticut (Sec. 1-97(b), Conn. Gen. Statutes Ann.); Florida

(Sec. 11.047 [legislature]; Sec. 112.3217 [executive branch],

Florida Statutes Ann.); Georgia (sec. 28-7-3, Official Code

of Georgia Ann.); Hawaii (sec. 97-5, Hawaii Rev. Statutes

Ann.); Idaho (sec. 67-6621(b)(6), Idaho Code); Illinois

(S.H.A. 25 ILCS 170/8); Indiana (sec. 2-7-5-5, Burns Ind.

Statutes Ann.); Kansas (sec. 46-267, Kansas Statutes Ann.);

Kentucky (sec. 6.811(9), Kentucky Rev. Statutes); Maine

(Title 3, Sec. 318, Maine Rev. Statutes Ann.); Maryland

(State Government, Sec. 15-706, Michie's Ann. Code of Md.);

Massachusetts (Ch. 3, Sec. 42, Mass. Gen. Laws Ann.);

Michigan (sec. 4.421(1) Mich. Compiled Laws Ann.);

Minnesota (sec. 10A.06, Minn. Statutes Ann.); Mississippi

(sec. 5-8-13(1), West's Ann. Miss. Code); Nebraska (sec.

49-1492(1), Revised Statutes of Neb.); Nevada (sec.

218.942(4), Nev. Revised Statutes Ann.); New Mexico (sec.

2-11-8, New Mexico Statutes); New York (Book 31,

Legislative Law, Sec. 1-k, McKinney's Consolidated Laws of

N.Y. Ann.); North Carolina (sec. 120-47.5(1), Gen.

Statutes of N.C.); North Dakota (54-05.1-06, N.D. Century

Code Ann.); Ohio (sec. 101-77, Page's Ohio Rev. Code

Ann.); Oklahoma (Title 21, Sec. 334, Oklahoma Statutes

Ann.); Oregon (sec. 171.756(3), Oregon Rev. Statutes);

Pennsylvania (65 Pa. Cons. Statutes Ann. Sec. 1307(a));

Rhode Island (sec. 22-10-12, Gen. Laws of R.I.); South

Carolina (Sec. 2-17-110(A), Code of Laws of S.C.); South

Dakota (sec. 2-12-6, S.D. Codified Laws); Texas

(Government Code, 305.022, Vernon's Texas Codes Ann.);

Utah (sec. 36-11-301 (Utah Code Ann.); Vermont (Title 2,

266(1), Vt. Statutes Ann.); Virginia (Sec. 2.1-791, Code

of Va.); Washington (Sec. 42.17.230(f), West's Rev. Code

of Wash. Ann.); Wisconsin (sec. 13.625(d), Wise. Statutes

Ann.).

As noted, the weight of judicial opinion has been either to

uphold such restrictions against challenges, or in some cases

in the absence of an express statute to judicially find such

contingency fee arrangements void for public policy reasons.

In one instance in the 1980's, however, a provision, enacted

as a result of a state initiative, barring all contingency

fees for legislative lobbying activities was struck down by a

state court as an overbroad intrusion into the right to

petition the government. The Supreme Court of Montana found

the law ``overbroad because it precludes contingent fee

agreements that are properly motivated as well as those that

are improperly motivated'' and as such, the ``ability of

individuals and organizations to fully exercise their right

to petition the government may be severely curtailed by this

broad prohibition.''

While the existing state of the law is clearly for most

States to continue to expressly prohibit by law contingency

fee agreements with respect to legislative lobbying on

general legislation, and to have those prohibitions upheld

(or to consider such contingency agreements void for public

policy reasons where there is no express law, as is the case

with respect to lobbying before Congress), other

interpretations have permitted such arrangements where an

agent, attorney or representative is seeking legislation

based upon a claim or similar legal interest or right to be

asserted against the government, or when such action involves

conduct and activity that is done in the normal course of

client representation by an attorney and is not expressly

contemplated by the original contract.

There have also been cases where legitimate professional

services are contracted for, such as, for example, the

drafting of legislative language, as opposed to merely

engaging another's ``influence'' to ``lobby,'' when such an

arrangement for services, even if based on the contingency of

the passage of legislation, has been permitted. Such cases

have been described as related to contracts where the

``services rendered thereunder did not partake of anything in

the nature of lobbying....'' Although relating to

legislation, the services in question were not necessarily

within a specific or narrow definition of ``lobbying'' in the

sense that nothing that was contracted for involved any

activities attempting to ``exert private or personal

influence with members of the legislature, or in interviewing

or bringing pressure to bear on them....'' In making

arguments for allowing such contingent fees in cases of

professional services rendered in relation to legislation

where no undue influences are contemplated or used, and no

traditional ``lobbying'' is conducted, it has been suggested

that such permissibility of the fee arrangement would have no

more ``influencing'' tendency than in the permissible

instance of one representing oneself before the legislature

(and thus having an even greater financial stake than an

agent in the outcome), or if an agent or attorney represented

a client before a judicial panel, i.e., a court.

Jack Maskell,

Legislative Attorney.

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

Mr. Chairman, I was just listening to the debate on the last bill considered under suspension of the rules, and I saw a wonderful sense of bipartisanship as we were able to pass, I suspect we may have a vote on it, but I know it will pass overwhelmingly, the legislation by our good friend from Dallas, Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson.

It is my hope that, as we proceed with this very important issue, that that same sense of bipartisanship can prevail. Because I believe that it is absolutely essential to dealing with the challenge that lies ahead.

Mr. Chairman, as you know very well, recent scandals involving elected representatives from both political parties have underscored the very urgent need for us to reform ethics and lobbying rules.

The American people and Members of Congress are very correctly incensed about this. I believe that it is absolutely outrageous some of the things that we have seen from both political parties over the past several months.

Action, common-sense action, Mr. Chairman, is absolutely needed, and that is why I am very proud that Speaker Dennis Hastert 4 months ago stepped up to the plate and said this is exactly what we need to do, is we need to take strong action.

Republicans and Democrats have worked together tirelessly on this issue over the past 4 months. The goal is to strengthen and reform House rules, as well as that 1995 Lobbying Disclosure Act which we very proudly put into place when we won the majority back in 1994.

Our aim, our goal, is a Congress that is effective, a Congress that is ethical, and a Congress that is worthy of the public trust. Now, I know that the American people should understandably have a healthy skepticism towards this institution. That is what Thomas Jefferson wanted. But, at the same time, it is very important that we do what we can to enhance the level of trust that the American people have in their elected representatives.

We know right after this began, at the beginning of this second session of the 109th Congress, we stepped right up and were able to take very bold action to bring about reform. On our very first day of legislative business we voted to level the playing field by ending the access to the House floor and gym by former Members of Congress who are registered lobbyists. This rule change was supported by 379 of our 435 Members.

At the beginning of the last month, we took a second step in the name of balance and fairness. In another bipartisan vote, the House closed an enormous loophole in campaign finance regulations. Integrity in our elections was a key focus of our reform efforts, and the 527 Reform Act makes sure campaign finance laws apply across the board.

Now we are considering the comprehensive reform package, H.R. 4975, the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. Mr. Chairman, this legislation seeks to uphold the highest standards of integrity when it comes to Congress' interaction with outside groups.

I am very proud of the process and the results of this multi-month effort that we have seen. Anyone, anyone, Democrat and Republican alike, outside groups, academics, anyone who wanted to offer any suggestion, any proposal at all, make any comment on any part of the legislation has had that opportunity. This has been a very thorough and, again, a very bipartisan process.

Mr. Chairman, we already conducted a very spirited and worthwhile debate just last Thursday when we were considering the rule that allows us to consider this legislation; and, from that debate, it was very clear to me that there is a lot of confusion over H.R. 4975. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, as I have read editorials for a wide range of publications here in this town and across the country, there is an awful lot of confusion as to what this bill actually does. So I thought that I would take just a moment to summarize for our friends here in the House and for anyone who might be following this, any editorial writer out there, I would like to summarize what this legislation will and will not do.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation will enhance transparency and accountability in Congress through increased disclosure and tighter rules. No matter what anyone says, Mr. Chairman, this legislation does increase transparency

and accountability through toughening up disclosure and tightening the rules.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation will fulfill the public's right to know who is seeking to influence their Congress.

This legislation will provide brighter lines of right and wrong and more rigorous ethics training so that everyone can understand what is right and what is wrong here. I was taught that as a kid, but obviously there has been some confusion and in the past there have been gray areas. This legislation creates that clear definition and provides an opportunity for greater training for Members and staff so they can have an understanding of it.

This legislation will significantly reform the earmark process to foster more responsible and accountable government spending.

I read one editorial in which they said this bill does not tackle the so-called Bridge to Nowhere issue. Well, Mr. Chairman, anyone who has followed this debate knows that full well that last week when we were debating the rule, the Speaker, the majority leader, I, the whip, others made have a very strong commitment, working with the Appropriation Committee, that the Senate has passed language which we think is very good.

It is language which says that when we look at the issue of earmark reform so we can have greater accountability when it comes to spending that it should not simply focus on the appropriations process. It should be universal and go across the board to the other committees as well. That commitment was made a week ago, and yet some people seem to think that we are not willing to take that on.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation will considerably increase fines and penalties for violating the transparency and accountability provisions.

This legislation will give a new authority to the House Inspector General to perform random audits of lobbyist disclosure forms and refer violations to the Department of Justice.

Now, Mr. Chairman, here is what this legislation will not do. It will not permit business as usual. It will not perpetuate the status quo.

Mr. Chairman, while this body is united in its desire for reform, we clearly have disagreements over some of the specifics. Some think that this bill goes too far; some think that this bill does not go far enough; and, frankly, I wish that this bill were stronger than it is. But we are getting ready to take this very important step to go into conference with the Senate; and, as we do that, I believe that we can come back with a stronger bill. This is what I am hoping will happen, but we must proceed with this measure so that we can make that happen.

Yet today we stand, as I said, on the starting blocks of our reform effort, and the single most important thing that we can do at this stage is to keep the process of reform moving. That is really what this is all about today, Mr. Chairman. We know full well that they are going to get a lot of people standing in the way, and yet we need to take this step forward, and that is what H.R. 4975 does.

There is no question whatsoever that this bill, regardless of what anyone says about it, that it represents progress. It is a move in the right direction, and a lot of us want to do more, but this is a bill that moves us in the right direction.

There is no question at all that it is a vast improvement over the status quo, and there is no question that it does put us on a path towards that very important conference that we will have with our friends in the other body.

Now, of course, Mr. Chairman, there are many up there who want to engage in nothing but criticism. They want to say no. They want to defeat this effort for real reform. They want to just criticize what it is that we are trying to do here when we have been able to fashion a bipartisan package. But to what end? To protect the current system? Because this is really what is going to happen. I mean, if we pass the previous question, if we defeat this legislation, all we will be doing is perpetuating the status quo because it will slow the process of reform. The same system that we have spent 4 months decrying, as we sought this reform, would be perpetuated.

It defies logic, Mr. Chairman, to criticize the current standards and then vote to keep them in place, because that is exactly what will happen. With their recommittal motion, that is exactly what will happen with any attempt to defeat this measure.

Mr. Chairman, Winston Churchill, I think said it very well, when he wrote: Criticism is easy; achievement is difficult.

Mr. Chairman, this is no time for us to recoil in our effort to bring about reform. By voting yes for this bill, the House will vote for achievement, for progress and for rebuilding the trust of the American people. A vote for H.R. 4975 is a vote for reform.

Mr. Chairman, after we pass this bill, let me tell you what is next on our agenda: more reform. The Republican party is the party of reform. The Republican party has and will continue to reach out to our Democratic colleagues who are reform-minded to continue down this road towards reform.

The drive for reform never stops. We have demonstrated that consistently in the past, and we will continue to do so in the future. It is a continuous, ongoing process that takes both perseverance and commitment.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is absolutely essential for us to continue down the road towards reform so that we can make this institution more effective and more respected.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I have not been in Alice in Wonderland until I heard my colleague talk about it. So much for bipartisan comity. I am very proud to be working with Democrats on this important legislation, but as I listen to this mischaracterization of our strong bipartisan reform effort, I am somewhat stunned.

Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 4 minutes to an individual who has worked as hard or harder than anyone on this issue of reform, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, my Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend from Charleston, West Virginia, a hardworking member of the Rules Committee (Mrs. Capito).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.

My friend said, if we have a small bill. We don't have a small bill. This is a very, very strong package that we have come forward with.

He has talked about outside organizations that have criticized this. I am very happy that three of the recommendations that outside organizations have provided to us are included in this. We have included input from a wide range of entities.

This is a package that does double the disclosure rate for lobbyists when it comes to their activities that relate to this institution. We have very strong reforms.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what I was going to say, what the Chair just said. I am sure that my colleague from Chicago, my very good friend, was not in any way impugning the integrity or motives of any of his colleagues in this institution.

And I should say that the legislation itself very specifically says that no Member may have any decision that is impacted that influences an outside hiring decision that another Member raises, and so that is raised in this.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend, a great reformer, the gentleman from Phoenix (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. Chairman, for a unanimous consent request, I yield to my good friend from Vienna, Virginia, my classmate (Mr. Wolf).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the very hardworking chairman of the Committee on Administration, our friend from Grand Rapids, Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Dallas (Mr. Hensarling), a very hardworking reformer of this institution.

It appears again that my friends on the other side don't have any remaining speakers. I know you are waiting and want to reserve the balance of your time. Absolutely, in a bipartisan sense of comity, we want you to reserve the time.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Chairman, for a unanimous consent request, I yield to our hardworking and very senior colleague from Davenport, Iowa (Mr. Leach).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our hardworking friend from Utah (Mr. Bishop), a member on the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, as I said at the outset, we have gone through a long, bipartisan, 4-month process to get to where we are. Speaker Hastert began in January saying we need as an institution

to step up to the plate and deal with the issue of lobbying and ethics reform, and that is exactly what we have done.

Again, we have worked with Democrats and Republicans, outside organizations; and, as I have listened to the debate and the statements made from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it is very obvious to me that they have failed to read this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, in virtually every single area that my friend from Rochester just addressed, this is addressed in the legislation. And if it is not actually addressed in the legislation itself, we have made commitments that we are going to, as we move this process forward, get into a conference with the Senate and address some of these issues of concern.

Critics seem to be absolutely intent on telling us what this bill is not. Everything that was said by my friend from Rochester was in the negative. Just imagine if we went through every single day lamenting what is not. Today is not Christmas; that is terrible. Today is not Thanksgiving, and that is terrible. Today is not my birthday, and that is terrible. But what does it get us? It does not get us a thing. Searching for storm clouds on a clear day is a recipe for inaction and defeatism.

Mr. Chairman, Speaker Hastert and I and the leadership team here and the Republicans and, I am happy to say, some Democrats have indicated to me that they are interested in not defeatism; they are interested in pursuing vigorous reform.

As I listened to the litany of what this bill is not, I think it is very important again, as I have read some of these editorials which mischaracterize the legislation, as I listened to the rhetoric that mischaracterized this legislation, let us again look at the bill and just four simple things of what this bill is: This bill actually doubles the fines, doubles the fines, for lobbyists who fail to disclose. This bill adds the possibility of jail time for failing to comply with the Act. This bill adds oversight to make sure disclosure information is accurate. It gives the public full, online access to disclosure reports. It withdraws the government-funded pension for people who commit the crimes that we have outlined in the legislation.

So, Mr. Chairman, anyone who tries to say that they are supporting a recommittal motion, are going to vote against this legislation because it does not do enough is, in fact, standing in the way of reform.

Many people said we should get this thing out. The Speaker and I said we wanted this to pass by early March. Obviously, we needed more and more input from Members, from outside organizations, from academics, from our constituents who are concerned about this issue. And, Mr. Chairman, we extended beyond that early March date. Here we are now in early May, having listened to so many different people, and we have come up with a bill that I believe is strong. I believe it is bold. I hope we will be able to do more, but this is legislation that allows us to move forward in a positive way.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as we all know very well, a few recent disgraceful scandals involving members of both political parties have cast a pall over the American people's faith in their Congress. The actions of a few have undermined our effectiveness and shaken the trust of our constituents.

Bold, responsible, commonsense reform of our current lobbying and ethics laws is clearly needed. We owe it to our constituents. We owe it to ourselves. We owe it to this institution. This is not a partisan issue. Let me say once again, Mr. Speaker, this is not a partisan issue. It is an issue that goes to the integrity of the United States Congress, and every single Member has a stake in it.

When Speaker Hastert and I kicked off the effort for lobbying and ethics reforms in January, we promised an exhaustive and bipartisan process. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what has happened. Members were asked for their suggestions. All ideas were thrown on the table. And, Mr. Speaker, every idea was considered. In fact, we had hoped to have this bill on the floor earlier, but we were determined not to short- circuit debate and this process. We wanted every idea and every provision to be fully and carefully deliberated.

At the Rules Committee we conducted three original jurisdiction hearings. We heard from 12 outside expert witnesses, and we took testimony from many Members. The bill moved through regular order, and five different committees held markups.

Mr. Speaker, this entire process has been thorough, deliberate, and bipartisan. It has included a tremendous amount of input from Members on both sides of the aisle, from our constituents, and from experts on this institution and from a number of outside organizations. We have followed a legislative path that is fitting for our goal of enhancing the integrity of this great institution. And, Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to my Democratic colleagues and to my Republican colleagues for their involvement and their input that they have had in this process.

Today we will consider the result of this nearly 4-month-long, bipartisan reform effort, H.R. 4975, the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. This legislation aims to uphold the highest standards of integrity when it comes to Congress's interaction with outside groups. This legislation focuses on transparency and accountability.

It makes it harder to abuse the rules and easier to enforce them. It focuses, Mr. Speaker, on bright lines of right and wrong and tough consequences for crossing those lines.

With every single provision, we are erring on the side of integrity. We are focusing on the need for the highest level of integrity. And with every single provision, we take an approach of the more information the better.

Specifically, lobbyists will be required to file their disclosure forms more often, with more detail and online.

This bill fulfills the public's right to know who is seeking to influence Congress. Putting lobbyist disclosure reports on the Internet will empower voters and improve oversight much more effectively than adding pages to the already thick book of rules. Unlike today, when lobbyist reports are hard to find and hard to follow, this bill will make the information easy to access, easy to search and easy to sort on the Web.

We have also added tough consequences for not playing by the rules. The penalties for lobbyists who fail to disclose have been doubled from $50,000 to $100,000, and a criminal penalty provision has been added. Knowingly and willfully failing to comply with the provisions of the act could result in up to 3 years in prison.

And because these reports are only meaningful if they contain accurate information, we have increased oversight. The House Inspector General will perform random audits of reports and is empowered to refer violations by lobbyists to the Department of Justice for prosecution.

H.R. 4975 also reforms the earmark process by building on the procedural reforms being implemented by the Appropriations Committee, reforms, Mr. Speaker, that under the leadership of Chairman Jerry Lewis have seen a reduction of earmarks by 37 percent.

As it stands now, earmarks can be added to bills anonymously and without debate. This fuels public mistrust and encourages inflated spending in Congress. This bill requires sponsors of earmarks to be listed in appropriations bills. It also allows a point of order to be brought against appropriation bills and conference reports that do not include a list of earmarks and their sponsors. Mr. Speaker, if a Member feels strongly enough about a proposed earmark, they need to be willing to attach their name to it.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I feel very strongly about this, and I will not be supportive of a conference report that comes back on this issue that does not include broad earmark reform, including not only appropriations, but the authorizing process as well.

H.R. 4975 enhances disclosure with regard to Members who seek jobs in the private sector. The bill requires more transparency during employment compensation negotiations to avoid the perception and possibility of unethical behavior.

This legislation takes a tough line on privately funded travel by banning it for the remainder of the 109th Congress. Many privately funded trips are serious, educational, and valuable. Some are not. We need to arrive at reform that allows Members to get out from under the Capitol dome, while at the same time draw the line on trivial junkets.

There are strong opinions on this provision. Many Democrats, including those with whom I serve on the Rules Committee, do not want a travel ban. But there is widespread agreement that the current system is ripe for abuse and needs to be tightened. In fact, there is a strong bipartisan amendment to address this issue, and again we will have a very rigorous debate and a number of amendments that will be considered that will address concerns like the issue of travel.

Another important piece of this reform package concerns pensions of former Members convicted of specific crimes committed while serving in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, under this bill, if Members commit crimes, such as bribery or fraud, they lose the government's contributions to their congressional pension. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize the retirement of former Members who are convicted of crimes.

Finally, because one of the primary aims of this legislation is to increase accountability, we have greatly enhanced ethics training for staff and Members. Our aim is for everyone to know and understand the rules and the guidelines. Member and staff familiarity with ethics requirements will go a long way toward making sure rules are not broken in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is the product of intensive study and deliberation. It is bold; it covers a lot of ground; and it restores balance to a system that has and was being abused.

We have done all of this while making sure that we protect the first amendment right of every American to petition their government. Input from constituents and advocates is essential for effective governing, and I am confident that as we seek to level the playing field and facilitate open government, we have not undermined the constitutionally protected right for the public to interact with their elected leaders.

Mr. Speaker, as with all legislation that reaches the floor, compromises have been made along the way that reflect the will of both Democrats and Republicans. Every attempt to address Members' concerns has been made over the past 4 months. I should also note that this rule will provide the opportunity for, as I said, further debate on

amendments that deal with some of the larger issues that have been brought forward.

Now, despite this outreach and attempt to find consensus, I am fully aware that some misgivings about specific provisions remain. I would simply ask each Member to look at the bill as a whole and answer these questions: Does this bill increase transparency? Does it increase accountability? Does it put more information in the hands of the American people? Does it protect the first amendment right of citizens to petition their government? And does it strengthen the integrity of the United States Congress?

I am absolutely convinced that the answer to every single one of those questions is an overwhelming ``yes.'' This bill is a vast improvement over the status quo.

Mr. Speaker, today, Members of the House can show that our desires for meaningful reform and for upholding the integrity of Congress are stronger than partisan divisions and political calculations. We have the opportunity and we have the duty to turn our voices for reform into votes for reform.

I urge my colleagues to vote for an ethical and effective Congress that is worthy of the public trust. I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the pending resolution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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