Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2317) to amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to require registered lobbyists to file quarterly reports on contributions bundled for certain recipients, and for other purposes and providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 2316) to provide more rigorous requirements with respect to disclosure and enforcement of lobbying laws and regulations, and for other purposes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good new friend from Tampa (Ms. Castor) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and to congratulate her on her statement that she has just provided. But, Mr. Speaker, I rise to reluctantly oppose this rule.

This bill has lots of problems, and I understand the problems on the other side of the aisle. I am very happy to see the distinguished Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, my very good friend John Conyers, here.

It was just a year ago, it was just a year ago this month, that we were on the floor with our own lobbying bill, and we faced many of the same problems and challenges that Chairman Conyers and others in the Democratic leadership are facing at this moment. Trying to address the concerns that our colleagues have on this issue is a challenge, a very challenging thing, and they have discovered the lesson that I learned long ago, and that is reform is very hard work. It is a constant work in progress.

I was reminded by one of my staff members that I had said at one point as we moved ahead with a reform bill, which I am happy to say we passed in the last Congress, I said, when we are done with that reform, what we need to do is work on more reform.

This is, again, a constant work in progress, and will continue to be. And I believe it is part of our responsibility to constantly look at ways in which we can reform and improve the operations of this institution.

But if the bill that this House passed in the last Congress was described as a ``sham,'' it is very unfortunate, and Mr. Conyers and Ms. Castor and others were there when I was describing this, the very distinguished chair of the Committee on Rules no fewer than seven times when we, a year ago this month, were debating this measure, described the bill I had, H.R. 4975, as a ``sham'' bill.

I have to say, as I listen to my friend from Tampa (Ms. Castor) talk about

this bill, she was going through the fact that we will have disclosure on the Internet of travel, and she went through basically the provisions included in H.R. 4975; it is basically the same bill. But, unfortunately, there are a number of important provisions included in H.R. 4975 that are not included in this measure. I find that to be somewhat troubling.

For instance, while starting out with a 2-year restriction on lobbying after Congress, the majority left that provision on the cutting room floor. They recognized, as we did, that the economics of attracting and retaining good staff, they don't work with that kind of restriction. But instead of retaining a provision which passed the House last year and would provide everyone with a degree of transparency about who was and was not under the lobbying restriction, and I am going to offer an amendment to add that back which I hope will be able to improve the bill. But this bill, as we have it, is not nearly to the level of what the new majority described as a sham in the last Congress.

While this bill provides important new criminal penalties for lobbying violations, it includes nothing, absolutely nothing, Mr. Speaker, to make enforcement more rigorous.

I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to add a provision which again was included in the bill that we had passed out of this House last year which would allow the House inspector general to randomly audit lobbying disclosure filings and forward cases of wrongdoing to the Department of Justice for prosecution.

The majority's answer to that proposal was, no, we don't want enforcement of our bill. Enforcement is always a challenge. We deal with that with the issue of illegal immigration and a wide range of things. It is easy to put all kinds of great ideas out there, but if there is no enforcement, it has no teeth and no chance of success. That is something that is very lacking in this bill. We had it in our lobbying reform bill that passed last year, and I offered it as an amendment at the Rules Committee. Unfortunately, my colleagues in the majority on the Rules Committee rejected it.

Mr. Speaker, last year, Mr. Castle added a provision on the floor requiring lobbyists to take ethics training. Is that provision in this bill? Nope, it's not.

Did the majority make Mr. Castle's amendment in order to consider that? Nope, they didn't.

My colleague, Dr. Gingrey, a former member of the Rules Committee, added an amendment on the floor dealing with the personal leadership of PAC funds. That was not included in the bill, and his amendment was not made in order. Last year, with bipartisan support on the floor, we amended our bill, H.R. 4975, to say that Members who have leadership PACs cannot transfer those dollars into their own account for personal use, which is what can happen today. It is not allowed for principal campaign committee accounts, but that loophole which allows Members to transfer money from their leadership PAC for personal use is still going to be allowed. And the attempt to even offer an amendment to close that horrendous loophole was denied.

That is to say nothing of the other creative ideas that were summarily rejected by the Rules Committee majority last evening.

Mr. Speaker, if the bill which I sponsored last year was a sham, and as I said the chairman of the Rules Committee, although last night she said she never said it, seven times it is in the Congressional Record when she was offering her motion to recommit, if it was a sham, then this bill can only be characterized at this moment as being ``sub- sham,'' and our efforts to raise it to the level of a mere sham were rebuffed, unfortunately, in the Rules Committee.

Which brings me to the rule for this bill, Mr. Speaker. For all of the criticism the Republicans take for the way we administered the House, and we hear that constantly up in the Rules Committee and down here on the floor, it is notable this bill makes in order fewer amendments than we did when we considered our bill last year.

The rule for H.R. 4975, our lobbying bill, made in order nine amendments. This year, only five amendments were made in order. And while it gives Mr. Van Hollen an up-or-down vote on his so-called bundling disclosure bill, it doesn't attach it to the lobbying bill going to the Senate, making it much more difficult to ultimately reach passage.

Mr. Speaker, this rule and these bills are not unlike many of the so- called reforms instituted in this Congress, which means all show and no substance whatsoever.

For instance, our Democratic friends take credit for adopting and supposedly improving Republican earmark disclosure reforms. As Mr. Flake found out just last week, when it comes to actually trying to enforce those rules, the Rules Committee eliminated every avenue for a Member to bring this question before the House. On top of that, Mr. Flake had several amendments addressing lobbying for earmarks. Mr. Speaker, none of those amendments were made in order.

In the end, there is little in this bill that is truly objectionable. My friend from Tampa went through and outlined the provisions included in H.R. 4975 that passed this House a year ago this month with bipartisan support. Again, there is little that is truly objectionable. There is very little that is in this bill that is beyond what we had in the last Congress; and, unfortunately, it doesn't include or even provide an opportunity to provide amendments to include many of the items that were so important in this effort.

This bill takes no risk, reaches no heights, and falls short of the lofty promises made by my newly minted majority colleagues. Unfortunately, the rule is unacceptable in its current form, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to urge its defeat.

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

Mr. Speaker, we're all reformers today, and at this time I'm very happy to yield 2 minutes to a great reformer from Cherryville, North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my very dear friend for yielding, and I would simply say the reason we're calling for a ``no'' vote on the rule is that we should allow us to get to what I, as we now know, affectionately describe what the former minority leadership called the sham level. We need to at least get up to the level, and I'm very appreciative of the remarks that my friend has offered characterizing, I think correctly, my bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to a former member of the Rules Committee, our good friend from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the leader on the issue of earmark reform, the gentleman from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to clarify this once again, if I might.

So a private institution is not allowed to provide any kind of meal or support, tickets or things like that, but a public institution is able to?

So that won't be changed under this bill that we are considering right now. Am I correct in concluding that?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply say to my friend, the example of allowing a public institution to provide meals and tickets and all kinds of things while a private institution cannot do that underscores the fact that this issue needs to be addressed in a broad bipartisan way.

Now, in the exchange that I had with the distinguished Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary upstairs, he was happy to give it back over to us at the Rules Committee. We should have had an original jurisdiction hearing on a wide range of these issues that have not been addressed. In the last Congress, we held four original jurisdiction hearings on this issue. This year there have been none.

So I think that the point that my friend from Mesa is making, very correctly, is that he made a bipartisan attempt to the new majority leadership to try and address this and was rebuffed.

Everyone has recognized, I believe, certainly on our side of the aisle, and we did so when we were in the majority, that the issue of reform needs to be done in a bipartisan way. I know that on the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Smith, the ranking member, has worked with Chairman Conyers; but there are many of the rest of us who have been involved in this issue of reform who I believe should have been consulted, especially in light of a number of provisions that were included; and, in fact, one provision which is absolutely outrageous, no hearing whatsoever, it was literally snuck into this bill, dealing with the question of Members attending charitable events. No hearing, no consideration whatsoever. A piecemeal attempt to do this.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on the 29th of March, nearly 2 months ago, the minority leader, Mr. Boehner, sent a letter to the Speaker asking that she deal with these important questions which impact every single Member of this institution with a bipartisan panel. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to inform the House that Minority Leader Boehner has gotten no response to that letter that was sent nearly 2 months ago. So that is why we are concerned about this process.

Yes, the bill itself is one which included so much of what I was proud to include in H.R. 4975; does not get to that level. But I am urging opposition to this rule, as is Mr. Flake, as was Dr. Gingrey and others of my colleagues, so that we can try and improve this in a bipartisan way.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side? And then I would like to ask my colleague, she indicated she was the last speaker a few minutes ago, and then Mr. Doggett joined us.

So the gentlewoman is the last speaker?

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is on her feet and so I would actually like to engage her in a colloquy, if I might, and ask some questions. I would be more than happy to yield to my friend from Tampa.

I am very concerned about the ramifications of this measure, and I talked about the concern that I have over this issue of charitable events, and that this item was in a piecemeal way stuck into this rule, and I raised the issue of the letter.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for printing in the Record a copy of the letter that was sent by Mr. Boehner to my California colleague Speaker Pelosi. Mr. Speaker, the reason I do that is that there has been no response to this nearly 2-month-old letter; and I hope that maybe someone on the Speaker's staff will read the Congressional Record and see this request for a truly bipartisan approach to this issue.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, March 29, 2007.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House, U.S. Capitol,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi: The American people have every right

to expect the highest ethical standards here in the people's

House. Yet, less than three months into the 110th Congress it

has become clear that House ethics rules are hopelessly

broken. Members on both sides of the aisle are understandably

frustrated because they know you can't ``clean up Congress''

with confusing rules that are as difficult to comply with as

they are to enforce.

It is equally clear that until the ethics rules are

repaired through a genuinely bipartisan process, they will

continue to lack the credibility needed to ensure broad

compliance, effective enforcement and widespread public

acceptance.

As you know, sweeping changes to House ethics rules imposed

at the start of this Congress were drafted in secret by the

incoming Majority without consulting either the Minority or

the staff of the nonpartisan Ethics Committee. The new rules

were then rammed through the House with no opportunity to

carefully analyze the proposals or to improve them in any

way. The consequences of this ill-considered approach are now

being felt by Members and staff on both sides of the aisle:

A staffer may attend an evening reception hosted by a

corporation and consume shrimp, champagne, sliced filet and

canapes . . . but may not accept a slice of pizza or a $7 box

lunch provided by the very same

corporation at a policy briefing the next day. [see Ethics

Committee ``pink sheet'', Feb 6, 2007 (pp. 4-5)]

Although Members and staff may play in a $1,000 per person

charity golf tournament to benefit a local scholarship fund,

they are prohibited from similarly helping the American Red

Cross raise funds for Katrina victims by playing in its golf

tournament--solely because the Red Cross employs lobbyists.

[see Ethics Committee ``pink sheet'', Jan 19, 2007 (p. 7)]

In order to go on a ``first date'' with someone who happens

to be a lobbyist, a staffer must agree to pay for his or her

full share of the lunch or dinner, as well as anything else

of value, such as a movie, concert or ballgame. [see Ethics

Committee ``pink sneet'', Feb 6, 2007 (p.2)]

A Member may accept $200 tickets for the Final Four from

Ohio State (public university), but not $20 tickets to a

preseason game from Xavier University (private university).

[see Gifts & Travel, House Ethics Committee, April 2000 (p.

37)]

A Member may accept a $15 t-shirt or $20 hat from the Farm

Bureau, but not a $12 mug or mouse pad. Similarly, a $4 latte

is OK--but a $4 sandwich is not. [see Ethics Committee ``pink

sheet'', Feb 6, 2007 (p. 5)]

A Member who has his own airplane is prohibited from flying

it for any purpose--official, campaign or personal--even at

his own expense. [see Ethics Committee letter to Rep. Stevan

Pearce, Feb 16, 2007]

A staffer invited to a post-season barbecue for her

daughter's soccer team may not attend once she learns that it

will be held in the home of a player whose father is a

lobbyist. [see Ethics Committee ``pink sheet'', Feb 6, 2007

(p. 2)]

Although a Member may not accept dinner from a lobbyist who

uses his own funds or those of his firm, he may accept dinner

from the very same lobbyist using a credit card provided by

his state or local government clients. [see clause 5(a)(3)(O)

of House Rule XXV]

A corporate executive who is not a lobbyist may not use his

expense account to take a Member out to dinner, but may--in

many cases--take the same Member to dinner using his personal

funds. [see Ethics Committee ``pink sheet'', Feb 6, 2007 (p.

3)]

A Member may not take a privately-funded trip if a lobbyist

accompanies him to and from Washington; but the same Member

may spend five days in Brussels discussing global warming

with environmental group lobbyists--as long as none of them

are on the same flights to and from the meeting. [see Ethics

Committee ``pink sheet'', March 14, 2007 (p. 2)]

It's no surprise that Members deeply committed to following

the rules are confused and concerned by the current state of

disarray in the House.

Making matters worse, the chaos inflicted on Members and

staff by careless (or worse) Democrat rule writers has now

infected the legislative process as well. For example,

confusion over the proper application of congressional

earmark rules has made it possible for Democratic leaders to

certify as ``earmark free'' a multi-billion dollar Continuing

Resolution that any knowledgeable observer will confirm was

laden with them.

Moreover, the failure of the House Ethics Committee to

provide official guidance to Members seeking to comply with

newly adopted earmark ``conflict of interest'' rules until

after the deadline fix submission of earmark requests had

expired has unnecessarily disrupted the FY08 appropriations

process by delaying for more than a month processing of many

Member earmark requests, and complicated efforts to make the

earmark process more transparent.

This latter incident underscores the folly of Democrats

rushing to unilaterally impose complicated and contradictory

new rules on the House, and then denying an entirely

reasonable joint request by the Chairman and Ranking

Republican of the Ethics Committee for the additional

resources the panel needs to carry out its added

responsibilities to Members.

Sadly, Democrat leaders straining to legitimize their

campaign rhetoric have instead left Members--on both sides of

the aisle--more vulnerable than ever to violating rules that

are hard to define, riddled with logical inconsistencies, and

utterly unlikely to prevent the sort of abuses that have

properly sparked so much public outrage.

After all, few of the ``Culture of Corruption'' violations

by Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney--or alleged violations by

William Jefferson and Alan Mollohan--would have been

prevented had the recently passed ethics changes been in

effect last year.

Rather, the principled path to a more ethical Congress is

through clearcut, common sense rules that are widely

communicated and firmly enforced. And, as you and your fellow

Democrat leaders argued so persuasively during the last

Congress, the process of developing those rules must be

transparent and genuinely bipartisan.

To that end, I ask that you join me in appointing a

bipartisan working group tasked with analyzing House ethics

rules--and recommending fair, sensible and understandable

revisions that working group members believe would improve

both compliance and enforcement.

As with the Livingston-Cardin ethics task force in 1997,

the working group should be led by co-chairs and evenly

divided between majority and minority members. I propose that

it consist of six to eight members, including a member of the

ethics committee from each party (but neither its chairman

nor ranking minority member), one elected leader from each

party, and one or two additional Members from each side of

the aisle.

I further propose that we direct the working group to

report back its recommendations no later than July 1, 2007 to

allow time for the House to consider its proposed revisions

to the Rules of the House prior to the August recess.

Madam Speaker, I have been encouraged by recent public

statements made by you and members of your staff noting your

desire to correct evident problems with several of the new

rules. Thus, I hope you will commit to work constructively

with me to ensure that any revisions to the Code of Conduct

and other House rules are imbued with the sort of credibility

that you have often pointed out can only result from a

thoroughly bipartisan effort.

Sincerely,

John A. Boehner,

Republican Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask my colleague from Tampa to describe a term that is in this bill.

Now, one of the questions out there is that Members of Congress are often approached by people and considered for employment beyond their service in this institution. Now, in H.R. 4975, we were very specific in saying that when negotiation for compensation, and those are the exact words that we used in H.R. 4975, are included in the bill, then there has to be a letter to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct stating that that negotiating process has begun. So we had that exact term of ``negotiating for compensation.'' Those are the three words that we had in there.

Now, I would like to inquire of my friend from Tampa why it was in this measure that they went from ``negotiation for compensation'' to simply ``negotiation.'' And the reason I say that is a very sincere one.

The question naturally comes to mind, now, the gentlewoman from Tampa is new here and obviously not prepared to leave at this point. But there are people, Mr. Speaker, who may have been here for a while and people have decided they wanted to approach them.

Is it negotiation if it is simply said to that person, ``Gosh, we'd like you to consider going to work for us''? And so I am wondering if my friend might define this term ``negotiation'' for us. And I am happy to yield to the distinguished manager of this rule.

Mr. Speaker, if I might reclaim my time. And I do so to simply say, I was posing a question to my colleague, not asking for a campaign speech on what the American people sent us to do here in November. The fact is, Democrats and Republicans alike are committed to reform. I am very proud of the record we have had on reform, and I am honored to have had it praised by the distinguished Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary.

The question that I have is a very specific one: Why in this legislation did we go from the utilization of three words, ``negotiation for compensation,'' to this open-ended question of simply ``negotiation''?

I would be happy to further yield to my friend to elucidate us on that.

Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time. My question, and I will pose it again to my colleague from Tampa. The issue of negotiation for Members of Congress, the debate that we are having now is not about the message that was sent last November, it is not about Medicare part D. It is a question about the issue of lobbying and ethics reform in this institution. And obviously my colleague doesn't really have an answer to this question.

What it does do is it underscores the fact that it is absolutely essential that we deal with this issue in a responsible, bipartisan way to try to bring about some kind of resolution in here. And so I am very, very troubled with the way that this has been handled in a piecemeal way.

And so, Mr. Speaker, it is true that the effort is a valiant one. I congratulate and praise those who have been involved in it. And as I said in my opening remarks, it's very clear that reform is a work in progress. And we need to do more on the issue of reform. It's just that this bill is nowhere near the level of the bill that was passed under the Republican Congress. And I will say, I hope very much this institution will pass a bill that is even better than the one that I was privileged to author in the 109th Congress. And I believe that we could do better than we did in the 109th Congress. It's just that this measure, after all of this talk of reform, after all of this talk about the message sent last November, falls short of where we were in the last Congress, and that's why we are very troubled by this.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, so that when we succeed in defeating the previous question, I will be able to make in order an amendment that was offered that specifically provides greater disclosure and transparency and accountability which, again, are the three buzz words that are used around here: transparency, disclosure and accountability.

If, in fact, a Member is asking for an earmark, if a Member has been asked for an earmark by a lobbyist, under the amendment that I hope that we will be able to make in order, that Mr. Flake has propounded and unfortunately it was rejected by the Rules Committee, it would simply require that lobbying entity to disclose the fact that they have, in fact, made that in order.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to, just before the vote on the previous question, have printed in the Congressional Record a detailed explanation of the amendment that would require that lobbyists who make a request of a Member, that they call for an earmark to be made, that that information be made public. I believe that that, in and of itself, is a very, very modest but responsible thing that needs to be done in this effort to ensure greater transparency and disclosure.

So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the indulgence of the Chair to ask unanimous consent if I could reclaim my time. I didn't realize that my very distinguished colleague from Kentucky was here, and he had a very important question that he wanted to pose on this, and I'd ask unanimous consent to be able to reclaim my time and yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to my colleagues for their consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I will take my time now to applaud and thank both the chairman of the full committee Mr. Conyers, and the ranking member of the full committee, my colleague from Texas, Mr. Smith, and our former colleague Mr. Van Hollen for having a partnership between H.R. 2317 and H.R. 2316.

I think the first point I'd like to make is that as I have spent a lot of time in this first session, first couple of months, with a lot of visitors who have come to this Capitol, I've watched them look in awe, visit with their Member of Congress, and appreciate this most powerful law-making body that cherishes democracy and values integrity.

I know that visitors have a great sense of respect for their individual Members of Congress. I want you to know that that respect is well deserved. Your Member is hard-working. They cherish not only the democratic values of this Nation, but they pride themselves in promoting integrity and promoting your interests over their interests.

But sometimes we need a little cleanup. It does not mean that the whole body has disregarded the question of integrity and the question of ensuring your interests be put forth. But we have had some bumps in the road.

So we have projected two legislative initiatives that will separate out the interests at work of lobbyists. That is part of the Democratic process, but it will also provide an opportunity for voices to be heard, the right of the protections of the first amendment.

As it relates to the concept of bundling, which sounds like a very interesting and difficult word, that is the course of putting a number of financial contributions together. We will have a system that will work, that everyone who is here to put forward the interests of the American people, will, in fact, know that that is the first priority.

But we have a system that does not promote public finance. I would like to see us have a complete system of public financing. That means the taxpayers will contribute toward the presidential candidates, and they would not be able to opt out Federal congressional candidates, Senate and House. That will be a system dominated by the people.

But we don't have that system. So we have good-thinking people who want to contribute, and we have good people, good-thinking people who would receive. Let us not taint all of them.

But I rise to support these two initiatives, because they provide the open-door transparency that we need. I want to thank Chairman Conyers, first of all, for accepting my amendment that clearly stated that those advocacy groups that wanted to be heard, the right of the protections of the First Amendment.

Nothing in this bill denies any first amendment protection for expression or association. I know the leadership of Chairman Conyers on the issue of civil liberties, in complete, but I wanted to reaffirm this fact so that we know for sure, any Member coming to the floor to vote for this, they know their university or they know their place of faith, or they know the Boy Scouts or the Girl Scouts, or they know their various civil rights organizations will still have the opportunity to convey their voice with the assurance of first amendment protection.

I also want to thank Mr. Van Hollen for working with me to include language that I hope all Members will appreciate, and that is, as I stated earlier, that Members come here with the greatest sense of integrity and respect for their duty to the American people. So we provided a provision that instructs lobbyists to give notice to the Member of the list of items that they are going to file. That Member cannot, if you will, stop the list from being filed, but the Member will have the opportunity, the Member of Congress, to be able to read the list and make sure that it is accurate as it is being filed.

We will not stop the time from ticking, if you will, for the filing process, but we will make the system work better and provide for the participation by all of the impacted parties. The congressional Member will be allowed to receive the notice of this filing and have the opportunity to correct it, to make sure it is consistent with his or her files.

These are difficult times, because we all realize our ultimate responsibility is to the American people. We must put them over self. But my amendment in this bill, I believe, will help the open-door transparency proceed, family and I ask my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2317, the ``Lobbying Transparency Act of 2007.'' I rise in support of legislation that will help bring about the most open government and the most honest leadership in the history of the Congress. Most of the credit for this achievement goes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Van Hollen, for his tenacity in shepherding this legislation through the gamut that is the House legislative process.

In particular, Madam Speaker, I wish to commend Mr. Van Hollen and the Rules Committee for agreeing to incorporate my friendly amendment to H.R. 2316. Let me describe the bill and explain why I believe the incorporation of the Jackson-Lee amendment improves the bill to the point where it warrants the support of the members of this body.

H.R. 2316 requires registered lobbyists to provide quarterly reports to the House clerk and secretary of the Senate regarding the ``bundled'' contributions totaling more than $5,000 in a quarter that they provide to a covered recipient.

``Bundled contributions'' are contributions that are received by a registered lobbyist and forwarded to a covered recipient, or contributions that are otherwise credited or attributed to a lobbyist through records, designations or other means of tracking, such as placing the lobbyist's name on a check's memo line or using another symbol. The bill's definition of ``covered recipients'' applies to federal candidates, federal officeholders, leadership political action committees or political party committees.

The required reports would disclose the name of the lobbyist, the name of his or her

employer, and the name of the covered recipient to whom the contributions were given, as well as the amount of the contributions made or a good-faith estimate thereof. The report would be due within 45 days of the end of the quarterly period. These reports would not include certain information that is included in other required disclosure reports. Within 25 days of the end of a quarterly reporting period, the registered lobbyist is to send a notification by certified mail to a covered recipient outlining the information that will be included in the lobbyists' report, and the source of each contribution.

For all its good intentions, for many members these provisions are problematic. There is a legitimate concern that the information the lobbyist might report to the Clerk or Secretary of the Senate may be inaccurate or incomplete which may later be disclosed to the public causing untold problems or embarrassment to the covered recipient. The amendment that I offered, and which has been incorporated into the bill, assuages that concern.

The Jackson-Lee amendment requires that the statement which a covered registered lobbyist must provide to the recipient also shall include a notification that the recipient has the right to respond to the statement to challenge and correct any information included before the registered lobbyist files the report with the Clerk of the House or Secretary of the Senate.

The inclusion of this provision will reduce the likelihood that the recipient will be unduly prejudiced by the disclosure of inaccurate information by giving the recipient notice and opportunity to identify, and the lobbyist the opportunity to correct, inaccurate information regarding bundled contributions.

In sum, H.R. 2317 now will help ensure that the salutary objectives of the legislation are achieved without reaping the unintended consequence of prejudicing a recipient--whether he or she be an office holder or candidate for federal office--by the disclosure of inaccurate or incomplete information.

Madam Speaker, all of us favor open government. All of us favor honest leadership. And all of us are in favor of transparency of process. But we also believe in fundamental fairness. And that includes fairness to those who seek to exercise their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and of association, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

That is why I offered, and the Judiciary Committee, approved my amendment during markup that provides a rule of construction that nothing in H.R. 2316 is intended or is to be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech, free exercise, or free association clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The Jackson-Lee amendment incorporated in H.R. 2317 is intended to ensure fair treatment to elected office holders and candidates for federal office.

Again, let me thank Mr. Van Hollen for his fine work in crafting this legislation. Let me also thank the members of the Rules Committee incorporating my amendment into H.R. 2317. I urge all members to support this legislation. It will be another step in the right direction toward fulfilling our promise to the American people to drain the swamp and return open government, honest leadership, and transparency to the legislative process.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2316, the ``Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.'' With the adoption of this legislation, we begin to make good on our pledge to ``drain the swamp'' and end the ``culture of corruption'' that pervaded the 109th Congress.

It is critically important that we adopt the reforms contained in H.R. 2316 because Americans are paying for the cost of corruption in Washington with skyrocketing prices at the pump, spiraling drug costs, and the waste, fraud and no-bid contracts in the Gulf Coast and Iraq for administration cronies.

The cozy relationship between Congress and special interests we saw during the 109th resulted in serious lobbying scandals, such as those involving Republican super lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In this scandal, a former congressman pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit fraud-- accepting all-expense-paid trips to play golf in Scotland and accepting meals, sports and concert tickets, while providing legislative favors for Abramoff's clients.

But that is not all. Under the previous Republican leadership of the House, lobbyists were permitted to write legislation, 15-minute votes were held open for hours, and entirely new legislation was sneaked into signed conference reports in the dead of night.

The American people registered their disgust at this sordid way of running the Congress last November and voted for reform. Democrats picked up 30 seats held by Republicans and exit polls indicated that 74 percent of voters cited corruption as an extremely important or a very important issue in their choice at the polls.

Ending the culture of corruption and delivering ethics reform is one of the top priorities of the new majority of House Democrats. That is why as our first responsibility in fulfilling the mandate given the new majority by the voters, Democrats are offering an aggressive ethics reform package. We seek to end the excesses we witnessed under the Republican leadership and to restore the public's trust in the Congress of the United States.

Madam Speaker, federal lobbying is a multi-billion dollar industry, and spending to influence members of Congress and executive branch officials has increased greatly in the last decade. While the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA) is one of the main laws to promote transparency and accountability in the federal lobbying industry and represents the most comprehensive overhaul of the laws regulating lobbying practices in 50 years prior to 1995, it falls far short of a complete solution, as even recognized by its staunchest supporters, during congressional hearings on the issue.

The need for further reform was highlighted by a major study of the federal lobbying industry published in April 2006 by the Center for Public Integrity, which found that since 1998, lobbyists have spent nearly $13 billion to influence members of Congress and other federal officials on legislation and regulations. The same study found that in 2003 alone, lobbyists spent $2.4 billion, with expenditures for 2004 estimated to grow to at least $3 billion. This is roughly twice as much as the already vast amount that was spent on federal political campaigns in the same time period.

The LDA contains a number of measures to help prevent inappropriate influence in the lobbying arena and promote sunshine on lobbying activities. However, according to the Center's study, compliance with these requirements has been less than exemplary. For example, the report found: during the last 6 years, 49 out of the top 50 lobbying firms have failed to file one or more of the required forms; nearly 14,000 documents that should have been filed are missing; almost 300 individuals, companies, or associates have lobbied without ng registered; more than 2,000 initial registrations were filed after the legal deadline; and in more than 2,000 instances, lobbyists never filed the required termination documents at all.

Under the LDA, the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House must notify in writing any lobbyist or lobbying firm of noncompliance with registration and reporting requirements, and they must also notify the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia of the noncompliance if the lobbyist or lobbying firm fails to respond within 60 days of its notification. It appears that until very recently, however, these cases of noncompliance were not being referred to the Department of Justice for enforcement. It is also clear that the infractions that are actually being investigated by the Secretary or the Clerk do not coincide with the extent of noncompliance, and it is entirely unknown whether enforcement actions are being effectively pursued by the Department of Justice. Clearly, further reform is needed.

Madam Speaker, I commend Chairman Conyers and the members of the Judiciary Committee for their excellent work in preparing this lobbying reform package. The reforms contained in the package are tough but not nearly too tough for persons elected to represent the interests of the 600,000 constituents in their congressional districts. Indeed, similar bipartisan lobbying and government reform proposals were debated and passed by the House and Senate in 2006 but the Congress failed to reconcile the two versions.

Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 2316 because it closes the ``Revolving Door,'' requires full public disclosure of lobbying activities, provides tougher enforcement of lobbying restrictions, and requires increased disclosure.

H.R. 2316 closes the ``Revolving Door'' by retaining the current 1- year ban on lobbying by former members and senior staff and requires them to notify the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct within 3 days of engaging in any negotiations or reaching any agreements regarding future employment or salary. The members' notification will be publicly disclosed.

The bill also requires members and senior staff to recuse themselves during negotiations regarding future employment from any matter in which there is a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict.

Madam Speaker, this legislation also ends the ``K Street Project,'' made notorious during the 12 years of Republican control of Congress. Members and senior staff are prohibited from influencing employment decisions or practices of private entities for partisan political gain. Violators of this provision will be fined or imprisoned for a term of up to 15 years.

Second, H.R. 2316 requires full public disclosure of lobbying activities by strengthening lobbying disclosure requirements. It does this by mandating quarterly, rather than semiannual, disclosure of lobbying reports. It covers more lobbyists by reducing the contribution thresholds from $5,000 to $2,500 in income

from lobbying activities and from $20,000 to $10,000 in total lobbying expenses. It also reduces the contribution threshold of any organization other than client that contributes to lobbying activities to $5,000 ($10,000 under current law).

Third, the legislation increases disclosure of lobbyists' contributions to lawmakers and entities controlled by lawmakers, including contributions to members' charities, to pay the cost of events or entities honoring members, contributions intended to pay the cost of a meeting or a retreat, and contributions disclosed under FECA relating to reports by conduits.

Fourth, the bill requires the House Clerk to provide public Internet access to lobbying reports within 48 hours of electronic filing and requires that the lobbyist/employing firm provide a certification or disclosure report attesting that it did not violate House/Senate gift ban rules. And it makes it a violation of the LDA for a lobbyist to provide a gift or travel to a member/officer or employee of Congress with knowledge that the gift or travel is in violation of House/Senate rules.

Transparency is increased by the requirements in the bill that lobbyists disclose past Executive and Congressional employment and that lobbying reports be filed electronically and maintained in a searchable, downloadable database. For good reason, the bill also requires disclosure of lobbying activities by certain coalitions but expressly exempts 501(c) and 527 organizations.

Finally, Madam Speaker, H.R. 2316 increases civil penalties for violation of the Lobby Disclosure Act from $50,000 to $100,000 and adds a criminal penalty of up to 5 years for knowing and corrupt failure to comply. Finally, the bill requires members to prohibit their staff from having any official contact with the member's spouse who is a registered lobbyist or is employed or retained by such an individual and establishes a public database of member Travel and Personal Financial Disclosure Forms.

Madam Speaker, it is wholly fitting and proper that at the beginning of this new 110th Congress, the Members of this House, along with all of the American people, paid fitting tribute to the late President Gerald R. ``Jerry'' Ford, a former leader in this House, who did so much to heal our Nation in the aftermath of Watergate. Upon assuming the presidency, President Ford assured the Nation: ``My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.'' By his words and deeds, President Ford helped turn the country back on the right track. He will be forever remembered for his integrity, good character, and commitment to the national interest.

This House today faces a similar challenge. To restore public confidence in this institution we must commit ourselves to being the most honest, most ethical, most responsive, most transparent Congress in history. We can end the nightmare of the last 6 years by putting the needs of the American people before those of the lobbyists and special interests. To do that, we can start by adopting H.R. 2316.

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

Madam Chairman, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act reported out of the Committee on the Judiciary on a bipartisan basis builds on the work of the last Congress to make long-needed reforms to the Lobby Disclosure Act and related rules and law.

The legislation before us today, right now, reflects the give and take of the legislative process incorporating proposals of Members on both sides of the aisle, both on and off the Judiciary Committee. At the end of the day, I believe that we have a measure that represents a very significant improvement over current law.

By emphasizing increased disclosure and enforcement, the bill is defined to effect practical change in the way that lobbying efforts are reported and monitored. It accomplishes this without infringing upon our first amendment rights as citizens to petition our government for redress of grievances.

The measure before us effects important changes in three areas: Prohibition of unethical conduct, increased disclosure, and enhanced penalties.

First, it ends the practice of Members attempting to use their power to influence private lobbyist hiring decisions. It does it by prohibiting Members and senior staff from influencing hiring decisions or practices of private entities for partisan political gain. Violations can result in not only fines, but imprisonment for up to 15 years.

Second, this measure now under consideration provides for greater disclosure. It requires the disclosure of lobbying activities by many coalitions, as well as the past executive branch and congressional employment of registered lobbyists. It also requires lobbyists to file more detailed reports disclosing their contacts with Congress, as well as certifications that the lobbyist did not give a gift or pay for travel in violation of the rules. These reports are to be filed electronically and more frequently, quarterly rather than semiannually, and they will be made available to the public for free over the Internet in a timely fashion.

Finally, the legislation provides for stronger enforcement. This measure significantly increases the penalties for noncompliance with Lobbying Disclosure Act requirements. Civil penalties are increased from the current $50,000 per violation to $100,000, and there are new criminal penalties for knowing, willful and corrupt violations, with potential sentences of imprisonment up to 5 years.

The recent round of lobbying scandals demonstrates that fundamental change is needed. The legislation before us today helps to reform the lobbying process and provides us with an opportunity to begin to rebuild confidence in Congress.

I believe that this legislation represents a realistic approach that strengthens current law to restore accountability in the Congress. This bill is not about any one Member or any one political party. It is about restoring the American people's trust in all of us.

Madam Chairman, it is now time for us to act. We are a few months late in getting around to this measure, but I am sure with the cooperation of Members on both sides of the aisle, we will succeed in our endeavor to raise the integrity of the Congress and restore the American people's trust in all of us.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Space).

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I want to say to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) that his work on this measure in the Judiciary Committee was very important to us, and on both sides of the aisle, I think we acknowledge and thank you for your contributions.

Madam Chair, I am honored to recognize now the distinguished majority leader, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, for 1 minute.

Madam Chairman, as you know, the first part of our three-prong attempt in increasing disclosure and enforcement is, of course, trying to influence private lobbyists' hiring decisions.

And in terms of parking issues, that is not involved in this measure because the subject matter does not come to the Judiciary Committee, but it does come to the House Administration Committee, where I think there is important discussion going on about this issue that you raise about parking, even as we speak. But it was not considered in the Judiciary Committee.

Yes, that is absolutely correct, and it's an important point, though. We can't extend these benefits to even former Members who have become lobbyists. They have to be carefully considered by Members. As a matter of fact, prerogatives of Members, as the gentleman knows, is being limited and is getting harder and harder to become available even to active Members of the House of Representatives.

Madam Chairman, we are happy to have Mr. Rahm Emanuel, the gentleman from Illinois, who is recognized for as much time as he may consume, not to exceed 3 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I cautiously yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois.

Madam Chair, I close the general debate by merely observing that this has been healthy. We are working under time constraints. I appreciate both gentlemen from Illinois and California in their exchanges and reflecting back on how we got to where we are. But we are moving forward now, and we are all concerned that this 110th Congress do everything in its power to make up for the lack of transparency and enforcement that may have taken place in an earlier period of time.

In the last few months, we have worked to address these concerns and begin to restore the trust in the Congress, as we promised our voters that we would last November. So this is an important bipartisan start. It is not the end of reform in this area. As everyone knows, it really doesn't have an end.

Madam Chair, it is in that spirit of expediting this process that I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

I thank the Chair.

Members of the House, this is merely a truly technical revision to H.R. 2316. Sometimes technical amendments aren't really only technical. This one is, because all it does is clarify the application of the bill's provisions regarding the posting of financial disclosure forms on the Internet.

The amendment makes clear that Members may omit personally identifiable information not required to be disclosed from travel and personal financial disclosure forms before these

forms are submitted to the House Clerk for posting on the Internet. It ensures that the bill's heightened disclosure requirements do not become potential fodder for identity theft or any other inappropriate processes or purposes. It also directs the Clerk to detail the procedures for protecting personally identifiable information to Members.

I am indebted to one of our committee members in particular, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Louie Gohmert, for working with us to ensure that Members receive proper guidance regarding the information that they are required to provide, as well as the information they are not required to provide.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, the former chairman of the Rules Committee has put forward a good, commonsense amendment. It was one that I recognized to have been in his previous legislation. As a matter of fact, it's improved. And there is absolutely no reason for us to have any reservations about it. I commend the gentleman. It's a good addition to H.R. 2316. And as Justice Brandeis said famously, ``Sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant.'' And this is a sunlight amendment if I've ever seen one.

What we want to do is make this more understandable to the American people and to the Members of Congress as well, and so I'm very pleased to accept the amendment.

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

Madam Chairwoman, as the designee of the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), I offer the amendment that is now at the desk.

Madam Chairman, Members of the House, this is an amendment originally proposed by the gentleman from Hawaii, and it is designed to ensure that the decisions made by government officials aren't tainted by the prospect of private gain after they leave public office. That was one of the very first of our goals in this entire bill, to end the practice of Members attempting to use their power to influence private lobbyists' hiring decisions.

This amendment furthers that objective by extending the conflict of interest standards to generals and flag officers of the Armed Forces who serve as top decision-makers in their respective services. It only applies to contracts greater than $50 million in size, and it mandates a cooling-off period for 1 year.

Now, we have a huge military budget, a growing one, and unfortunately, many questions have arisen in recent years about the manner in which some of these contracts have been negotiated. Some have even received prison sentences as a result of serious conflicts of interest that occurred during the conduct of these negotiations.

Each of these contracts involving military people affect the security of our Nation, the welfare of our men and women in uniform, and the public trust of the taxpayers. The provision of the gentleman from Hawaii will ensure that there is not even the appearance of a conflict. It will provide an assurance that the public's defense dollars are spent on the security of our Nation and the welfare of our troops rather than from private gain from our top military officials. It's a measure that the gentleman from Hawaii has discussed with me in great detail. And I urge its favorable consideration.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Madam Chairman, I am very delighted to accept this amendment. It expresses a sense of Congress that is perfectly consistent with what we are doing. I am pleased to accept it, and we can move on to the next amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and I ask unanimous consent to speak in favor of it.

I would just like my friend to know that this amendment meets with our standards. I want to commend the gentleman from California, because it allows judges to deal effectively and appropriately with extraordinary abuses of public trust, and that does not have any mandatory conditions to it whatsoever. I am pleased to accept it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. Speaker, this is a level of hutzpah tonight to have Jack Abramoff's name being brought up by the Republicans, which is why we are on the floor here legislating. This is what brought it all on. I am so delighted that you chose to give it the right name.

Now let's be reasonable about this. We have not had the opportunity to even get the vaguest idea of what this recommit motion was about. And I ask my colleague, as one who has worked with the Judiciary Committee Republicans without exception, what is wrong with 5 minutes notice about it? We got no notice, and so we had to waste 435 Members' time until we could find out what was in the motion to recommit. I just ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, particularly the leadership because I don't ascribe this to Lamar Smith, the ranking member, at all. But let's get to the substance.

From our brief review of what we could hear and read about this matter, this motion to recommit deals with several issues: The ability of the State and local governments and Indian tribes to make gifts, a new revolving door limitation on former lobbyists, a requirement that lobbyists disclose when they are lobbying on earmarks, and new restrictions on bundling.

Now I wish we had time to review the motion in detail. But I have worked hard to make this process bipartisan and will continue to do so.

My inclination is to accept this amendment today; and I will tell you why, we have no objection to combining the bundling provisions with the rest of the lobbying disclosures. They do go together. We started out this process, and we thought it would appeal to more Members, but if now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle wish to combine them, I find no objection with it. It gives us one bill. We can go into conference and we will work our way there. This chairman has at least a 50 percent chance of becoming the conference chairman.

So, without any further ado, we accept the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 2316, back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I oppose the amendment.

But let me ask your side. I had an amendment to say that CIA station chiefs and people who were ambassadors cannot go out and work for the Khartoum government. Many on your side talk about the genocide in Darfur. I have been before the Rules Committee three times, and I have never had an amendment made in order. Now you give him an amendment, which may be a good amendment or maybe not, but I don't get any opportunity to offer my amendment.

Many on your side say, we are concerned about Darfur. This would have done more. There was a CIA station chief who left the CIA, working for the Khartoum government, and you would not even allow us to offer an amendment. Yet you go to the rallies and you speak out against Darfur.

I rise in opposition this amendment, and I rise against the activity of the Rules Committee. You all are pushing too much. And you are pushing people on this side.

I am pointing at the Rules Committee. I am pointing at everybody on this side who would not give me an amendment to stop the genocide in Darfur.

Madam Chairman, I continue to grow more and more frustrated that my side of the aisle is not being heard.

I have been to the Rules Committee no less than three times this year--most recently last night--seeking amendments to bills coming before the House. Each time I have offered substantive changes, aimed at improving legislation. I have not been offering partisan amendments that would gut bills.

The amendment I sought to have debated as part of this bill would have closed the revolving door on former ambassadors and CIA station chiefs from representing countries in which they served for five years. Currently, an ambassador can leave the service of the United States one day and be hired the very next as an agent of foreign nation where they had served. These officials see every decision the United States makes in relation to that country. They have access to intelligence, policy documents and other confidential information. But under today's rules, the day they leave they have every legal right to use that same information on behalf of a foreign nation. These are people who have been entrusted with great responsibility. And they don't always work in the most friendliest of countries, or countries who have the United States best interests at heart.

My amendment would have ended this practice. Regrettably, it wasn't ruled in order, yet Mr. Abercrombie's amendment, which aimed at closing the revolving door for flag and general officers from going to work for huge defense companies, was. I don't understand. Your side talks about wanting to work in a bipartisan fashion. I don't see it. My amendment drives at the same thing as Mr. Abercrombie's, yet was roundly dismissed. This issue has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat. It has to do with what is right.

Last year I learned that a former State Department official and former CIA station chief, trained at the expense of the American taxpayer, were lobbying on behalf of Sudan, the same government that is playing a role in the genocide in Darfur.

No other government is a more established enemy of human dignity. Not only is the government widely linked to organizing and arming militias who have raped and killed innocent women, men and children, pillaged villages and displaced millions in Darfur, the Khartoum government gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden from 1991 to 1996 and allows the terrorist group Hamas to operate within its borders.

We all say we want to end the genocide yet we have no problem with rogue govermnents hiring Washington-based lobbyists. Yet the Rules Committee won't allow an amendment barring former high ranking diplomats and CIA station chiefs from representing country's like Sudan.

Don't even get me started on Saudi Arabia, where not just one, but several former ambassadors to Saudi Arabia have been on the Kingdom's payroll.

Severe human rights abuses and religious persecution are status quo in Saudi Arabia. Our own State Department has flatly said religious freedom does not exist in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Wahhabi doctrine, which is at the root of our global war on terror, is taught and encouraged by Saudi Arabia.

Read the attached piece from CQ that ran in February of 2006 about former U.S. Ambassadors to Saudi Arabia--the home to 15 of the 19 al Qaeda hijackers--who have or are presently on retainer by the Saudi government. It is extremely troubling.

During the Reagan Administration no lobbyist would have dared to even suggest representing a country like the Soviet Union. The clients signed up by some in the lobbying business today are among the world's most unsavory governments, including major human rights abusers and direct threats like China.

It saddens me to learn that reputable Washington lobbying firms take up the mantle of a Chinese state-run entity in their efforts to ``merge'' with a private American company. Is there no consideration given to the fact that the Chinese government poses a national security threat to the United States, including an organized spy network, which I have heard described in great detail in FBI briefings?

China blatantly disrespects free trade norms and intellectual property law. It persistently violates human rights, imprisoning and torturing Catholic priests, Protestant house church leaders, Tibetan Buddhists, Uyghur Muslims, and Falun Gong practitioners. China consistently stifles political dissent and free expression. Yet, big K Street firms don't think twice about representing them.

Nor do they think twice about the fact that China is providing guns and ammunition to the government of Sudan, which is complicit in the genocide that is taking place in Dafur. More than 450,000 people have died and China has done nothing to stop the violence. The PRC, in fact, is helping fuel the violence.

Sadly, we didn't get to debate this today. I hope in the future that the Rules Committee, and your side, will look at the aim of the amendment before just dismissing them out of hand.

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

Much Longer

(By Jeff Stein, National Security Editor)

Back in August 2002, a congressional delegation was

traveling around Saudi Arabia, home to 15 of the 19 al Qaeda

hijackers who less than a year earlier had launched the Sept.

11 attacks on the United States.

On one leg of the trip, in a big, white embassy van,

Republican Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan, a former

FBI agent, turned to the U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia,

Robert Jordan. He asked Jordan, in light of how the Sept. 11

attacks had revealed the Saudis' role in nurturing al Qaeda-

connected charities and religious schools, whether Jordan, a

big-time Houston oil and gas lawyer, would be the first U.S.

ambassador to not go to work for the Saudis after leaving his

post.

Jordan, who had George W. Bush as a client before he went

to the White House, considered Rogers' question for a moment,

and then politely declined to ``take the pledge,'' according

to a witness who recalled the episode.

Not that it mattered: Jordan's firm, Baker Botts LLP--that

would be James A. Baker

III, secretary of State in the first Bush administration and

lawyer for the second Bush in the 2000 Florida election

deadlock--already had a host of business clients in the royal

kingdom, with offices in Riyadh and Dubai.

In any event, Jordan in 2003 joined the long list of U.S.

ambassadors and other former American officials working

directly or indirectly for the Saudi royal family.

Rogers last week introduced a bill that would bar federal

employees from representing foreign governments for four

years after they leave public service. Also last week, the

House overwhelmingly approved a resolution (H. Res. 648) that

sharply curtails lobbyists by foreign agents on the House

floor.

Representative Frank R. Wolf, R-Va., plans similar

legislation, but more narrowly targeted diplomatic and

intelligence officials. He called the practice of

ambassadors--and former CIA officials--representing the

Saudis, or other governments where they had worked,

``scandalous.''

``It's a great honor to be an American ambassador, to

represent the United States,'' Wolf said by telephone. ``And

we have some great ambassadors. But with that, to whom much

is given, much is required.''

Reached in Houston, Jordan said he doesn't remember ``all

the details of that conversation,'' but added: ``At that time

I certainly didn't have any intention of representing Saudi

interests. It was premature in any event, because I was still

pretty much in office.''

Pressed further, he said, ``I remember someone bringing it

up, and it may well have been Congressman Rogers.''

Rogers declined to comment on the matter.

Actually, it would be big news if a senior U.S. diplomat in

the Middle East did not accept the warm embrace of the Saudis

or other despots upon leaving the region.

They are sprinkled all over Washington, particularly in

such well-known Saudi-supported think tanks as the Middle

East Institute (MEI).

Two former American ambassadors to Saudi Arabia lead the

MEI--Wyche Fowler Jr. (chairman) and Edward Walker

(president). Former ambassador to the United Arab Emirates

and deputy assistant secretary for the Near East David Mack

is MEI's vice president. Also at MEI is Richard Parker,

former ambassador to Algeria, Lebanon, and Morocco, and

Michael Sterner, former ambassador to UAE and deputy

assistant secretary of Near Eastern Affairs.

Chas. W. Freeman Jr., another former U.S. ambassador to the

kingdom, is president of the Saudi-backed Middle East Policy

Council. Another ambassador, Walter Cutler, leads the Saudi-

backed Meridian International Center.

From the Saudi point of view, all this is a good thing.

The legendary former Saudi ambassador to Washington Prince

Bandar bin Sultan was quoted in The Washington Post a few

years back as saying, ``If the reputation then builds that

the Saudis take care of friends when they leave office, you'd

be surprised how much better friends you have who are just

coming into office.''

Rogers' bill would prohibit U.S. officials from leaving

office and lobbying ``on behalf of any foreign entity.''

Wolf's bill ``will be much more narrow, focused primarily

on ambassadors and [CIA] station chiefs,'' said an aide.

Wolf is concerned about Saudi Arabia's influence. But he's

also watching China.

Last July he sent a blistering letter to the Washington

powerhouse firm of Akin Gump, which represented the China

National Offshore Oil Corp. during some of its aggressive

takeover bids here last year. One of its partners was a

member of the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory

Board.

``That's just not appropriate,'' Wolf said.

We don't have a vote on it, and it was not made in order. I can't bring it up. And the genocide continues.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 437 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 2317, the Lobbying Transparency Act of 2007, and H.R. 2316, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.

The resolution provides that H.R. 2317 is to be considered under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule waives all points of order against the bill and its consideration, except for those arising under clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.

The resolution also provides for consideration of H.R. 2316, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule waives all points of order against the bill and its consideration, except those arising under clauses 9 or 10 of rule XXI.

The rule makes in order and provides the appropriate waivers for five amendments, three by Democratic Members and two by Republican Members.

Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 and the Lobbying Transparency Act as well and this rule.

The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act continues the new direction charted by this new Congress and builds upon the strongest ethics reforms ever adopted in the United States Congress.

Last November, the Congress was reinvigorated by the election of a large number of new Members, who were sent here by the American people to fight for reform and change and to sweep aside a previous Congress that was defined by scandal and corruption.

On the first day of this new Congress, the new reform-minded Members, under the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rules Committee Chair Louise Slaughter, ushered in the broadest ethics and lobbying revisions since the Watergate era. The ethics watchdog group Public Citizen called the new ethics rules sweeping in scope and a signal that the Democratic majority in the House appears committed to serious lobbying and ethics reform.

Those new rules include a ban on gifts from lobbyists and organizations that employ lobbyists, a ban on trips that are privately funded by lobbyists and organizations that employ lobbyists, prohibition on Members and staff flying on private corporate jets, an end to the K Street Project, and a new requirement that all earmarks with congressional sponsors be disclosed to the public.

Then 3 weeks after the adoption of that very broad and aggressive ethics reform rules package, the House acted again on ethics reform and stripped the congressional pensions of Members of Congress who commit any of a number of crimes during their tenure, including bribery, conspiracy and perjury.

This new Congress took that direct action to change the culture of Congress at a time when Members of the previous Congress were pleading guilty to living off gifts they had received from lobbyists in exchange for votes and earmarks. Through our bold and expanding ethics package, this new Congress is tackling the cozy relationships between lobbyists and lawmakers.

Next, Mr. Speaker, these bills that we will consider today, the one for open government and honest leadership and transparency in lobbying, and this rule, provide rigorous new requirements for lobbyist disclosure and enforcement of lobbying laws and regulations.

Mr. Speaker, we don't adopt reforms for reform's sake alone. We adopt these reforms and we fight for change because it matters to our constituents and our neighbors back home.

For over a year I have been sitting down with seniors trying to work through the disaster of Medicare part D that was crafted in the last Congress. Fortunately, this bill adds a House rule prohibiting Members and senior staff from negotiating future employment or salaries and requires public recusal of Members on any matters where there may be a conflict of interest.

You see, Mr. Speaker, that Medicare part D that is so costly and confusing to our seniors and puts all the benefit on the side of HMOs and Big Pharma, and puts all of the burden on our seniors, was crafted by a Member of Congress who, shortly thereafter, after he helped write the Medicare drug bill, went on to become the head lobbyist for PhRMA in what I think was a crass violation of the public trust. Fortunately, this bill will tackle that problem.

This bill also makes it a Federal crime for Members and senior staff to influence employment decisions or practices of private entities for partisan political gain. Some people have called this the K Street Project. The K Street Project was an initiative by the Republican Party to pressure Washington lobbying firms to hire Republicans in top positions and to reward loyal GOP lobbyists with access to influential officials.

The bill also requires quarterly instead of semiannual disclosure of lobbying reports. It requires in the age of the Internet for lobbying reports to be filed electronically and be made available in a free, searchable, downloadable database within 48 hours of being filed.

It also requires the Clerk of the House to post travel disclosures on the Internet. This follows the scandals of Jack Abramoff. We must allow greater transparency into the trips and financial holdings of Members of Congress. Former Members of Congress took lavish trips to Scotland with a lobbyist that had minimal disclosure, and these new provisions will bring more such light to congressional disclosure forms.

Through this legislation we will also increase civil and criminal penalties for failure to comply with lobbying disclosure requirements. And it does much, much more.

Mr. Speaker, we must continue to fight for high ethical standards in government to end the culture of corruption in Washington so that our neighbors and folks we represent know they can count on us to stand up for them against powerful special interests and trust that congressional Members work in the public interest.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the ethics reformer of Ohio and my colleague on the Rules Committee, Ms. Sutton.

Mr. Speaker, I am very honored to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman has closed for his side.

That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

Well, my interest, Mr. Speaker, is keeping this legislation on track. The American people spoke loud and clear in November. They called on us to fight for reform and change.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act and the Lobbying Transparency Act and this rule. Citizens deserve open and honest leadership. We must stay on track with lobbying reform. And after the scandals in past years, we will continue the fight for reform and change so that the American people trust that Members of Congress are making decisions that benefit our communities and our country, and not some powerful special interest with undue influence.

Unfortunately, there has been a price to pay for the culture of corruption. You can see it when you gas up at the pump. Big Oil has gotten millions and billions in tax breaks, while people that we represent pay higher gas prices. And in Florida, the big oil companies have been granted a right to drill off our beautiful coastline.

You can see it when our seniors are pushed into privatized Medicare. The HMOs get a slush fund, and seniors pay more for health care.

You can see it when students and their families pay more for student loans because of sweetheart deals. The special interests get tax breaks, and our kids pay off higher debt.

Mr. Speaker, today we will keep our promise to the American people to fight for change and reform. When our neighbors and the folks back home send us to Washington, they rightly expect their representatives to act in the public interest and not in the interest of well-paid lobbyists with undue influence.

I urge my colleagues to build on the strongest ethics reform ever adopted in the Congress, what we started on day one in this new Congress.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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

I object.