Supporting the goals and ideals of Sudden Cardiac Arrest Awareness Day.

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.

I thank my very good friend from San Antonio for yielding.

Madam Chairman, I have to say, I was just downstairs listening to the remarks of my very good friend from Chicago (Mr. Emanuel). It really saddens me to hear the politicization of this issue.

The gentleman from Detroit, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, has done a phenomenal job, from my perspective, in recognizing the challenges that we face, the fact that we're working to address this issue in a bipartisan way now, he has worked with Mr. Smith on this issue. We went beyond our debate on the rule issue, and I said that I believe that the legislation that we had that is before us is not nearly as strong as the legislation that we were proud to have worked on in the 109th Congress, but we are what we are today.

As I listened to my friend from Chicago (Mr. Emanuel) talk about this legislation as being the most sweeping reform since the Watergate era, I would encourage my friend to simply take a look at H.R. 4975, the legislation that we passed in the last Congress. It was dramatically stronger on the area of transparency, disclosure and accountability than the legislation that's before us.

I wasn't going to make these remarks, but it saddens me, as I listened to the speeches that have been given. Mr. Smith has spoken very eloquently about the need to address a wide range of these issues, as has the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

If one were to listen to this debate, one could only conclude that the issue of ethics and the challenges of ethics in this institution are one-sided, that only the Republican Party has faced any ethical challenges.

Now, I am not going to get into enumerating and throwing out the names. We keep hearing the name Jack Abramoff talked about time and time again. And it's very easy, and the chairman of the committee knows very well, it's very easy for us to now stand here and begin pointing fingers and talking about blame on the other side of the aisle. But I think it's unfortunate. It's an unfortunate thing to see this gross politicization.

The 1994 class came here with a goal of changing the Congress, and, you know, they changed these individuals. All of that stuff is sad and tired political rhetoric and nothing more than that. We are in the midst of the legislative process at this moment. I think it's been widely recognized that the bill that is before us is not nearly as strong as the measure that we passed with bipartisan support, even though it was described as a sham in the last Congress.

I have been joking back and forth with the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, I see this bill as being sub-sham. I am going to vote for this bill at the end of the day. It basically doesn't have the teeth in it on transparency, disclosure and accountability that we passed in the last Congress. That bill was described by the Chair of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, seven times in the debate that we had last year as a sham, and there were others in the Democratic leadership who described it as a sham.

I am not going to characterize this legislation in a disparaging manner, other than to say that it has not come up to that level.

I am happy to yield to my friend, if he would like me to yield.

Madam Chairman, if I could reclaim my time. The time was yielded me by the gentleman from Texas. Let me reclaim my time by saying, I did not, in fact, describe the measure that is before us as a sham.

What I said was the legislation that I authored in the 109th Congress was characterized by the Democratic leadership, including the now Chair of the Committee on Rules, as a sham bill.

What I have said is that this measure that is before us does not meet the standard that we passed in the last Congress on transparency, disclosure and accountability. To argue that this is somehow the most sweeping reform legislation since Watergate is absolutely preposterous, because the legislation that was passed through the House in the last Congress went much, much further than this.

So all I am saying is, I want to work with Mr. Conyers. I want to work with Mr. Smith. I think that rather than pointing fingers and characterizing one political party as having ethical challenges or lacking ethics or having changed and transformed in that 12-year period, I believe that that's a mischaracterization.

While he may not say it, I have a sneaking suspicion that the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary may be inclined to agree with what I have said.

Madam Chair, I thank my friend, the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from San Antonio, for yielding.

I would simply say that when we look at what was passed in the 109th Congress and put that up against this measure, we can go through the litany. This notion of the K Street Project, the 1-year ban is present law. And, in fact, I offered amendments to enhance the transparency and disclosure. I hope very much, when we get to the amendment process, the amendment that I am going to be offering will be accepted by the majority. I suspect that it may be. I think it is a thoughtful amendment.

So we are working to enhance and strengthen this measure to the level that was passed by the House last year. And I just hope very much that, again, we can work in a bipartisan way, because I am proud to be an institutionalist. I believe in this institution. I am privileged to have spent now nearly a majority of my life as a Member of this institution. I revere it. And I hope very much that we can make it more accountable to the American people by putting into place very proper reforms that will enjoy bipartisan support.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I express my appreciation to the Committee on Rules for making my amendment in order. And I would like to say that this is an amendment which is designed, again, to simply strive in our quest to bring the level of this lobbying reform measure up to the standard that we had in last year's past bill, H.R. 4975.

The provision that was included in last year's bill allows for greater transparency and disclosure. It adds language, Madam Chairman, which simply creates a requirement that full disclosure of the starting and ending times for a person who is leaving the employment of the Capitol, what their lobbying constraints are.

Now, this bill originally had a 2-year ban on lobbying once someone leaves the Capitol. Chairman Conyers decided that, as the challenge we faced last year, making sure we have first-rate staff here is a challenge, so they pared back from the 2 years that was in the Senate bill and was initially in this bill back to the 1-year level.

I understand that, again, this is something that we did last year, but the thing that we did is we felt strongly about the need for disclosure as to exactly what those dates are; and so we called for a letter to be written which has the start times and the end times for the lobbying ban. That letter goes to the individual, and it goes to the office from which that person has left. And it goes actually a step further than we did in the past, and it calls for disclosure of that information on the Internet so that everyone knows, in fact, that there is a ban on that person from engaging in lobbying their former colleagues. I hope very much that my colleagues can support that.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Judiciary, the gentleman from San Antonio (Mr. Smith).

Madam Chairman, I'm inclined to reserve the balance of my time, but if the gentleman from San Antonio wants to continue with the line of argument he was making, I'd yield him the whole rest of my time if he wanted to continue to be as gracious as he was.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I thank the distinguished chair of the Committee on the Judiciary and the gentleman from Texas for their very kind remarks and support of this effort that we're making to improve the level of this legislation. And I'm not going to buy it back from the chairman since he's been so gracious.

So, with that, I'll yield back the balance of my time.

I'd like to thank the chairman, and I use that with my kids at the breakfast table. You can talk not to exceed 3 minutes. But thank you very much for that time.

When the new Congress came in session, this Congress, the 110th, we banned gifts by lobbyists. We banned meals paid for by lobbyists. We changed the rules of the reports on earmarks where Members were doing things that benefited themselves at taxpayers' expense.

Today we're considering the most comprehensive legislation on lobbying disclosure since the Watergate era, the most comprehensive legislation, because over the last 12 years, people saw a buildup in this people's House that gave them no confidence that their business was being done, but, in fact, the work of the special interests were done.

When that gavel on the Speaker's table comes down, it's intended to open the people's House, not the auction

house, and the American people lost confidence in this institution. The playing field was tilted to the special interests.

This legislation, time and again, alters fundamentally the law as it relates to the abuses that we saw over the last 12 years.

Now, I compliment my colleagues because in 1994 when they ran for Congress, they came to change Washington. They passed a lobbying bill, but after 12 years in power, rather than change Washington, Washington changed them. They became comfortable with power. They became comfortable and cozy with the special interests, and the American people said, enough.

It beared on us and the responsibility of Democrats to change the culture here, to break that link between lobbyists and legislation.

What happened at the end of the last 12 years was the special interest voices were heard at the expense of the American people.

So whether it's in banning the K Street Project that rewarded companies and institutions that hired the majority party's friends, whether it became gifts, trips and the reporting of those trips, whether it became when Members were negotiating their future employment and doing the work here on the floor of their future employer even before they left, every element of that reform needed to be changed. This bill, under this chairman, does it.

That will set the laws. Now it's the conduct of the Member to also understand there is a new day, there is change in the way you do things here in Washington.

About 6 years ago, the Congress altered, through passing campaign finance reform, the relationship between a contributor and a candidate. This alters the relationship between a lobbyist and the legislation.

Going forward, it would require a constant vigil, the attempt now is to ensure that at no point did those who represent the special interests have a capacity and an interest and an access that far outweighs the American people. That is the attempt of this legislation.

Whether it's the provision that relates to Jack Abramoff, the provisions that relate to the K Street Project, the provisions that relate to rangers or pioneers, that they don't have an ability to do things for Members or individuals that far exceed what the people who vote on election day for that Member and that their interests are heard.

We have to always come back and make sure that it is rules of the road to Washington don't tilt in favor of the special interests. This is a beginning, and it builds on what we did by banning on day one the gifts and meals by lobbyists, brings transparency to earmarks, and it brings transparency to the entire process as it relates to lobbyists' influence on legislators.

I commend our colleague and our chairman for his leadership on this legislation.

I would. I do appreciate it.

As you heard what I said from my friend from California, I said you came to change Washington and to pass lobbying reform. Over 12 years you came to change Washington; Washington changed the Republican Congress.

Now, to that effect, since you decided not to politicize it, but did decide to describe it, as a sham.

I don't think I will use that time.

Madam Chairman, as Ronald Reagan once said, facts are a stubborn thing. Let's take the section on required

recusal for Members and staff in negotiation for jobs. This bill has a closure on that, and it brings disclosure on that. The bill brought up before the Republican Congress last time just sits by on that.

Bans the K Street Project: This legislation only, in the last time, it said nothing on that. It was silent, except it was against the House rules.

Disclosure of lobbyist contributions to charities, conferences, or similar events Members have interests in: This bill has it. Last year, it did not.

The Harry and Louise disclosures, so interest groups could hide behind phony names and advertise against Members: This bill has it. Last year's did not.

Public database of Members' travel and financial disclosures: This bill has it. Last year's didn't.

Increased penalties: This bill has it. Didn't last.

Spousal lobbying, restrictions on their spouses: This bill has it; did not before.

Disclosure of lobbyist bundling will be considered in separate legislation. The goal is on comparison of the legislation. This is an improvement.

Second, to my good friend from California, I am glad you passed legislation last time. The Senate has now passed this. We're going to go to conference on this bill and actually get it done.

Number two, and, most importantly, I don't want to go forward looking back. My goal is to get this done, because as I said before, this is an institutional problem that requires an institutional solution, and that's what we have provided here.

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

Madam Chairman, we all deplore unethical conduct by Members of Congress and their staff. Each party has their share of examples. The public wants and deserves clean government, and today we finally bring before the House a bill that seems very familiar. That is because the increased disclosures required in the bill we are addressing today are largely those that were contained in H.R. 4975, which was introduced by Congressman David Dreier in the last Congress and passed the House then.

Last year's H.R. 4975 contained all of the following provisions: a requirement to disclose postemployment negotiations with private entities; a prohibition on partisan influences on an outside entity's employment decisions; and increased quarterly electronic filing in a public database of lobbyist campaign contributions linked to Federal Elections Commission filings.

The legislation also increased civil and criminal penalties for failure to comply, required disclosure by lobbyists of all past executive branch and congressional employment, and contained a prohibition on lobbyists' violation of House gift ban rules. Similar provisions, of course, are included in the legislation before us today.

At the Judiciary Committee's markup, I was glad to see that several Republican amendments that would strengthen this bill were adopted by voice vote. One was an amendment offered by Representative Chris Cannon that provides for a 1-year revolving-door ban that would prohibit private lawyers and law firms who enter into contracts with congressional committees from lobbying Congress while under contract to such committee and for 1 year thereafter.

Republicans passed nearly identical reform provisions over a year ago. I am pleased to finally see legislation come before the House this Congress that substantially mirrors Republican efforts from the last Congress.

The concepts of greater transparency and more accountability are not the property of any one political party, but it just so happens that Republicans led the way in the last Congress by writing a reform package very similar to the one we are considering today. A simple comparison of the provisions in this bill with those in H.R. 4975 from the last Congress will show that what we see on the House floor today is a clear reflection of what we saw on the House floor last year.

I had hoped a vote on these measures would have occurred much earlier in this Congress, but I am happy to cast my vote again today for these reforms.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a valued and active member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) who, among the other things, I believe wants to engage the chairman of the Judiciary Committee in a colloquy.

Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I support this manager's amendment. It contains provisions authored by Representative Gohmert of Texas that would allow Members to omit personally identifiable information from the electronic reports of their travel and financial disclosure statements if such information is not required to be disclosed under House rules. This is a reasonable bipartisan provision, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Madam Chair, I support this amendment. The base bill under consideration today is largely a reflection of the Republican reform bill the House passed in the last Congress, and that was largely authored by the Representative from California (Mr. Dreier). But it does not include all of the Republican authored reform provisions. One of those authored by Representative Dreier is contained in this amendment. It would require that when Members and House employees end their service in the House, they be given notice of the exact dates in which their post-employment restrictions apply. The amendment also would require that that information be made available on the Internet, which would provide more accountability and transparency. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

And Madam Chair, I once again want to thank Mr. Dreier for his continuous efforts to try to achieve open and honest government. Those efforts have begun years ago, and they continue today and will effectuate the passage of this amendment and this bill.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak) who, prior to his current public service to our country, also served as a Vice Admiral in the Navy.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), a member of our Republican leadership team.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), a senior member of the Appropriations Committee.

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

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