Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 923.

Madam Speaker,

Whereas, Honoring Bishop Aquilla Brooks has served his community as a Local pastor for 50 years and as a jurisdictional bishop for more than 30 years; and

Whereas, Bishop Brooks, is a man of keen spiritual insight, integrity and has dedicated his life to serving the spiritual needs of the community; and

Whereas, Bishop P.A. Brooks, is a widely respected church and community Leader. Brooks has received numerous awards for his outstanding service to the community including the: FBI Outstanding Community Service Award. In 1979 the Michigan Chronicle recognized him as one of Detroit's outstanding men of the year; and

Whereas, Bishop Brooks, is the third-longest serving Church of God in Christ Bishop in the history of the State of Michigan. During his tenure he has implemented programs and initiatives that have benefited laity and clergy alike. Due to his influence the Church of God in Christ launched their first credit union in the State of Michigan in Fall 2004; and

Whereas, Bishop Brooks is a man of God standing firmly on the past, Established in the present, and important to the future of The Church of God in Christ. Therefore be it now

Resolved, That Bishop P.A. Brooks be commended on the occasion of the Inaugural Salute Banquet recognizing his elevation to the

office of Second Assistance Presiding Bishop at the Church of God in Christ Inc.

Madam Speaker, I rise to commend and congratulate Bishop Phillip Aquilla Brooks on the occasion of his appointment as Second Assisting Presiding Bishop of the Church of God in Christ (C.O.G.I.C).

The third-longest serving Bishop of the Church of God in Christ in the history of Michigan, Bishop Brooks has served his community as a local pastor for 50 years and as a jurisdictional bishop for more than 30 years.

During this time, he has undertaken a number of initiatives to further the church's mission and strengthen it as an institution. Bishop Brooks organized the first Regional Council of Bishops, which unites the 12 jurisdictions of Michigan and Canada and allows them to work together to develop programs that benefit the church. He instituted the First Interactive Ministerial Alliance Meetings, which allow local pastors to plan and implement their own agendas, including workshops, praise and worship, and resource sharing. Bishop Brooks is responsible for the purchase and renovation of Northeast Michigan's Jurisdictional Cathedral Center. He also helped establish the nation's first Blue Cross/Blue Shield program for local pastors and C.O.G.I.C's first Credit Union.

Bishop Brooks has rightly been described as a man of prayerful reflection, honest discussion, humility, and mutual respect for all who have known him. I take great pleasure in knowing that the members of his church as well as the citizens of Michigan have benefited greatly by his guidance. I am confident that Bishop Brooks will serve the Church of God in Christ with passion, love, and dedication in this new capacity.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Bishop Brooks as he takes on this new role of leadership. Bishop Brooks is truly deserving of this high honor, as well as our respect and admiration.

Madam Speaker, I took a leave of absence on June 18, 2007, as I was attending to personal business. The following list describes how I would have voted had I been in attendance today.

``Aye''--H. Con. Res. 21, calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his calls for the destruction of the State of Israel.

``Aye''--H. Con. Res. 151, noting the disturbing pattern of killings of dozens of independent journalists in Russia over the last decade, and calling on Russian President Vladimir Putin to authorize cooperation with outside investigators in solving those murders.

``Aye''--H. Res. 233, recognizing over 200 years of sovereignty of the Principality of Liechtenstein, and expressing support for efforts by the United States to continue to strengthen its relationship with that country.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2640) to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

The legislation before us today makes important changes to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System designed to help States identify and prevent convicted felons and other dangerous individuals from owning firearms.

As it currently stands, millions of criminal records are not accessible by the instant check system. Millions of additional records fall through the cracks as a result of backlogs and other problems.

The measure before us now will help cure these problems by providing the resources and incentives needed to modernize the system and ensure that the records are up to date.

Instant check improvements legislation has passed through the Judiciary Committee and this House each of the last two Congresses, only to die in the other body, and was on our agenda for the 110th Congress as well.

The need to move legislation was recently highlighted by the tragic Virginia Tech shootings. At the end of that fateful day in April, the alleged gunman, Cho Seung-Hui, had taken a total of 32 lives, wounded an additional 26 individuals. In addition, countless numbers of family members and loved ones of these students and teachers lives were forever changed.

By improving and enhancing the instant check system, the idea is that we will be able to prevent future tragedies where we know the individual should not own a gun.

In order to move the legislation to the floor, it was necessary to make some accommodations to incorporate the concerns of gun owners. The dean of the Congress, among other things, led this effort. Among the things that were changed is section 105 of the bill, which requires all States to adopt a procedure allowing those individuals who have been determined to suffer from a mental illness with an opportunity to purchase or possess a firearm at some point later in life. That's a pretty serious matter.

Section 101 of the bill automatically restores the gun rights of military personnel who have been previously diagnosed with a mental illness, provided they are no longer undergoing any treatment or monitoring.

I have a concern, as you may be able to tell, that these changes to current law may inadvertently permit certain individuals who should not own guns the opportunity to purchase them. As a result, I will be closely monitoring these sections to ascertain if they do, indeed, create an unnecessary loophole.

If they do, I will be the first one back on this floor asking the Congress to remedy the situation.

I thank Carolyn McCarthy of New York; the dean of the Congress, John Dingell of Michigan, for their extraordinary work in this matter. I know that they are busy on their own committees, and I appreciate them helping the Committee on the Judiciary figure out how to do this.

The time to provide their input on this matter, which falls squarely within the Committee on the Judiciary's jurisdiction, is appreciated. It is truly tragic that violent felons, and even madmen, are able to evade the legal system and acquire guns which do us harm.

Anything which helps update the instant check system is a step forward in our fight against needless and senseless gun violence. I hope that that's what this measure does, and I urge my colleagues' support of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to recognize the gentlelady from New York, who has probably worked harder on gun regulations and sanity and the licensing of guns than anyone in the House, Mrs. McCarthy. I yield her as much time as she may consume.

Mr. Speaker, nobody in the House knows more about guns than the Dean of the Congress, the 110th Congress, the gentleman from Michigan, chairman of a major committee, John Dingell. I yield him as much time as he may consume, not to exceed 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Rick Boucher, a principal actor on this legislation, and yield him as much time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee, who is one of the most active members on the House Judiciary Committee.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) to close on our side.

Mr. Speaker, I took a leave of absence until 12 p.m. on June 7, 2007, as I was in my district on personal business. The following list describes how I would have voted had I been in attendance this morning.

``Yea''--Motion on ordering the previous question on the rule.

``Aye''--H. Res. 464--Rule providing for consideration of S. 5, to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud the passage of S. 5, the ``Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007.'' This legislation will give hope to 100,000,000 Americans, by greatly expanding scientists' access

to embryonic stem cell lines and will create opportunities for medical and biological scientists to continue further investigation for additional stem cell lines. Moreover, this legislation will impact greatly the future of treatment of serious diseases.

During the last decade of research, significant scientific advancements have been made that allow scientists to research genetically stable and long lived human stem cells, by methods that would not destroy or endanger human embryos. The discovery of the new lines of stem cells has greatly enhanced the probability of additional discoveries in various treatment and cures. The support of continued research into this kind of scientific discovery gives great hope to many Americans and others around the world who depend on the scientific advancements that this country has been known for in decades past.

It is time that this groundbreaking research moves forward. I optimistically look forward to the many advances that will be made in the future.

Madam Speaker, I took a leave of absence on June 6, 2007, as I was in my district on personal business. The following list describes how I would have voted had I been in attendance today.

Suspension bills: ``Yea,'' H.R. 1051, National STEM Scholarship Database Act; ``Yea,'' H.R. 2559, Higher Education Act Extension Act of 2007; ``Yea,'' H. Res. 421, honoring the trailblazing accomplishments of the ``Mercury 13'' women, whose efforts in the early 1960s demonstrated the capabilities of American women to undertake the human exploration of space; ``Yea,'' H. Res. 446, honoring the life and accomplishments of Astronaut Walter Marty Schirra and expressing condolences on his passing; ``Yea,'' H.R. 1467, 10,000 Trained by 2010 Act; ``Yea,'' H.R. 1716, Green Energy Education Act of 2007; ``Yea,'' H.R. 632, H-Prize Act of 2007; ``Yea,'' H.R. 964, Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act; ``Yea,'' H.R. 2560, Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2007.

``Yea,'' H. Res. 453, rule providing consideration of H.R. 2446-- Afghanistan Freedom and Security Act of 2007.

Amendments to H.R. 2446: ``Yea,'' Lantos; ``Yea,'' Ackerman; ``Yea,'' Costa; ``Yea,'' Franks; ``Yea,'' Jackson-Lee: technical assistance; ``Yea,'' Jackson-Lee: women legislators; ``Yea,'' Kirk; ``Yea,'' Kucinich; ``Yea,'' Terry; ``Yea,'' Van Hollen.

``Yea,'' H.R. 2446, Afghanistan Freedom and Security Support Act of 2007 (final passage).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 422, offered by my good friend from California, Ms. Lee. This resolution urges the People's Republic of China to use its influence and economic leverage to stop the genocide in Darfur.

I recently returned from a congressional delegation to China. I understand Beijing's unique economic and diplomatic ability to pressure the Government of Sudan. For example, China has invested in Sudan's oil industry and imports Sudan's oil. China's potential veto power at the U.N. Security Council gives China important influence over the issue. Finally, as revealed in media reports, China provides military assistance to Sudan. In light of these facts, China's condemnation of the atrocities in Darfur is simply not enough. For years, despite strong condemnation from the international community, the Government of Sudan and its Janjaweed allies continue to murder innocent civilians with impunity.

China must not only acknowledge and condemn the atrocities in Darfur, it must cease all military arms and related sales to the Sudan. During my trip to China, I was told that China is taking numerous steps to press Sudan to resolve the crisis in Darfur and that the international community should not link the 2008 Olympic Games with what is occurring in the Sudan. That is why I was startled to learn a month ago of news reports claiming that arms were freely flowing from China to Sudan, including reports of Chinese jet fighters in Darfur. For example, Amnesty International has reported that Sudan imported $24 million worth of arms and ammunition, nearly $57 million worth of parts and aircraft equipment, and $2 million worth of parts for helicopters and aircraft from China. Such reports are definitely more than the ``limited'' assistance that Chinese officials claim is taking place.

I understand that China has taken some constructive steps and is deeply concerned about what is occurring in Sudan. I applaud China's efforts in using diplomatic means to resolve the conflict, such as the April 2007 trip of Zhai Jun to Sudan to push the Sudanese Government to accept a United Nations peacekeeping force. These steps are necessary, but in a conflict in which at least 200,000 people--some say as many as 400,000--have died and 2.5 million have been displaced, it is crucial to cut off the supply of war machinery which fuels the conflict. On my visit to China, I worked strenuously to convey that we all live together in the spirit of cooperation and friendship. As the host of the 2008 Olympics, I know the Chinese hold this belief and hope that they will continue to work together with the international community to end the violence in Darfur.

Madam Speaker, as we prepare to celebrate Memorial Day, Congress has a duty to honor our veterans not just with our words but with our deeds. I was proud to join with colleagues on both sides of the aisle yesterday to pass legislation that will help provide our courageous veterans with the resources they have earned and deserve.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed several pieces of legislation that address some of the new challenges facing veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

H.R. 2199, The Traumatic Brain Injury/Rural Veterans Outreach, ensures that our veterans are properly screened for Traumatic Brain Injury and receive the appropriate treatment. More than half of combat casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan have associated brain injuries, often due to improvised explosive devices. The legislation also expands VA resources to provide rural communities with ``mobile vet centers'' for mental health services and benefits outreach.

H.R. 612, The Returning Servicemember VA Healthcare Insurance Act helps ensure soldiers with mental health conditions that are often not immediately diagnosed, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, are treated by making them eligible for health care due to combat service for five years after leaving active duty.

H.R. 67, The Veterans Outreach Improvement Act (H.R. 67) allows the VA to partner with state and local governments to reach out to veterans and their families in ensuring they receive the benefits they have earned.

H.R. 2239, The Early Access to Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Benefits Act extends eligibility for rehabilitation benefits from the Veterans' Affairs Department.

Finally, H.R. 1470, The Chiropractic Care Available to All Veterans Act requires that chiropractic care and services be provided to veterans at all Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers.

Since January, the new Democratic-led Congress has worked to honor veterans by improving veterans' health care, strengthening benefits for our men and women in uniform today, and providing long-overdue benefits for the veterans and military retirees who have already served. I was proud to support the measures we passed yesterday as well as any legislation that will improve benefits and services for our brave men and women in uniform and our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, I was pleased to support legislation to crack down on gas price gouging and OPEC state-controlled entities that conspire to limit the supply or fix the price of oil.

Nationwide, families are paying $3.22 a gallon on average for regular gasoline--more than double the cost when President Bush took office, up 89 cents from the beginning of the year. Last year, families paid $1,000 more on average for gasoline than in 2001. As we approach Memorial Day and the summer driving season, families in Michigan are paying an average of $3.47 for gasoline.

The high cost for families come as oil companies continue to prosper. The six largest oil companies announced $30 billion in profits for the first quarter of 2007. This is on top of the $125 billion in record profits they made in 2006.

On Tuesday, the House approved H.R. 2264, a bill I introduced, to authorize the Justice Department to take legal action against OPEC state-controlled entities that participate in conspiracies to limit the supply, or fix the price, of oil.

On Wednesday, the House approved The Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act, H.R. 1252, which would give the Federal Trade Commission the authority to investigate and punish companies that artificially inflate the price of gas. The bill sets criminal penalties for price gouging, and permits states to bring lawsuits against wholesalers or retailers who engage in such practices.

In spite of record oil industry profits in the face of crippling costs for American consumers, President Bush has threatened to veto both pieces of legislation.

In addition to the legislation approved this week, the Democratic Congress has already voted to roll back $14 billion dollars in taxpayer subsidies for Big Oil companies and reinvest the money in clean, alternative fuels, renewable energy and energy efficiency. Democrats are also developing an Independence Day package to boldly address energy independence and global warming by rapidly expanding the production of clean, alternative fuels and increasing energy efficiency, which will help protect our environment and bring down the cost of fuel for American consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) who is floor manager for this important bill.

And I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for the great work she, and I include the former chairman of the Rules Committee, they have done in trying to bring about reform in the House of Representatives and in the Congress as a whole. I mean it. I was up there yesterday, and I was one of the ones that took exception to calling Mr. Dreier of California's H.R. 4975 a sham bill. It was not a sham bill, and we have taken many of the things out of that bill and have brought them to H.R. 2316 which we're observing.

So we think that we all agree on both sides of the aisle that we have one big problem. The Congress has a black eye in terms of ethics, and we want to correct it. We're agreed? Okay. We check that one off.

Now, how do we correct it? Well, the one way that you will never correct it in the 110th Congress is to vote down this rule this afternoon, because if you vote down this rule this afternoon, there will be nothing to meet the Senate bill, which has already passed in January. They have been waiting for February, March, April, end of May, and now all of us who are concerned about fighting corruption, fighting for better ethics, fighting for transparency, fighting for basic disclosure now say on that side, let's vote down the rule. And do what I would ask? What do you have in mind that we haven't done now?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank my friend for helping me out there, because what we will have done, and there are some in the media that are predicting that this is what's going to happen, that we're going to abandon all of the work that we have put into this measure. And I'm looking still after a number of decades for the Member who can concede that he's voted on the perfect bill in the legislative process.

But if we abandon this at this course, months behind schedule, we're sending a perfectly obvious message to the American people; namely, that this is the sham that is working on the Congress.

We've got to get this rule going. I'm happy that our colleague, the former chairman of Rules, said nothing about the amendments that have been granted by the committee in which he worked so hard over the years. We've got amendments. Some are Republican amendments, some are Democratic amendments, but for goodness sake, let's keep our promises to the American people.

We campaigned on this. We said we can improve the transparency and the rules regulating lobbyists, regulating bundling, regulating reporting, increasing the penalties. We've said all of this

and put it in in as perfect form as we can do here.

We need now to get something to go to conference. I pledge to be open to suggestions, as I have all along the way. We've got to keep our promises, and the promises start with voting the rule to begin the debate. Now, you may have differences in the debate but certainly not on moving forward from this elementary process.

I thank the gentlelady, the floor manager, for allowing me to bring these matters up at this point.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2317, the Lobbying Transparency Act of 2007.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 437, I call up 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 ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

Madam Speaker, the moment has come in this very important session of Congress that we examine the lobbying and bundling provisions that have been of such interest and debate for the past several months.

This measure, the Lobbying Transparency Act, will more effectively regulate, but does not ban, the practice of registered lobbyists bundling together the large numbers of campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office. This is a practice that has already taken root in Presidential campaigns.

In essence, the bill requires a registered lobbyist who bundles two or more contributions made to a candidate to file quarterly reports with the House Clerk and Secretary of the Senate.

I want to begin by paying tribute to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Chris Van Hollen, for the enormous amount of work not only in this Congress but in the previous Congress that he has put forward on behalf of this measure.

Under the bill, the bundled contribution is limited to contributions which the lobbyist physically receives and forwards to the candidate, or which are credited to the lobbyist through a specific tracking system put in place by the candidate. In order to better ensure that a registered lobbyist does not inaccurately report contributions involving a candidate, the measure further requires the lobbyist to send the candidate a proposed statement first. This allows the candidate or the political action committee to correct any errors.

This legislation reflects considerable input on Members of the House of Representatives both on the Judiciary Committee and off the Judiciary Committee.

It reflects the considered judgment of many Members not even on the Judiciary Committee. We've worked with the public interest groups around the clock to craft a workable piece of legislation that provides for the disclosure of large-scale bundling in a way that provides clear and enforceable legal requirements.

The American people have been waiting for this. We've talked about this for a considerable period of time, and many people now have realized that the House of Representatives has taken a very important step in moving this measure forward.

Most significantly, the measure does not include the provision that would have counted as bundled any contribution arranged by a lobbyist. After careful consideration, we've concluded that as the Senate provision is written, it was too vague to be effectively enforced.

And so I rise today to let you know of my firm conviction that we ultimately need to move to assist the public financing of campaigns, and I don't mean somewhere in the nebulous future; I'm talking about as soon as we can. But until we do, I remain persuaded that the legislation today represents an extremely important step forward toward that reform when coupled with the other lobbying reform measure that is before us.

This is not the perfect bill. I'm still looking for a Member that has ever passed the perfect piece of legislation. But I draw to my colleagues' attention this measure and ask that they examine it carefully and recognize the importance and significance of this measure.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

When we went to the Rules Committee, my dear friend Lamar Smith and myself, there were 48 amendments already filed when we got there. I don't know how many were ultimately considered.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the one Member who has worked longer and harder than anyone else on this matter, a former member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time.

I urge my colleagues to step up to the plate this afternoon, the day before we go out into recess, to join with your Committee on the Judiciary in their bipartisan support for this bundling bill. It's necessary that we continue to bring sunlight on the workings of the lobbying organizations and the fundraising as it affects the congressional product.

It's important, as a part of the promise that we have made to the American people, that we work to restore their confidence in us, and this will be accomplished, in part, by what we do here on the floor of the House of Representatives on this day. I hope we will keep that commitment by passing this very important measure before us, H.R. 2317, the Lobbying Transparency Act of 2007.

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

Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I believe I may have to object, because we are just seeing the motion for the first time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Members of the House, recommit motions too frequently here have become procedural tactics that are not based on the work that we have done in the committee up until now. And I rise to oppose the provision because it raises conveniently a new issue not discussed in our hearings and not even raised in the markup. I don't think that it is really going to be helpful to the bundling law at all.

As I understand this motion to recommit, this is a broad new provision that would make the bill even more complex and difficult to administer. We have had that problem with this measure in the other body, and we certainly don't want to bring that kind of strategy into the measure before us now. It would seem to sweep into its reach entities that are not public or official.

This would include political action committees created by the following organization. It would include the National Rifle Association, the Right to Life Organization, even the Congressional Black Caucus. It would include Emily's List. It would seem to me that this would really confuse the bill, and I urge my Members, at this late date, under this strategy, to oppose the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that these organizations aren't the objects of a bundling activity, the National Rifle Association, the right-to-life, and others. This is a poison pill amendment.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House on the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 2317, back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2316, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.

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, will the gentleman yield?

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, will the gentleman yield?

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.