John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the former ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, Ms. Harman.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a distinguished member of the Judiciary, for 1 minute.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of our Judiciary Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill just passed.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3356) to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain electronic surveillance.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam 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. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Silvestre Reyes, chairman of the Committee on Intelligence, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There probably is no Member in this body who has a greater concern about civil rights and civil liberties than this Member. It is a cause I have worked on for all of my years in this body, and it is one that goes to the very heart of the protections provided under the Constitution and our Bill of Rights. I am equally sensitive to the need to protect our Nation from terrorism and terrorists. I have chaired recently three classified briefings on this matter in the last week and have spent the last period of time seeking to forge common ground on this issue. That is why we are here today, to ensure that our government has the tools it needs to respond to the threat of terrorism, while at the same time respecting our citizens' right to privacy. That is why the bill before us permits the Attorney General to apply to the FISA court to obtain a basket of warrants for the surveillance aimed outside of the United States. That is why we provide an emergency exception. That is why we specify that foreign-to-foreign communications do not require a court order. These are all changes to current law that will help our Nation respond to the threat of terrorism. At the same time, however, the legislation is respectful of our civil liberties. That is why we sunset the bill in 4 months, to see if this stop gap approach is working, how it is working, and allow us to gather further information. That is why we require that the court approve international surveillance procedures. That is why we insist on periodic audits. None of these safeguards exist under the current law, and all will serve to protect our precious rights and liberties. The bill before us today responds to each and every concern raised by the distinguished Director of National Intelligence in our negotiations. In particular, yesterday he asked us to make three changes: expanding the bill to cover foreign intelligence; allowing the administration to approve guidelines for recurring communications; and allowing additional foreign targets to be added to the warrant by the court. I was concerned that some of these changes may have gone too far, but in the spirit of accommodation we made all three changes. Sometimes people simply don't want to accept ``yes'' for an answer. I urge every Member in this body to support this important and balanced measure. Madam Speaker, I include for the Record today's New York Times editorial entitled ``Stampeding Congress, Again.'' [From the New York Times] Stampeding Congress, Again Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not feel bound by the law or the Constitution when it comes to the war on terror. It cannot even be trusted to properly use the enhanced powers it was legally granted after the attacks. Yet, once again, President Bush has been trying to stampede Congress into a completely unnecessary expansion of his power to spy on Americans. And, hard as it is to believe, Congressional Republicans seem bent on collaborating, while Democrats (who can still be cowed by the White House's with- us-or-against-us baiting) aren't doing enough to stop it. The fight is over the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the government to obtain a warrant before eavesdropping on electronic communications that involve someone in the United States. The test is whether there is probably cause to believe that the person being communicated with is an agent of a foreign power or a terrorist. Mr. Bush decided after 9/11 that he was no longer going to obey that law. He authorized the National Security Agency to intercept international telephone calls and e-mail messages of Americans and other residents of this country without a court order. He told the public nothing and Congress next to nothing about what he was doing, until The Times disclosed the spying in December 2005. Ever since, the White House has tried to pressure Congress into legalizing Mr. Bush's rogue operation. Most recently, it seized on a secret court ruling that spotlighted a technical way in which the 1978 law has not kept pace with the Internet era. The government may freely monitor communications when both parties are outside the United States, but must get a warrant aimed at a specific person for communications that originate or end in his country. The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that the court that issues such warrants recently ruled that the law also requires that the government seek such an individualized warrant for purely foreign communications that, nevertheless, move through American data networks. Instead of asking Congress to address this anachronism, as it should, the White House sought to use it to destroy the 1978 spying law. It proposed giving the attorney general carte blanche to order eavesdropping on any international telephone calls or e-mail messages if he decided on his own that there was a ``reasonable belief'' that the target of the surveillance was outside the United States. The attorney general's decision would not be subject to court approval or any supervision. The White House, of course, insisted that Congress must do this right away, before the August recess that begins on Monday--the same false urgency it used to manipulate Congress into passing the Patriot Act without reading it and approving the appalling Military Commissions Act of 2006. Senator Jay Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, offered a sensible alternative law, as did his fellow Democrat, Senator Russ Feingold. In either case, the attorney general would be able to get a broad warrant to intercept foreign communications routed through American networks for a limited period. Then, he would have to justify the spying in court. This fix would have an expiration date so Congress could then dispassionately consider what permanent changes might be needed to FISA. Congress was debating this issue yesterday, and the final outcome was unclear. But there are very clear lines that must not be crossed. First, all electronic surveillance of communication that originates or ends in the United States must be subject to approval and review by the FISA court under the 1978 law. (That court, by the way, has rejected only one warrant in the last two years.) Second, any measure Congress approves now must have a firm expiration date. Closed-door-meetings under the pressure of a looming vacation are no place for such serious business. The administration and its Republican supporters in Congress argue that American intelligence is blinded by FISA and have seized on neatly timed warnings of heightened terrorist activity to scare everyone. It is vital for Americans, especially law-makers, to resist that argument. It is pure propaganda. This is not, and has never been, a debate over whether the United States should conduct effective surveillance of terrorists and their supporters. It is over whether we are a nation ruled by law, or the whims of men in power. Mr. Bush faced that choice and made the wrong one. Congress must not follow him off the cliff. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to the Chair of the Immigration subcommittee in the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Zoe Lofgren of California, 1 minute.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee on Judiciary, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Bobby Scott, for 1 minute.

Mr. CONYERS. I am now pleased to recognize the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, the gentleman from New York, Jerry Nadler, for 1 minute.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to now yield 1 minute to the distinguished member of the Judiciary, Mr. Adam Schiff.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I want to relieve the tensions of my friend from Michigan. Foreign to foreign does not require a warrant. I don't know how many times I am going to have to say that. Foreign to foreign does not require a warrant. The second thing that will make you much happier than you are now: Basket warrants authorized by the court make it easier to get warrants, not harder, Mr. Rogers. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to Jane Harman from California, the former ranking member on the Intelligence Committee for many years.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the honorable Speaker of the House.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield the remaining time that I have to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, SCLC, as it celebrates 50 years of promoting non-violent action as a means to achieve social, economic, and political justice. The opportunity to serve as the first African-American Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is a tribute to the efforts of the SCLC to promote equal opportunity and equal justice. . Without the courage and sacrifice of members of the SCLC, namely its first President, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and those Presidents that followed--Ralph Abernathy, Joseph Lowery, and Martin Luther King, III, we simply would not be where we are today. And while we have much work to do, we are living the legacy of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference everyday. This August will be the 50th anniversary of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The SCLC traces its roots to the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955, which began with the quiet yet courageous efforts of one woman: Rosa Parks. I had the privilege of working with Rosa Parks for over 20 years when she agreed to join my staff after I was elected to Congress in 1964. The Montgomery Bus Boycott brought together two local ministers, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ralph Abernathy, who established the Montgomery Improvement Association to lead the boycott efforts. As the movement to desegregate public transportation spread beyond Montgomery County into surrounding states, it was clear that the organization needed to expand, both in size and in scope. Following the success of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, a group of 60 organizers from 10 states met in Atlanta, Georgia to plan the next steps. The result was the founding of the Southern Leadership Conference on Transportation and Nonviolent Integration. The organization's title was shortened to its current name, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference during its first convention, held in Montgomery in August 1957. Next week, the SCLC will be hosting its 49th annual convention in Atlanta, GA. Leading the efforts of the SCLC to end segregation was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a man I am honored to have been able to call a friend and confidant. In fact, it was Dr. King that endorsed me for Congress when I first ran and was elected to serve in 1964. Significantly, Dr. King personally awarded me with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference Award in 1967. Having walked alongside Dr. King, a fearless leader who challenged continued racial segregation and believed that ``oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever,'' I am committed to continuing the legacy of Dr. King and the SCLC. Under the helm of President Joseph Lowery for much of its existence-- from 1977 until 1997, the SCLC advanced Dr. King's dream for an America--a society united behind the banner of equality and freedom. Today, the SCLC remains strong under the leadership of Dr. Charles Steele, Jr., promoting a number of programs in the areas of economic empowerment, health advocacy, education, and criminal justice. The SCLC has also established the Martin Luther King, Jr., Conflict Resolution Center, an international initiative to promote Dr. King's principle of nonviolence as a means to resolving conflicts throughout the world. We've come a long ways over the last 50 years, and the work of the SCLC continues to be of critical importance. It is to the credit of Dr. King and other leaders of the SCLC that today the torch of the civil rights movement is carried by many hands. One of those hands is Dr. King's son, Martin III, who headed the SCLC from 1997 until 2003 and remains committed to the organization's vision. So following the lead of Martin III, Joseph Lowery, Ralph Abernathy, and of course Dr. King, let us continue the work and legacy of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference on its 50th anniversary.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the passage of H.R. 3161, The 2008 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration Appropriations bill. Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro has done excellent work to create fiscally and morally responsible legislation that reinvests in rural America, protects public health, improves nutritional standards for all Americans, all while transforming our future energy and conservation goals. This legislation represents a new direction in the way we invest in our families and our farmers. It is a direction towards improving the health and well-being of all communities and to implement policies which put middle and working-class families center-stage. In rural America, H.R. 3161 provides significant increases to grants and loans for critical community facilities, affordable loans for low and moderate-income families in rural areas, with no increase in fees, and substantially increases affordable loans and grants for farm worker housing. There is also a large increase in funding for affordable home loans in rural areas that will ultimately double the number of homeowners from the 2002 level, by 2010. In the areas of public health and nutrition, H.R. 3161 offers more than a billion dollars that will provide Americans with jobs in the food safety and inspection industry, improves food and drug safety regulations, and protects programs that feed women, infants, children, and the elderly. This bill increases funds for such programs as the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable, and Simplified Summer Food programs that provide nutritious foods to children in low-income families, as well as specialty crop grants to encourage more fruit and vegetable consumption. Most importantly, in the Food Stamp Program, this bill not only increases funding to accommodate growing participation, but it excludes special pay for military personnel in eligibility determination, and rejects the administration's proposal to restrict eligibility for food stamps that will exclude needy families who are receiving certain other services. The Agriculture Committee has also taken into consideration our need for renewable energy and conservation by allocating over $2 billion in funding for renewable energy loans and grants to businesses to grow our economy, create new jobs, lower energy prices, and reduce global warming. Furthermore, H.R. 3161 provides resources for research, aid to farmers and ranchers, and loans to businesses. The bill also restores many programs the President would have cut or eliminated, including the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative, Resource Conservation and Development, and the watershed programs. Mr. Chairman, I am extremely proud of my colleagues for their efforts in maintaining the lifeline of all Americans--our farms, nutrition, and energy policies.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. We continue to fight to end the war in Iraq. However, in the meantime, we must ensure that our troops are provided with the time to return home, rest, recuperate and train before they return to battle. Our troops have risked their lives and Congress has a responsibility to stand up for them. The legislation we are considering today strengthens the American military by mandating minimum periods of rest and recuperation for units and members of regular and reserve components of our Armed Forces between deployments. The bill states that if a unit or member of a regular component of the Armed Forces deploys to Iraq, they will have an equivalent amount of time at home before they are redeployed. The legislation will help alleviate a significant military readiness crisis. When the Bush Administration took office in 2001, all active duty Army divisions were rated at the highest readiness levels and were fully manned, equipped, and trained. Now, the Administration's failed policies in Iraq have depleted our military and put a tremendous strain on our troops. Already, an estimated 250,000 soldiers in the Army and Marine Corps have served more than one tour in Iraq and each one of the Army's available active duty combat brigades has served at least a 12- month tour in Iraq or Afghanistan. And this spring, the Defense Secretary announced that all active duty Army soldiers would have their tours in Iraq extended from 12 to 15 months. The war in Iraq has had disastrous consequences for our Armed Forces and our troops. By reducing the stress on our men and women in uniform and ensuring they get the training they need to stay safe, this legislation makes support for the troops into more than an empty slogan.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3162, the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act (CHAMP Act). This legislation will reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program, ensuring that millions of children receive the care they need, and will protect Medicare for America's seniors. Even though I support this legislation, I rise today with a heavy heart. It is nothing short of a disgrace that here, in the wealthiest country on earth, eight million children lack health insurance coverage. We ought to be ashamed that we are having this debate at all. I am absolutely stunned that Congressional Republicans and the President are opposing this legislation, particularly in light of the fact that the President used CHIP as part of his campaign platform in 2004. Talk about shock and awe! I am shocked beyond belief that they can stand before the American people with straight faces and refuse health care for children. I am in awe of the gall required to base the denial of these vital, life-saving services on an ideological talking point. Madam Speaker, the ideology of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle has not provided health care for these children yet. It is impossible for any serious person to believe that if this legislation is defeated the Republican ideology will suddenly start working its magic and provide health care for these children whose parents can't afford to buy it in the open market. In my years fighting for universal health care, we have often said, ``Covering children is easy. How could anyone publicly refuse to support coverage for children?'' It was coverage for adults that was always perceived as the real challenge. But today, the Republicans have stooped lower than even I thought was possible. Not only are they saying ``We can't afford to give our children health care.'' This is the same party, by the way, that finds money for tax cuts for the rich, that finds money to fund a disaster of a war. Many times more money than what is needed to cover these children, in fact. Not only are the Republicans admitting that they prioritize tax cuts for the wealthy and feeding the military industrial complex over insuring our children. They are now standing before the American people and saying ``It is not our job to guarantee health insurance coverage for America's children.'' They are refusing to make that promise. Instead, they propose that our children's health should be subject to the ups and downs of the stock market, that it should depend on their parents' employment status, or how much they have in a bank account. It is utterly beyond conception how the Republicans can possibly think these ideas will be accepted by the American people. But I will leave my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to face the repercussions of this folly next November. Let me move on to a more positive subject: the bill under consideration today, which we will pass over these shameful objections. The Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act, also known as the CHAMP Act, reauthorizes the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and protects coverage for 6 million children, including 89,257 in Michigan, while extending health care coverage to another 5 million low-income children. All told, this bill will ensure essential health care coverage for 11 million of our most vulnerable children. The Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act also makes needed fixes to the Medicare program. It stops a 10 percent payment cut to doctors, thereby ensuring that I, we seniors will continue to have access to the doctors of their choice. It encourages seniors to seek preventive health benefits by eliminating co-payments and deductibles for these services. The bill protects low-income seniors by expanding and improving programs that help keep Medicare affordable for those with lower incomes. It stops overpayments to HMOs that are draining money away from health care and into their profit margins. And it also shores up Medicare's finances by extending the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund by two years. Failing to pass this legislation would have real consequences for children and seniors. If the State Children's Health Insurance Program is not reauthorized by September 30th, 2007, millions of children could lose their health insurance. Seniors will lose access to their doctors and pay higher Medicare premiums to subsidize overpayments to HMOs. I find it quite interesting that we haven't heard these so-called fiscally responsible Republicans lamenting the fact that their friends in the HMO industry are overbilling our government to line their pockets. It seems that fiscal responsibility only applies when poor children are on the receiving end. Let's defeat the sham S-CHIP bill offered by Representatives Barton, Shimkus and Blackburn that would leave millions of children without health care while slashing Medicare and harming our seniors. Let's tell the White House and Congressional Republicans that it's time to stop playing political games. Let's tell them it's time to work together to ensure more children across the country have the high-quality medical care they deserve and strengthen Medicare for our seniors. They might not be able to understand that it's the right thing to do, but the American people certainly will.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1) to provide greater transparency in the legislative process, as amended.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my colleagues on the other side, the gentleman from Georgia, and of course the ranking member, for pointing out additional refinements that we must continue to concern ourselves with. The Lobbying and Ethics Reform bill is not over with with today's work. Our job continues, and I will be looking forward for these constructive comments that they will be bringing to our attention. Mr. Speaker, I submit for printing in the Record a letter from the Campaign Legal Center and others that support this legislation, and I would like you to know that the organizations' authors that signed this are among the most watchful and effective critics of the subject of ethics and lobbying that we have in the country. The letter was signed by the U.S. PIRG, the Public Citizen, the League of Women Voters, Democracy 21, Common Cause, the Campaign Legal Center, all who have said that: Our organizations strongly urge you to vote for the lobbying and ethics reform legislation when it is considered by the House on the Suspension Calendar. The legislation being presented to the House constitutes landmark reform of the Nation's lobbying disclosure laws and landmark reform of the Senate ethics rules. It is designed to help address the worst congressional corruption scandals in 30 years that were revealed during the last Congress. Under the legislation, for the first time citizens will be provided with a wealth of information about the multiple ways in which lobbyists and lobbyist organizations provide financial support to assist Members. For the first time, candidate campaign committees, leadership PACs, and political party committees will be required to disclose the bundled contributions raised for them by lobbyists and lobbying organizations. The legislation also includes fundamental reforms of the Senate ethics rules very similar to the landmark House ethic reforms adopted at the beginning of the year. July 30, 2007. Re Vote for the lobbying and ethics reform bill. Dear Representative: Our organizations strongly urge you to vote for the lobbying and ethics reform legislation when it is considered by the House on the suspension calendar. The organizations include the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG. The legislation being presented to the House constitutes landmark reform of the nation's lobbying disclosure laws and landmark reform of the Senate ethics rules. It is designed to help address the worst congressional corruption scandals in 30 years that were revealed during the last Congress. Under the legislation, for the first time citizens will be provided with a wealth of information about the multiple ways in which lobbyists and lobbying organizations provide financial support to assist Members. For the first time, candidate campaign committees, leadership PACs and political party committees will be required to disclose the ``bundled'' contributions raised for them by lobbyists and lobbying organizations. The legislation also includes fundamental reforms of the Senate ethics rules very similar to the landmark House ethics reforms adopted at the beginning of the year. The process being used in the House to vote on this legislation is the result of a Republican Senator, Jim DeMint (R-SC), blocking the House and Senate from going to conference on the lobbying and ethics reforms and bringing a conference report to the House and Senate floors for an up- or-down vote. There is absolutely no basis for a House member to vote against this legislation on process or substance grounds. A vote against this legislation is a vote against landmark lobbying and ethics reforms. Our organizations strongly urge you to vote for the lobbying and ethics legislation when it comes to the House floor for a vote. Campaign Legal Center. Common Cause. Democracy 21. League of Women Voters. Public Citizen.

Mr. CONYERS. But every other one is. So I just wanted to refer the distinguished gentleman to the numbers of pages of felonies that are included in here, and I thank him for the one that concerns him mostly. I am going to conclude my remarks by thanking all of my colleagues who have put time in on this matter. I want to thank the ranking member and the leadership on both sides of the aisle. We have a major accomplishment on our hands. What we need to do is to continue to follow through on implementing and improving anything in this measure that anybody would like to bring to our attention. But what we are doing is finally ending the cynical business as usual environment where big business and special interests dominate the legislative process to the detriment of the public interests. That is what all of these months and continuing wrangling and what our good government groups have been looking at and criticizing us for far too frequently is now being corrected. This is a measure that every Member in the Congress can be proud of and support fully. A vote for this measure is a vote to end the culture of corruption. The time for S. 1 is now, and I accordingly urge my colleagues to support the measure.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, if there is one message that was abundantly clear based on the results of last year's election results, it was that the American people want us to end the culture of corruption that has enveloped the legislative process. For far too long, Americans have seen business as usual where time and time again special interests trump the public interest. So we've heard that message loud and clear. For the past several months, the House and the Senate have diligently worked together to fuse a legislative response that combines the best of the measures passed by both Houses earlier this year. The measure that we consider today will go a long way toward bringing back accountability to the Congress and to restoring the trust of the American people in their government. S. 1 accomplishes these critical goals in four ways. First, S. 1 puts an end to the K Street Project, an insidious effort that employed threats and intimidation to control the legislative process. S. 1 ensures that such efforts will no longer be permitted. It specifically prohibits Members and senior staff from influencing hiring decisions or practices of private entities for partisan political gain. Second, S. 1 shines a disinfecting spotlight on lobbying activities by mandating full and enhanced public disclosure on these activities. Pursuant to this measure, lobbyists will have to file reports on their lobbying activities twice as often each year. They will be required to disclose their contacts with Congress. They must certify that they did not give a gift or pay for travel in violation of the rules and, for the first time, file these reports electronically in a public, searchable database so that anyone can review them. Third, S. 1 closes loopholes in the current law that have been exploited to avoid the clear intent of the Lobbying Disclosure Act. It does this by mandating the disclosure of contributions in excess of $5,000 by businesses or organizations that actively lobby through certain coalitions and associations. And, it also requires the disclosure of the past executive and congressional employment of registered lobbyists. Importantly, S. 1 prohibits a Member's spouse who becomes a lobbyist after the Member's election from making direct lobbying contacts to the Member or the Member's office. In addition, the bill addresses the process by which political contributions are bundled by campaign committees. It requires each committee to disclose to the Federal Election Commission, on a semiannual basis, specified information for each currently registered lobbyist who has either forwarded or been credited for raising contributions totaling at least $15,000 during the reporting period. Fourth, and perhaps most significantly, S. 1 puts real teeth into enforcement. It increases the penalties for violations of the Lobbying Disclosure Act to deter and punish corrupt activity. It substantially increases civil penalties from the current level of $50,000, to four times as much, to $200,000 and provides for the imposition of criminal penalties of up to 5 years for knowing and corrupt violations of the Act. These are some of the major reforms that S. 1 offers. This bill recognizes the importance of lobbying to responsive and effective congressional and executive decision-making. And these reforms will help strengthen the sound foundation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act and go a long way toward restoring the trust of the American people in our system of government. I want to respectfully point out the contributions from the other side, particularly the ranking member of Judiciary, Lamar Smith, in this endeavor, and so I urge my colleagues all to join me in supporting the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I thank my colleague for his examination of the bill. We've worked on this bill together. I think we're in support of it, and I hope to enjoy the gentleman's continued success and cooperation in the matter. It's very important that we understand that we are ending the pay-to- play K Street Project which, under this bill before us, now prohibits Members and their staff from influencing hiring decisions of private organizations on the sole basis of partisan political gain. It subjects those who violate this provision to a fine and imprisonment of up to 15 years. We prohibit lobbyists from providing gifts or travel to Members of Congress who have knowledge that the gift or travel is in violation of the Senate or the House rules. We require now lobbyist disclosure filings to be filed twice as often by decreasing the time from filing from semiannually to quarterly. We require lobbyist disclosures in both the Senate and the House to be filed electronically and creates a public and searchable Internet database of such information. We increase civil penalties for knowing and willful violations of the Lobby Disclosure Act. We increase them by four times as much, from $50,000 to $200,000, and imposes a criminal penalty up to 5 years for knowing and corrupt failure to comply with the Act. We require the GAO to audit annually lobbyists' compliance with these disclosure rules and, further, require lobbyists to certify that they've not been given gifts or travel that would violate either Senate or House rules. We require the disclosure of businesses or organizations that contribute in excess of $5,000 and actively participate in lobbying activities by certain coalitions and associations. We're requiring disclosure to the Federal Election Commission when lobbyists bundle over $15,000 semiannually in campaign contributions for any federally elected official, including the Senate, the House or presidential, or leadership PACs. We require lobbyists to disclose to the Secretary of the Senate and the House Clerk their campaign contributions and payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees or entities controlled by the name for or honoring Members of Congress. Ladies and gentlemen, this is an extremely difficult and new way of controlling lobby operations. I think we are restoring the trust of the American people and our system of government, and I think we are living up to the title of this measure, honest leadership and open government. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?