David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to once again engage in a colloquy with my very good friend from Maryland, the distinguished majority leader, if I might. As we are standing here today, I will say, unfortunately, on the House floor this has become sort of the Rules Committee original jurisdiction process. We are now doing it on the House floor because a decision was made by the majority leadership to prevent the Rules Committee from having an opportunity to even consider this resolution. Mr. Speaker, if I might just pretend as if this is a committee hearing and assume that the distinguished Chair has yielded time to me, I would like to inquire of the author of the resolution as to whether or not it is the intent to have Members of this institution who might possibly be engaging in a very, very great protest over which they feel very strongly and they are arrested, I would like to inquire is it the intention of the author of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, to have that measure, have that Member, referred with a potential huge, huge legal fee, $450 to $1,000 an hour, to action taken by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct? And, similarly, I ask whether or not it is the intent of the author of the resolution to have the measure if someone, a Member of this House, gets a traffic ticket and they have to face a legal challenge there, if it is their intent that the issue of a Member's traffic ticket be referred to the Ethics Committee so the Ethics Committee can decide whether or not they want to empanel an investigative group to look at this, or choose to waive it. Or, as I said earlier, for littering or any other small instance. My concern with this very poorly crafted resolution, my concern, Mr. Speaker, is we will see a situation whereby Members are faced with that kind of challenge. I would be happy to yield to my friend to have him respond if that is the intent of his legislation here.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, but I have to say that I am very, very troubled that we are where we are. I see the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, my very good friend from Detroit, Mr. Conyers, on the floor. Just before we adjourned for the Memorial Day break, he and I were in a lengthy exchange, both upstairs in the Rules Committee and then here on the House floor dealing with the issue of lobbying reform, and I was very pleased that Mr. Conyers supported an amendment that I offered dealing with disclosure of post-employment plans for Members. It was a very thoughtful process. Concern had been raised about that, and Mr. Conyers was very, very generous in looking at that issue, in dealing responsibly with it, and accepting the amendment that I proposed to that issue. When we were in the midst of debate, and I will have to say when he stood there, I was somewhat concerned over the fact that we saw gross politicization from some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who have continued to try to make campaign speeches on this issue of lobbying and ethics reform, talking about the message that was sent last November. We all know that the American people want an institution, a United States House of Representatives, that is above reproach. We all know that Members of this institution should in fact be held to the highest possible standards. But I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, what troubles me about where we are at this moment. I just today looked at a report that was issued on the great new openness and the way this institution has been run and how dramatically improved it is. And then we are given, with this resolution, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, a very, very poorly drafted resolution. That is the reason that we have a referral process. In the 109th Congress, we had many, many issues that we had to address. And original jurisdiction matters that were referred to the Committee on Rules in fact were addressed in hearings, were addressed in markups, and in fact were resolved. We listened to colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, talk about all of these great reforms that were implemented on the opening day of the 110th Congress and these great changes that have taken place. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that we also have been spending time in the 110th Congress cleaning up the poorly worded, messy language that we dealt with. One example: In a rule that was passed by this House we self-executed a provision which actually allowed Members to once again attend charitable events. In the opening day rules package that was put into place on this issue, Mr. Speaker, there was a provision that actually denied Members, it denied Members, the opportunity to attend charitable events. Now, that was rectified. But I use that one example, Mr. Speaker, to point to the fact that if we had handled this issue the way Mr. Conyers had handled the issue of lobbying ethics reform, which we supported in a bipartisan way, we would not be dealing with a resolution that creates the potential, Mr. Speaker, for Members of this House who face a traffic ticket, Members who might want to protest, as I said earlier in my remarks, at the Sudanese Embassy over policies that are taking place there. What it would mean, Mr. Speaker, is under this resolution, a Member who gets a traffic ticket, gets a ticket for littering, is arrested for protesting at the Sudanese Embassy, that that would have to be referred to the Committee on Standards. My friend has just said there is a provision in here, it is the last line, item 2 in the ``resolved'' clause, which says if the committee does not empanel an investigative subcommittee to review the allegations, submit a report to the House describing its reasons for not empaneling such an investigative subcommittee, together with the actions, if any, the committee has taken in response to the allegation. So, Mr. Speaker, this very, very poorly crafted resolution basically does state that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct does in fact have to deal with this, even if they choose, because it was a protest or a traffic ticket or a littering ticket, they still have to deal with this issue by choosing not to empanel an investigative committee to address that. Now, our new colleague from Kansas stood up and very proudly talked about the fact that she is dealing with this issue of pension reform. We all want to do everything that we can to make sure that Members don't have the taxpayers subsidizing these pensions of criminals, people who are imprisoned. We know there was concern raised about family members, but I will say there is nothing in this resolution that we are debating right now, Mr. Speaker, that addresses the issue of ensuring that criminals who have served in this institution are not going to continue to benefit from their pensions. In this very unique case, Mr. Speaker, I will say that we are very troubled over the fact that there are co-conspirators involved in this charge; and, Mr. Speaker, they are in fact family members who potentially could become the beneficiaries of this pension. So, Mr. Speaker, I will say again I am going to vote in favor of this resolution, but I am very, very troubled about the way it has been worded. I am very troubled over the fact that it was not referred to the Rules Committee of which I am privileged to serve as the ranking minority member. I think this is a very poor way of doing business. Our Republican leader came forward with an appropriate privileged resolution which simply called for the Ethics Committee to expeditiously take action. We have had to wait for nearly half a year without any action whatsoever being taken to follow up on the action that was taken in the 109th Congress. I believe everyone should in fact be deemed innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. I believe that as we look at this, though, it is imperative that we have action taken as quickly as possible. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my very good friend from Texas, Judge Gohmert.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Republican leader for yielding. I would like to begin by engaging my very good friend and classmate, the distinguished majority leader, in a colloquy, if I might; and I would be happy to yield to him to respond. Our Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, has just referred to the fact that, on May 1, we saw the appointment of the pool of those on the Ethics Committee who would in fact be responsible, or they will be impaneled to deal with this question, and he referred to the fact that we have gone for, really, almost the first half of this year without any action taking place. And as he correctly said, a decision was made to empanel that group on the majority side today. We got the news yesterday of this very unfortunate indictment. I would just like to inquire of my friend exactly why it is that it took us this long to see action taken, when, in fact, so much other action was taken in the 109th Congress. I would be happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, and I thank the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Speaker, for his comments and for being forthright in saying that they really don't have an answer in response to the fact that this has been open for literally months, this entire year. A very serious question was carried over from the 109th Congress to the 110th Congress, and I listened to my friend just a few minutes ago provide a great campaign speech about the message that was sent last November and the fact that we've got this great degree of openness and transparency and all, the likes of which didn't exist in past Congresses. But I will say, Mr. Speaker, that I am really very troubled when I look at this resolution that as our Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, said was just provided to us. Now, let me state very clearly for the record, this falls within the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Rules. This has not been referred to the Rules Committee, and with our first look at it, again it was just handed to us, it would be an understatement to say that we're very troubled with the potential ramifications of what this resolution would do, Mr. Speaker. One of the staff members just said to me, it would be possible that one of our Members could be protesting at the Sudanese Embassy. We know that there is a great deal of controversy and question around policy that takes place in Sudan as it relates to Darfur and other things, and conceivably if a Member of this institution were protesting and were arrested, it would have to be referred to the House Committee on Ethics, and they would be required to empanel an investigative committee to look at this or report back as to why it didn't take place. In this resolution, it says any Federal or State court. I don't know if someone possibly might be exceeding the speed limit and pulled over and ticketed. I don't know whether or not that Member would have to be referred to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and see an investigative committee empaneled to investigate that speeding ticket. The point that I am making, Mr. Speaker, is we continue to hear about this great new openness and transparency and the deliberative nature of this institution, when we have a resolution that the majority leader correctly has introduced, and he is certainly entitled to do that, to say it is to be referred to the Committee on Rules. Yet from what the majority leader has said, Mr. Speaker, we're scheduled to vote on this in just a matter of a few minutes, and we've just looked at this three- page measure, and those are the questions that we have initially that I would have certainly raised if we had had a hearing up in the Rules Committee on this measure. Everyone wants to make sure that this institution is held to the highest possible ethical standard. I believe that we all sincerely want to do that. The issue of ethics and lobbying reform and all has been greatly politicized by our friends in the majority; greatly politicized by our friends in the majority. We had a debate on this just before we adjourned before Memorial Day, and to me it was just outrageous to hear the kind of rhetoric that was used, pointing the finger of blame on this issue. I think it is very sad. We are here responding to an indictment, the likes of which has not been seen for a Member in a long, long period of time, and I hope very much that as we do seek greater deliberation that we will take resolutions like this and run them through the regular order process.

Mr. DREIER

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

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

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

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I might reclaim my time. And I do so to simply say, I was posing a question to my colleague, not asking for a campaign speech on what the American people sent us to do here in November. The fact is, Democrats and Republicans alike are committed to reform. I am very proud of the record we have had on reform, and I am honored to have had it praised by the distinguished Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary. The question that I have is a very specific one: Why in this legislation did we go from the utilization of three words, ``negotiation for compensation,'' to this open-ended question of simply ``negotiation''? I would be happy to further yield to my friend to elucidate us on that.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time. My question, and I will pose it again to my colleague from Tampa. The issue of negotiation for Members of Congress, the debate that we are having now is not about the message that was sent last November, it is not about Medicare part D. It is a question about the issue of lobbying and ethics reform in this institution. And obviously my colleague doesn't really have an answer to this question. What it does do is it underscores the fact that it is absolutely essential that we deal with this issue in a responsible, bipartisan way to try to bring about some kind of resolution in here. And so I am very, very troubled with the way that this has been handled in a piecemeal way. And so, Mr. Speaker, it is true that the effort is a valiant one. I congratulate and praise those who have been involved in it. And as I said in my opening remarks, it's very clear that reform is a work in progress. And we need to do more on the issue of reform. It's just that this bill is nowhere near the level of the bill that was passed under the Republican Congress. And I will say, I hope very much this institution will pass a bill that is even better than the one that I was privileged to author in the 109th Congress. And I believe that we could do better than we did in the 109th Congress. It's just that this measure, after all of this talk of reform, after all of this talk about the message sent last November, falls short of where we were in the last Congress, and that's why we are very troubled by this. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, so that when we succeed in defeating the previous question, I will be able to make in order an amendment that was offered that specifically provides greater disclosure and transparency and accountability which, again, are the three buzz words that are used around here: transparency, disclosure and accountability. If, in fact, a Member is asking for an earmark, if a Member has been asked for an earmark by a lobbyist, under the amendment that I hope that we will be able to make in order, that Mr. Flake has propounded and unfortunately it was rejected by the Rules Committee, it would simply require that lobbying entity to disclose the fact that they have, in fact, made that in order. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to, just before the vote on the previous question, have printed in the Congressional Record a detailed explanation of the amendment that would require that lobbyists who make a request of a Member, that they call for an earmark to be made, that that information be made public. I believe that that, in and of itself, is a very, very modest but responsible thing that needs to be done in this effort to ensure greater transparency and disclosure.

Mr. DREIER. So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply say to my friend, the example of allowing a public institution to provide meals and tickets and all kinds of things while a private institution cannot do that underscores the fact that this issue needs to be addressed in a broad bipartisan way. Now, in the exchange that I had with the distinguished Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary upstairs, he was happy to give it back over to us at the Rules Committee. We should have had an original jurisdiction hearing on a wide range of these issues that have not been addressed. In the last Congress, we held four original jurisdiction hearings on this issue. This year there have been none. So I think that the point that my friend from Mesa is making, very correctly, is that he made a bipartisan attempt to the new majority leadership to try and address this and was rebuffed. Everyone has recognized, I believe, certainly on our side of the aisle, and we did so when we were in the majority, that the issue of reform needs to be done in a bipartisan way. I know that on the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Smith, the ranking member, has worked with Chairman Conyers; but there are many of the rest of us who have been involved in this issue of reform who I believe should have been consulted, especially in light of a number of provisions that were included; and, in fact, one provision which is absolutely outrageous, no hearing whatsoever, it was literally snuck into this bill, dealing with the question of Members attending charitable events. No hearing, no consideration whatsoever. A piecemeal attempt to do this. Now, Mr. Speaker, on the 29th of March, nearly 2 months ago, the minority leader, Mr. Boehner, sent a letter to the Speaker asking that she deal with these important questions which impact every single Member of this institution with a bipartisan panel. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to inform the House that Minority Leader Boehner has gotten no response to that letter that was sent nearly 2 months ago. So that is why we are concerned about this process. Yes, the bill itself is one which included so much of what I was proud to include in H.R. 4975; does not get to that level. But I am urging opposition to this rule, as is Mr. Flake, as was Dr. Gingrey and others of my colleagues, so that we can try and improve this in a bipartisan way. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DREIER. So the gentlewoman is the last speaker?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to clarify this once again, if I might. So a private institution is not allowed to provide any kind of meal or support, tickets or things like that, but a public institution is able to?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is on her feet and so I would actually like to engage her in a colloquy, if I might, and ask some questions. I would be more than happy to yield to my friend from Tampa. I am very concerned about the ramifications of this measure, and I talked about the concern that I have over this issue of charitable events, and that this item was in a piecemeal way stuck into this rule, and I raised the issue of the letter. Mr. Speaker, I submit for printing in the Record a copy of the letter that was sent by Mr. Boehner to my California colleague Speaker Pelosi. Mr. Speaker, the reason I do that is that there has been no response to this nearly 2-month-old letter; and I hope that maybe someone on the Speaker's staff will read the Congressional Record and see this request for a truly bipartisan approach to this issue. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, March 29, 2007. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Pelosi: The American people have every right to expect the highest ethical standards here in the people's House. Yet, less than three months into the 110th Congress it has become clear that House ethics rules are hopelessly broken. Members on both sides of the aisle are understandably frustrated because they know you can't ``clean up Congress'' with confusing rules that are as difficult to comply with as they are to enforce. It is equally clear that until the ethics rules are repaired through a genuinely bipartisan process, they will continue to lack the credibility needed to ensure broad compliance, effective enforcement and widespread public acceptance. As you know, sweeping changes to House ethics rules imposed at the start of this Congress were drafted in secret by the incoming Majority without consulting either the Minority or the staff of the nonpartisan Ethics Committee. The new rules were then rammed through the House with no opportunity to carefully analyze the proposals or to improve them in any way. The consequences of this ill-considered approach are now being felt by Members and staff on both sides of the aisle: A staffer may attend an evening reception hosted by a corporation and consume shrimp, champagne, sliced filet and canapes . . . but may not accept a slice of pizza or a $7 box lunch provided by the very same corporation at a policy briefing the next day. [see Ethics Committee ``pink sheet'', Feb 6, 2007 (pp. 4-5)] Although Members and staff may play in a $1,000 per person charity golf tournament to benefit a local scholarship fund, they are prohibited from similarly helping the American Red Cross raise funds for Katrina victims by playing in its golf tournament--solely because the Red Cross employs lobbyists. [see Ethics Committee ``pink sheet'', Jan 19, 2007 (p. 7)] In order to go on a ``first date'' with someone who happens to be a lobbyist, a staffer must agree to pay for his or her full share of the lunch or dinner, as well as anything else of value, such as a movie, concert or ballgame. [see Ethics Committee ``pink sneet'', Feb 6, 2007 (p.2)] A Member may accept $200 tickets for the Final Four from Ohio State (public university), but not $20 tickets to a preseason game from Xavier University (private university). [see Gifts & Travel, House Ethics Committee, April 2000 (p. 37)] A Member may accept a $15 t-shirt or $20 hat from the Farm Bureau, but not a $12 mug or mouse pad. Similarly, a $4 latte is OK--but a $4 sandwich is not. [see Ethics Committee ``pink sheet'', Feb 6, 2007 (p. 5)] A Member who has his own airplane is prohibited from flying it for any purpose--official, campaign or personal--even at his own expense. [see Ethics Committee letter to Rep. Stevan Pearce, Feb 16, 2007] A staffer invited to a post-season barbecue for her daughter's soccer team may not attend once she learns that it will be held in the home of a player whose father is a lobbyist. [see Ethics Committee ``pink sheet'', Feb 6, 2007 (p. 2)] Although a Member may not accept dinner from a lobbyist who uses his own funds or those of his firm, he may accept dinner from the very same lobbyist using a credit card provided by his state or local government clients. [see clause 5(a)(3)(O) of House Rule XXV] A corporate executive who is not a lobbyist may not use his expense account to take a Member out to dinner, but may--in many cases--take the same Member to dinner using his personal funds. [see Ethics Committee ``pink sheet'', Feb 6, 2007 (p. 3)] A Member may not take a privately-funded trip if a lobbyist accompanies him to and from Washington; but the same Member may spend five days in Brussels discussing global warming with environmental group lobbyists--as long as none of them are on the same flights to and from the meeting. [see Ethics Committee ``pink sheet'', March 14, 2007 (p. 2)] It's no surprise that Members deeply committed to following the rules are confused and concerned by the current state of disarray in the House. Making matters worse, the chaos inflicted on Members and staff by careless (or worse) Democrat rule writers has now infected the legislative process as well. For example, confusion over the proper application of congressional earmark rules has made it possible for Democratic leaders to certify as ``earmark free'' a multi-billion dollar Continuing Resolution that any knowledgeable observer will confirm was laden with them. Moreover, the failure of the House Ethics Committee to provide official guidance to Members seeking to comply with newly adopted earmark ``conflict of interest'' rules until after the deadline fix submission of earmark requests had expired has unnecessarily disrupted the FY08 appropriations process by delaying for more than a month processing of many Member earmark requests, and complicated efforts to make the earmark process more transparent. This latter incident underscores the folly of Democrats rushing to unilaterally impose complicated and contradictory new rules on the House, and then denying an entirely reasonable joint request by the Chairman and Ranking Republican of the Ethics Committee for the additional resources the panel needs to carry out its added responsibilities to Members. Sadly, Democrat leaders straining to legitimize their campaign rhetoric have instead left Members--on both sides of the aisle--more vulnerable than ever to violating rules that are hard to define, riddled with logical inconsistencies, and utterly unlikely to prevent the sort of abuses that have properly sparked so much public outrage. After all, few of the ``Culture of Corruption'' violations by Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney--or alleged violations by William Jefferson and Alan Mollohan--would have been prevented had the recently passed ethics changes been in effect last year. Rather, the principled path to a more ethical Congress is through clearcut, common sense rules that are widely communicated and firmly enforced. And, as you and your fellow Democrat leaders argued so persuasively during the last Congress, the process of developing those rules must be transparent and genuinely bipartisan. To that end, I ask that you join me in appointing a bipartisan working group tasked with analyzing House ethics rules--and recommending fair, sensible and understandable revisions that working group members believe would improve both compliance and enforcement. As with the Livingston-Cardin ethics task force in 1997, the working group should be led by co-chairs and evenly divided between majority and minority members. I propose that it consist of six to eight members, including a member of the ethics committee from each party (but neither its chairman nor ranking minority member), one elected leader from each party, and one or two additional Members from each side of the aisle. I further propose that we direct the working group to report back its recommendations no later than July 1, 2007 to allow time for the House to consider its proposed revisions to the Rules of the House prior to the August recess. Madam Speaker, I have been encouraged by recent public statements made by you and members of your staff noting your desire to correct evident problems with several of the new rules. Thus, I hope you will commit to work constructively with me to ensure that any revisions to the Code of Conduct and other House rules are imbued with the sort of credibility that you have often pointed out can only result from a thoroughly bipartisan effort. Sincerely, John A. Boehner, Republican Leader. Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask my colleague from Tampa to describe a term that is in this bill. Now, one of the questions out there is that Members of Congress are often approached by people and considered for employment beyond their service in this institution. Now, in H.R. 4975, we were very specific in saying that when negotiation for compensation, and those are the exact words that we used in H.R. 4975, are included in the bill, then there has to be a letter to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct stating that that negotiating process has begun. So we had that exact term of ``negotiating for compensation.'' Those are the three words that we had in there. Now, I would like to inquire of my friend from Tampa why it was in this measure that they went from ``negotiation for compensation'' to simply ``negotiation.'' And the reason I say that is a very sincere one. The question naturally comes to mind, now, the gentlewoman from Tampa is new here and obviously not prepared to leave at this point. But there are people, Mr. Speaker, who may have been here for a while and people have decided they wanted to approach them. Is it negotiation if it is simply said to that person, ``Gosh, we'd like you to consider going to work for us''? And so I am wondering if my friend might define this term ``negotiation'' for us. And I am happy to yield to the distinguished manager of this rule.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good new friend from Tampa (Ms. Castor) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and to congratulate her on her statement that she has just provided. But, Mr. Speaker, I rise to reluctantly oppose this rule. This bill has lots of problems, and I understand the problems on the other side of the aisle. I am very happy to see the distinguished Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, my very good friend John Conyers, here. It was just a year ago, it was just a year ago this month, that we were on the floor with our own lobbying bill, and we faced many of the same problems and challenges that Chairman Conyers and others in the Democratic leadership are facing at this moment. Trying to address the concerns that our colleagues have on this issue is a challenge, a very challenging thing, and they have discovered the lesson that I learned long ago, and that is reform is very hard work. It is a constant work in progress. I was reminded by one of my staff members that I had said at one point as we moved ahead with a reform bill, which I am happy to say we passed in the last Congress, I said, when we are done with that reform, what we need to do is work on more reform. This is, again, a constant work in progress, and will continue to be. And I believe it is part of our responsibility to constantly look at ways in which we can reform and improve the operations of this institution. But if the bill that this House passed in the last Congress was described as a ``sham,'' it is very unfortunate, and Mr. Conyers and Ms. Castor and others were there when I was describing this, the very distinguished chair of the Committee on Rules no fewer than seven times when we, a year ago this month, were debating this measure, described the bill I had, H.R. 4975, as a ``sham'' bill. I have to say, as I listen to my friend from Tampa (Ms. Castor) talk about this bill, she was going through the fact that we will have disclosure on the Internet of travel, and she went through basically the provisions included in H.R. 4975; it is basically the same bill. But, unfortunately, there are a number of important provisions included in H.R. 4975 that are not included in this measure. I find that to be somewhat troubling. For instance, while starting out with a 2-year restriction on lobbying after Congress, the majority left that provision on the cutting room floor. They recognized, as we did, that the economics of attracting and retaining good staff, they don't work with that kind of restriction. But instead of retaining a provision which passed the House last year and would provide everyone with a degree of transparency about who was and was not under the lobbying restriction, and I am going to offer an amendment to add that back which I hope will be able to improve the bill. But this bill, as we have it, is not nearly to the level of what the new majority described as a sham in the last Congress. While this bill provides important new criminal penalties for lobbying violations, it includes nothing, absolutely nothing, Mr. Speaker, to make enforcement more rigorous. I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to add a provision which again was included in the bill that we had passed out of this House last year which would allow the House inspector general to randomly audit lobbying disclosure filings and forward cases of wrongdoing to the Department of Justice for prosecution. The majority's answer to that proposal was, no, we don't want enforcement of our bill. Enforcement is always a challenge. We deal with that with the issue of illegal immigration and a wide range of things. It is easy to put all kinds of great ideas out there, but if there is no enforcement, it has no teeth and no chance of success. That is something that is very lacking in this bill. We had it in our lobbying reform bill that passed last year, and I offered it as an amendment at the Rules Committee. Unfortunately, my colleagues in the majority on the Rules Committee rejected it. Mr. Speaker, last year, Mr. Castle added a provision on the floor requiring lobbyists to take ethics training. Is that provision in this bill? Nope, it's not. Did the majority make Mr. Castle's amendment in order to consider that? Nope, they didn't. My colleague, Dr. Gingrey, a former member of the Rules Committee, added an amendment on the floor dealing with the personal leadership of PAC funds. That was not included in the bill, and his amendment was not made in order. Last year, with bipartisan support on the floor, we amended our bill, H.R. 4975, to say that Members who have leadership PACs cannot transfer those dollars into their own account for personal use, which is what can happen today. It is not allowed for principal campaign committee accounts, but that loophole which allows Members to transfer money from their leadership PAC for personal use is still going to be allowed. And the attempt to even offer an amendment to close that horrendous loophole was denied. That is to say nothing of the other creative ideas that were summarily rejected by the Rules Committee majority last evening. Mr. Speaker, if the bill which I sponsored last year was a sham, and as I said the chairman of the Rules Committee, although last night she said she never said it, seven times it is in the Congressional Record when she was offering her motion to recommit, if it was a sham, then this bill can only be characterized at this moment as being ``sub- sham,'' and our efforts to raise it to the level of a mere sham were rebuffed, unfortunately, in the Rules Committee. Which brings me to the rule for this bill, Mr. Speaker. For all of the criticism the Republicans take for the way we administered the House, and we hear that constantly up in the Rules Committee and down here on the floor, it is notable this bill makes in order fewer amendments than we did when we considered our bill last year. The rule for H.R. 4975, our lobbying bill, made in order nine amendments. This year, only five amendments were made in order. And while it gives Mr. Van Hollen an up-or-down vote on his so-called bundling disclosure bill, it doesn't attach it to the lobbying bill going to the Senate, making it much more difficult to ultimately reach passage. Mr. Speaker, this rule and these bills are not unlike many of the so- called reforms instituted in this Congress, which means all show and no substance whatsoever. For instance, our Democratic friends take credit for adopting and supposedly improving Republican earmark disclosure reforms. As Mr. Flake found out just last week, when it comes to actually trying to enforce those rules, the Rules Committee eliminated every avenue for a Member to bring this question before the House. On top of that, Mr. Flake had several amendments addressing lobbying for earmarks. Mr. Speaker, none of those amendments were made in order. In the end, there is little in this bill that is truly objectionable. My friend from Tampa went through and outlined the provisions included in H.R. 4975 that passed this House a year ago this month with bipartisan support. Again, there is little that is truly objectionable. There is very little that is in this bill that is beyond what we had in the last Congress; and, unfortunately, it doesn't include or even provide an opportunity to provide amendments to include many of the items that were so important in this effort. This bill takes no risk, reaches no heights, and falls short of the lofty promises made by my newly minted majority colleagues. Unfortunately, the rule is unacceptable in its current form, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to urge its defeat. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlewoman yield?