David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the very hardworking chairman of the Committee on Administration, our friend from Grand Rapids, Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond. My friend said, if we have a small bill. We don't have a small bill. This is a very, very strong package that we have come forward with. He has talked about outside organizations that have criticized this. I am very happy that three of the recommendations that outside organizations have provided to us are included in this. We have included input from a wide range of entities. This is a package that does double the disclosure rate for lobbyists when it comes to their activities that relate to this institution. We have very strong reforms. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I was just listening to the debate on the last bill considered under suspension of the rules, and I saw a wonderful sense of bipartisanship as we were able to pass, I suspect we may have a vote on it, but I know it will pass overwhelmingly, the legislation by our good friend from Dallas, Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson. It is my hope that, as we proceed with this very important issue, that that same sense of bipartisanship can prevail. Because I believe that it is absolutely essential to dealing with the challenge that lies ahead. Mr. Chairman, as you know very well, recent scandals involving elected representatives from both political parties have underscored the very urgent need for us to reform ethics and lobbying rules. The American people and Members of Congress are very correctly incensed about this. I believe that it is absolutely outrageous some of the things that we have seen from both political parties over the past several months. Action, common-sense action, Mr. Chairman, is absolutely needed, and that is why I am very proud that Speaker Dennis Hastert 4 months ago stepped up to the plate and said this is exactly what we need to do, is we need to take strong action. Republicans and Democrats have worked together tirelessly on this issue over the past 4 months. The goal is to strengthen and reform House rules, as well as that 1995 Lobbying Disclosure Act which we very proudly put into place when we won the majority back in 1994. Our aim, our goal, is a Congress that is effective, a Congress that is ethical, and a Congress that is worthy of the public trust. Now, I know that the American people should understandably have a healthy skepticism towards this institution. That is what Thomas Jefferson wanted. But, at the same time, it is very important that we do what we can to enhance the level of trust that the American people have in their elected representatives. We know right after this began, at the beginning of this second session of the 109th Congress, we stepped right up and were able to take very bold action to bring about reform. On our very first day of legislative business we voted to level the playing field by ending the access to the House floor and gym by former Members of Congress who are registered lobbyists. This rule change was supported by 379 of our 435 Members. At the beginning of the last month, we took a second step in the name of balance and fairness. In another bipartisan vote, the House closed an enormous loophole in campaign finance regulations. Integrity in our elections was a key focus of our reform efforts, and the 527 Reform Act makes sure campaign finance laws apply across the board. Now we are considering the comprehensive reform package, H.R. 4975, the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. Mr. Chairman, this legislation seeks to uphold the highest standards of integrity when it comes to Congress' interaction with outside groups. I am very proud of the process and the results of this multi-month effort that we have seen. Anyone, anyone, Democrat and Republican alike, outside groups, academics, anyone who wanted to offer any suggestion, any proposal at all, make any comment on any part of the legislation has had that opportunity. This has been a very thorough and, again, a very bipartisan process. Mr. Chairman, we already conducted a very spirited and worthwhile debate just last Thursday when we were considering the rule that allows us to consider this legislation; and, from that debate, it was very clear to me that there is a lot of confusion over H.R. 4975. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, as I have read editorials for a wide range of publications here in this town and across the country, there is an awful lot of confusion as to what this bill actually does. So I thought that I would take just a moment to summarize for our friends here in the House and for anyone who might be following this, any editorial writer out there, I would like to summarize what this legislation will and will not do. Mr. Chairman, this legislation will enhance transparency and accountability in Congress through increased disclosure and tighter rules. No matter what anyone says, Mr. Chairman, this legislation does increase transparency and accountability through toughening up disclosure and tightening the rules. Mr. Chairman, this legislation will fulfill the public's right to know who is seeking to influence their Congress. This legislation will provide brighter lines of right and wrong and more rigorous ethics training so that everyone can understand what is right and what is wrong here. I was taught that as a kid, but obviously there has been some confusion and in the past there have been gray areas. This legislation creates that clear definition and provides an opportunity for greater training for Members and staff so they can have an understanding of it. This legislation will significantly reform the earmark process to foster more responsible and accountable government spending. I read one editorial in which they said this bill does not tackle the so-called Bridge to Nowhere issue. Well, Mr. Chairman, anyone who has followed this debate knows that full well that last week when we were debating the rule, the Speaker, the majority leader, I, the whip, others made have a very strong commitment, working with the Appropriation Committee, that the Senate has passed language which we think is very good. It is language which says that when we look at the issue of earmark reform so we can have greater accountability when it comes to spending that it should not simply focus on the appropriations process. It should be universal and go across the board to the other committees as well. That commitment was made a week ago, and yet some people seem to think that we are not willing to take that on. Mr. Chairman, this legislation will considerably increase fines and penalties for violating the transparency and accountability provisions. This legislation will give a new authority to the House Inspector General to perform random audits of lobbyist disclosure forms and refer violations to the Department of Justice. Now, Mr. Chairman, here is what this legislation will not do. It will not permit business as usual. It will not perpetuate the status quo. Mr. Chairman, while this body is united in its desire for reform, we clearly have disagreements over some of the specifics. Some think that this bill goes too far; some think that this bill does not go far enough; and, frankly, I wish that this bill were stronger than it is. But we are getting ready to take this very important step to go into conference with the Senate; and, as we do that, I believe that we can come back with a stronger bill. This is what I am hoping will happen, but we must proceed with this measure so that we can make that happen. Yet today we stand, as I said, on the starting blocks of our reform effort, and the single most important thing that we can do at this stage is to keep the process of reform moving. That is really what this is all about today, Mr. Chairman. We know full well that they are going to get a lot of people standing in the way, and yet we need to take this step forward, and that is what H.R. 4975 does. There is no question whatsoever that this bill, regardless of what anyone says about it, that it represents progress. It is a move in the right direction, and a lot of us want to do more, but this is a bill that moves us in the right direction. There is no question at all that it is a vast improvement over the status quo, and there is no question that it does put us on a path towards that very important conference that we will have with our friends in the other body. Now, of course, Mr. Chairman, there are many up there who want to engage in nothing but criticism. They want to say no. They want to defeat this effort for real reform. They want to just criticize what it is that we are trying to do here when we have been able to fashion a bipartisan package. But to what end? To protect the current system? Because this is really what is going to happen. I mean, if we pass the previous question, if we defeat this legislation, all we will be doing is perpetuating the status quo because it will slow the process of reform. The same system that we have spent 4 months decrying, as we sought this reform, would be perpetuated. It defies logic, Mr. Chairman, to criticize the current standards and then vote to keep them in place, because that is exactly what will happen. With their recommittal motion, that is exactly what will happen with any attempt to defeat this measure. Mr. Chairman, Winston Churchill, I think said it very well, when he wrote: Criticism is easy; achievement is difficult. Mr. Chairman, this is no time for us to recoil in our effort to bring about reform. By voting yes for this bill, the House will vote for achievement, for progress and for rebuilding the trust of the American people. A vote for H.R. 4975 is a vote for reform. Mr. Chairman, after we pass this bill, let me tell you what is next on our agenda: more reform. The Republican party is the party of reform. The Republican party has and will continue to reach out to our Democratic colleagues who are reform-minded to continue down this road towards reform. The drive for reform never stops. We have demonstrated that consistently in the past, and we will continue to do so in the future. It is a continuous, ongoing process that takes both perseverance and commitment. Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is absolutely essential for us to continue down the road towards reform so that we can make this institution more effective and more respected. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I have not been in Alice in Wonderland until I heard my colleague talk about it. So much for bipartisan comity. I am very proud to be working with Democrats on this important legislation, but as I listen to this mischaracterization of our strong bipartisan reform effort, I am somewhat stunned. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 4 minutes to an individual who has worked as hard or harder than anyone on this issue of reform, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, my Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend from Charleston, West Virginia, a hardworking member of the Rules Committee (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, for a unanimous consent request, I yield to my good friend from Vienna, Virginia, my classmate (Mr. Wolf). (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our hardworking friend from Utah (Mr. Bishop), a member on the Rules Committee.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, as I said at the outset, we have gone through a long, bipartisan, 4-month process to get to where we are. Speaker Hastert began in January saying we need as an institution to step up to the plate and deal with the issue of lobbying and ethics reform, and that is exactly what we have done. Again, we have worked with Democrats and Republicans, outside organizations; and, as I have listened to the debate and the statements made from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it is very obvious to me that they have failed to read this legislation. Mr. Chairman, in virtually every single area that my friend from Rochester just addressed, this is addressed in the legislation. And if it is not actually addressed in the legislation itself, we have made commitments that we are going to, as we move this process forward, get into a conference with the Senate and address some of these issues of concern. Critics seem to be absolutely intent on telling us what this bill is not. Everything that was said by my friend from Rochester was in the negative. Just imagine if we went through every single day lamenting what is not. Today is not Christmas; that is terrible. Today is not Thanksgiving, and that is terrible. Today is not my birthday, and that is terrible. But what does it get us? It does not get us a thing. Searching for storm clouds on a clear day is a recipe for inaction and defeatism. Mr. Chairman, Speaker Hastert and I and the leadership team here and the Republicans and, I am happy to say, some Democrats have indicated to me that they are interested in not defeatism; they are interested in pursuing vigorous reform. As I listened to the litany of what this bill is not, I think it is very important again, as I have read some of these editorials which mischaracterize the legislation, as I listened to the rhetoric that mischaracterized this legislation, let us again look at the bill and just four simple things of what this bill is: This bill actually doubles the fines, doubles the fines, for lobbyists who fail to disclose. This bill adds the possibility of jail time for failing to comply with the Act. This bill adds oversight to make sure disclosure information is accurate. It gives the public full, online access to disclosure reports. It withdraws the government-funded pension for people who commit the crimes that we have outlined in the legislation. So, Mr. Chairman, anyone who tries to say that they are supporting a recommittal motion, are going to vote against this legislation because it does not do enough is, in fact, standing in the way of reform. Many people said we should get this thing out. The Speaker and I said we wanted this to pass by early March. Obviously, we needed more and more input from Members, from outside organizations, from academics, from our constituents who are concerned about this issue. And, Mr. Chairman, we extended beyond that early March date. Here we are now in early May, having listened to so many different people, and we have come up with a bill that I believe is strong. I believe it is bold. I hope we will be able to do more, but this is legislation that allows us to move forward in a positive way.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. It appears again that my friends on the other side don't have any remaining speakers. I know you are waiting and want to reserve the balance of your time. Absolutely, in a bipartisan sense of comity, we want you to reserve the time. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 4975, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, spelling, punctuation, and cross-references, and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding, and I rise in strong support of this amendment. Once again, we are demonstrating a very strong bipartisan commitment to dealing with the issue of institutional reform. Mr. Sodrel has come forward with a very creative and thoughtful idea to enhance our goal of accountability; and he is doing it in a bipartisan way by getting our Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), to join as a cosponsor, as well as the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis). I think that is a brilliant move on his part, and I think it will strengthen this piece of legislation as we aspire to the goals of once again creating a higher level of respect by the American people and is necessary for this great institution. I congratulate the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Sodrel).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I simply rise in support of the committee process itself. I was not aware of the fact that Members who have leadership PACs would be in a position to convert those funds to personal use when they choose to leave this institution. And it was because of the three hearings that we held in the Rules Committee that it came to the surprise, I think, of virtually everyone that the law that was put into place two and a half decades ago preventing Members of Congress, or at least one and a half decades ago, preventing Members of Congress from converting their campaign funds to personal use once they leave this institution does not apply to the so-called leadership PACs. And I simply want to congratulate my friend, Mr. Gingrey, who came forward with this very, very thoughtful idea that emerged from the hearing process itself, and has now offered this amendment, which I think should enjoy very strong bipartisan support. It once again will underscore in this legislation the accountability and the transparency that is very important for the American people to see in this place. And so I am in strong support of the Gingrey amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. I believe that as we look at the issue of earmark reform, Mr. Chairman, it is very important for us to realize that our attempts to rein in the size and scope of the Federal Government is a high priority. My friend has worked on that, and I believe that this amendment itself goes right at that goal of especially the question of people seeing some sort of self-enrichment through the appropriations process here. I thank my friend for his contribution, and I am proud to strongly support the amendment.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I think it is very important for us to hear from our very good friend from California, Mr. Berman; and I hope he may be able to offer some comments on this as one of the lead authors on this important amendment.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that this product we have here today, due to the leadership of Speaker Dennis Hastert, has been a 4-month-long process. We just heard very moving remarks from our friend from Missouri. It is absolutely imperative that we recognize that the motion to recommit is nothing but a sham that would slow the process of reform. It is imperative that we defeat this motion to recommit and pass this measure so that we can move on to the Senate to bring about real, meaningful reform. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important for us to note that last week, as we were prepared to consider the vote on this rule, a strong commitment was made by the Speaker of the House, the majority leader, and others on the leadership team; and I, as the author of this legislation, have been very pleased to make a commitment that, as we look at the issue of earmark reform, it should be broad. And we want to do everything that we can to ensure that the kind of abuse a number of people have talked about in the past does not take place. It is important to note that we have seen a 37 percent reduction in the number of earmarks under the very able leadership of Chairman Jerry Lewis on this issue, and he is committed to further earmark reform. But we also are committed to dealing with this issue in a similar way to the way it has been addressed in the Senate, and that is to ensure that it is broad based and crosses from appropriators to authorizers as well. So I think that the conclusion that my very good friend from California has drawn is an inaccurate one.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding, and I would like to, as I said a moment ago, support the amendment and say that I think this amendment is evidence of a strong bipartisan commitment to our dealing with the issue of reform. Accountability is what this measure is all about, and Mike Castle is someone who has demonstrated a very strong commitment to increased accountability, transparency and disclosure. And when we look at the issue of gifts, heretofore the responsibility has simply fallen on the shoulders of Members of Congress. We believe that when those who are out there are trying to shower gifts onto Members, that they in fact should have some responsibility. That is exactly what the Castle-Gerlach amendment is getting at. I think it is a very good and very helpful addition to the legislation, and I would also like to join in congratulating Mr. Gerlach, who also is a very strongly committed reformer for this institution.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I will simply say, I support the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. Again, this is an indication of our ability to work in a bipartisan way to deal with a question that constantly came to me from Democrats on the other side of the aisle who talked about the notion of imposing a travel ban, and some Members on our side. I believe Mr. Lungren and all of those Members, Mr. Berman from California and Mr. Cole on the Rules Committee, have worked very diligently, and I look forward to accepting this amendment.

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