David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Dallas (Mr. Hensarling), a very hardworking reformer of this institution.

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 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. 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. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that reform is very, very difficult work to do; and I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), my very good friend, a lead reformer. (Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield, if he has any time left. I will say that I agree with exactly what the gentleman said. I wish there could have been more in this bill too. But, again, getting input from so many on both sides of the aisle has been a challenge.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Speaker how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. As many of my colleagues have said, this has been obviously a challenging time for us. We are dealing with some very serious problems in this institution. They are bipartisan. They cross party lines. And that is why the Speaker and I and others felt very strongly about the need to do what we can to do what we possibly could to ensure that we reached out to both Democrats and Republicans and a wide range of individuals and outside groups and all for recommendations. I am happy that many of those issues have been addressed, and I think it is very important for us to ask each Member to look at the bill as a whole and answer these very important questions: Does it increase transparency? Does it increase accountability? Does it put more information in the hands of the American people? Does it protect the first amendment right of citizens to petition their government? Does it strengthen the integrity of the United States Congress? Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely convinced that the answer to every single one of those questions is a resounding ``yes'' on every single count. No matter what some have argued on the other side, if they want to maintain the absolute status quo, it creates the potential to continue many of the problems that we have faced. Virtually everyone has acknowledged that while they may not believe that this bill goes as far as we would like, this is the first step in a process that will allow us to join with our colleagues in the other body to deal in a conference with the measure that I hope is even stronger than this very important first step that we are taking. I think that the vice chairman of the Rules Committee Mr. Diaz-Balart put it very well when he said that anyone who casts a vote against this rule is saying no to the issue of reform. No, I don't want to proceed with bringing about the kinds of institutional changes that will play a role in enhancing the level of integrity to which the American people can hold this great deliberative body. We hear everyone talking about reform. Voices for reform are out there, and they are very prevalent in the media, here on the House floor, day after day after day. But in just a few minutes we are going to have the opportunity to transform those voices for reform into votes for reform. This is our opportunity. Mr. Speaker, with that I urge an ``aye'' vote on this rule so that we can move ahead with this very, very important reform effort.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that I have 8\1/2\ minutes remaining and my colleague from Rochester has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining, I think it would be probably useful for us to proceed with hearing some of her arguments.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I would simply say that this measure is designed to deal with lobbying and ethics reform for the first branch of government, the legislative branch; and it is for that reason that we have not gotten into the executive branch issue to which my friend referred. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my dear friend from California, the distinguished minority leader, to whom I am happy to yield at any time whatsoever, that on the issue of prescription drugs, we are very proud of the fact that more than 30 million Americans, many more than had been anticipated, are today saving millions and millions of dollars because of the Medicare prescription drug package that we put into place. On the issue of energy issues, we are outraged at the increase in gasoline and fuel costs. But I will tell you, I am really perplexed, because as they decry the issue of global warming, you would think that they would be ecstatic at the fact that gasoline prices have gone through the roof. But, unfortunately, it is their policies, their refusal to pursue ANWR in a responsible way to deal with the issue of boutique fuels and to deal with the issue of refinery capacity that has been a problem. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a very hardworking member of both the Rules Committee and the Committee on Ethics, my friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. DREIER. I yielded twice as much, 100 percent more, than what the gentleman yielded to me.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this juncture I would like to yield 30 seconds to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would reclaim my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to engage in a colloquy with my friend. I have the greatest respect for him as a fellow Californian. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, as we look at this issue, will the gentleman not acknowledge that the problem of corruption we face in this town is a bipartisan issue, that it crosses party lines and it is not just a Republican issue?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings had during the recess be printed in the Congressional Record and that all Members and former Members who spoke during the recess have the privilege of revising and extending their remarks.