Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There is certainly an ``Alice in Wonderland'' quality to this debate already this afternoon where Alice could believe 90 possible things before breakfast, and to believe that we all worked together on this bill is absolutely not true. Democrats and Republicans have worked hard, but in different alleys, going in different directions. To that end, I would like to submit for the Record at this point from The Post this morning an editorial entitled, ``Kill this Bill,'' along with several others. Every editorial group and outside organizations have said this bill is a hollow sham. [From washingtonpost.com, May 3, 2006] Kill This Bill ``Bold, Responsible, common-sense reform of our current lobbying and ethics laws is clearly needed,'' House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) told his colleagues on the House floor last week. ``We owe it to our constituents. We owe it to ourselves. We owe it to this institution.'' Very true--which is why House members should reject the diluted snake oil that Mr. Dreier and the GOP leadership are peddling as bold reform. Their bill, which is expected to come before the House for a vote today, is an insult to voters who the GOP apparently believes are dumb enough to be snookered by this feint. The procedures under which it is to be debated, allowing only meaningless amendments to be considered, are an insult also--to the democratic process. At best the bill would marginally improve the existing arrangement of minimal disclosure, laxly enforced. Reporting by lobbyists would be quarterly instead of twice yearly and slightly more detailed (with listings of lobbyists' campaign contributions--already available elsewhere--along with gifts to lawmakers and contributions to their charities). Nothing would crimp lawmakers' lifestyles: Still allowed would be meals, gifts (skybox seats at sporting events, say) and cut- rate flights on corporate jets. Privately sponsored travel would be suspended, but only until just after the election. The provisions on earmarks are similarly feeble. Lawmakers who insert pet projects in spending bills would have to attach their names to them--but that's all. If that happens, these provisions wouldn't be subject to challenge. Earmark reform that wouldn't allow a vote to stop future ``Bridges to Nowhere'' isn't real reform. Matching the anemic measure is the undemocratic procedure under which it will be ``debated'' on the House floor. Nine amendments are to be considered, including such tough-love provisions as ``voluntary ethics training'' for members and holding lobbyists liable for knowingly offering gifts whose value exceeds the gift limit. (Not to worry: Legislators wouldn't be liable for accepting them.) The Rules Committee refused to permit votes on amendments to strengthen the measure, including proposals to establish an independent ethics office; to require lawmakers to pay full freight for chartered flights; or to double the waiting period for lawmakers to lobby their former colleagues from one year to two. Neither would the majority risk an up-or-down vote on the much more robust Democratic alternative. Democrats tempted to vote for this sham because they're scared of 30-second ads that accuse them of opposing lobbying reform ought to ask themselves whether they really think so little of their constituents. As for Republicans willing to settle for this legislative fig leaf, they ought to listen to Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.). ``I happen to believe we are losing our moral authority to lead this place,'' Mr. Shays said on the House floor last week. He was generous not to have put that in the past tense.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am in its present form.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear at the outset that if our motion to recommit passes, it will simply substitute for a sham bill a real reform bill. Mr. Speaker, an interesting new poll conducted by The Wall Street Journal and NBC News came out last week. One of its findings is that 78 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing. That means that four out of every five people walking the streets today in America are not happy about what goes on here in this Capitol Building. There are a lot of reasons Americans are not happy with Congress, Mr. Speaker, and let me list a few of them. They are not happy that this Congress allowed their energy industry buddies to write a national energy policy that is earning the oil companies record profits and costing the rest of us more than $3 a gallon at the gas station. They are not happy that special interests have been allowed into the back rooms to write legislation that benefits them but not the American people. They are not happy that these days Members can get away with doing almost anything unless it is so bad it gets the attention of the Justice Department. The Republican leadership can read the polls, too. They figured out they are in trouble, so they put together this so-called reform bill to show Americans that at long last they are ready to clean up their act. But the problem is this is not a serious bill. For the past 2 weeks, commentators and newspapers have been calling this bill for what it is, and here is what they say about it: It is a ``watered down sham,'' The Washington Post; an ``anemic excuse for reform,'' USA Today; ``an Orwellian shell of righteous platitudes'' from the New York Times. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit I have at the desk is a real reform proposal. It is a proposal that makes a serious effort at cleaning up this place, and there is good evidence that it is a real reform proposal, and the Republicans are afraid of it. They do not want it debated in the House. They do not want a vote on it, and that is why they blocked it from being considered on the floor. My proposal will prohibit Members and staff in the House, Senate and executive branch from use of corporate jets. It shuts down the infamous K Street Project. It bans gifts and meals from lobbyists. It ends the practice of adding special interest provisions to conference reports in the dead of night and after the conference has finished. It takes pension benefits away from Members of Congress convicted of crimes; and it requires the public disclosure of all earmarks, not just those of the Appropriations Committee but authorizers and tax bills, and much, much more. My colleagues are faced with a clear and a simple choice today: support the discredited Republican bill before us and prove to your constituents that you are not serious about reform but you rather prefer the status quo of corruption and cronyism and that you are satisfied with a bill that simply gets you by the election; or support a reform proposal that will really begin to clean this place up. But I would warn my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that you cannot have it both ways. The integrity of this Congress is at stake here, and the time has come for all Members to choose their side in this debate. Either stand up and be part of the solution by supporting the proposal I have placed before the House, or remain a part of the problem and vote with the Republican leadership. We know that the Democrat proposal is a tough one, Mr. Speaker, but that is what we have to do to drain this swamp. They want their Congress back out there in America, and so do I. They are sick and tired of a Congress that lavishes gifts on the special interests and then sends them the bill. Vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry it did not lead to input from our side.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our minority leader.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would love to ask my good friend from California what great insight he did gain in these last 5 hours, and if it led him to want us to be able to be part of this input and that you would reconsider turning down a Democrat substitute?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Reclaiming my time, I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is all well and good to talk about we are going to work very hard to fix the Ethics Committee, but we are in the 16th month of this term, and I don't see much action taking place over there. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Hefley would like more time, I can yield him another minute.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, who does have some input.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, after an interminable era of scandal, this Congress was given the greatest opportunity in a generation to change the way business is done in Washington. We were given a chance to truly make a difference and to do something lasting. We were given the chance to help the citizens of this Nation believe in their government once again. But that chance has been squandered, because this Congress has failed. And in so doing, the hypocrisy and cynicism displayed today by the majority of the House will be neither missed nor forgotten by the American people. We have before us the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. It is supposed to be a reform bill. But you can't be bold enough to reform if you don't muster the courage to address the problems. The corruption of this Republican-led Congress is beyond debate. The American people don't trust it anymore. Fewer than 30 percent approve the job it is doing. The only remaining question was how the members of the leadership were going to respond, how committed were they going to be to reforming their bankrupt philosophy of government? This rule and this bill give us the all-too predictable answer to this burning question: This leadership doesn't want reform, and they just aren't going to allow it. As virtually every outside observer has noted in recent days, this legislation is a sham. It won't do anything to reduce influence peddling in Washington or to purge this body of the corruption that has infected it so deeply. I know we are going to hear much more on this later, but what I really want my fellow Americans to focus on right now is something just as telling as the contents of this bill, and that is the process by which it was created. As I and my Democratic colleagues have said again and again throughout the entire Congress, a corrupt legislative process produces corrupt legislation. If bills are written and changed behind closed doors, then there will be no way to know what is hidden in them. If amendments to bills are rejected, not because of their contents, but because of the party they come from, then democracy will have been denied. If the Members of the body are committed to undermining the two- centuries-old rules of the House, they are also intent on undermining the will and the needs of the citizens of this country. And so it has been with this rule, and with this bill. When the bill faced an original jurisdiction markup on April 5, Democrats presented numerous amendments to it in an attempt to actually give it some substance, and all of these amendments were defeated on a party-line vote. During its markup, the Judiciary Committee was the only body that adopted any bipartisan amendments on this legislation. Democrats successfully introduced amendments in the Judiciary Committee requiring lobbyists to disclose more of their activities, such as fund-raisers for candidates and parties that they fund honoring Members of Congress. But the bill we thought we had when we left for recess 2 weeks ago is not the one we saw when we came back. Most of the amendments accepted by the Judiciary Committee had mysteriously disappeared while we were away. The one that survived was done away with last night, a self- executing rule. The majority decided to do this on their own, without telling anyone and while nobody was looking. It was an indefensible abuse of power. My Democrat colleagues and I also offered a substitute to this bill that addressed the many errors it is silent on. Among its many components, our legislation would establish a new Office of Public Integrity to audit and to investigate compliance with lobbying disclosure rules, because it doesn't matter if you have transparency if no one is enforcing the rules and making sure that they comply. It would have prevented special interest provisions from being added into bills in the dead of night by requiring all legislation to be made public 24 hours before it is voted on. Last night in the Rules Committee, my Republican friends had one last chance to open up the process and allow some real debate on the bill. But in typical fashion, they blocked a host of significant amendments, including 20 of the 21 amendments submitted by Democrats. They wouldn't allow our tougher substitute on the bill to even be considered, which means, frankly, that half of the country is disenfranchised in this debate today and we are only able to debate this hollow sham of a reform bill. So I ask my friends in the majority, what kind of reform is that? What conclusions are you asking the American people to draw from this kind of behavior? When you don't even allow the body to consider and debate alternative approaches to reforming Congress, what are you hiding from? When you subvert our democratic process and at the same time pretend to be the party of reform, how can you possibly expect us to trust you any longer? When your leadership doesn't even have faith in the legislative process, how can the American people have faith in them? Lobbyists are not the reason our Congress no longer works for working Americans. Congress is the problem. No lobbyist can get into the room unless a Member allows it. We heard so much in January about reform that was coming. But here we are, 4 months later, doing exactly the same thing and producing exactly the same result: bad bills passed through a broken House; bills just like this one, that have a catchy name but don't deliver what they promise; bills that aren't written for the people of the Nation, but rather for special interests. No wonder the American people are so angry. Their congressional leadership is so clearly out of touch. Every member of the majority should be ashamed of this bill today. At least then you will have something in common with the American people that you profess to serve. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.