Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I support this amendment. The base bill under consideration today is largely a reflection of the Republican reform bill the House passed in the last Congress, and that was largely authored by the Representative from California (Mr. Dreier). But it does not include all of the Republican authored reform provisions. One of those authored by Representative Dreier is contained in this amendment. It would require that when Members and House employees end their service in the House, they be given notice of the exact dates in which their post-employment restrictions apply. The amendment also would require that that information be made available on the Internet, which would provide more accountability and transparency. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. And Madam Chair, I once again want to thank Mr. Dreier for his continuous efforts to try to achieve open and honest government. Those efforts have begun years ago, and they continue today and will effectuate the passage of this amendment and this bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), a senior member of the Appropriations Committee. (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), a member of our Republican leadership team.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak) who, prior to his current public service to our country, also served as a Vice Admiral in the Navy.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I support this manager's amendment. It contains provisions authored by Representative Gohmert of Texas that would allow Members to omit personally identifiable information from the electronic reports of their travel and financial disclosure statements if such information is not required to be disclosed under House rules. This is a reasonable bipartisan provision, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) who, among the other things, I believe wants to engage the chairman of the Judiciary Committee in a colloquy.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a valued and active member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, we all deplore unethical conduct by Members of Congress and their staff. Each party has their share of examples. The public wants and deserves clean government, and today we finally bring before the House a bill that seems very familiar. That is because the increased disclosures required in the bill we are addressing today are largely those that were contained in H.R. 4975, which was introduced by Congressman David Dreier in the last Congress and passed the House then. Last year's H.R. 4975 contained all of the following provisions: a requirement to disclose postemployment negotiations with private entities; a prohibition on partisan influences on an outside entity's employment decisions; and increased quarterly electronic filing in a public database of lobbyist campaign contributions linked to Federal Elections Commission filings. The legislation also increased civil and criminal penalties for failure to comply, required disclosure by lobbyists of all past executive branch and congressional employment, and contained a prohibition on lobbyists' violation of House gift ban rules. Similar provisions, of course, are included in the legislation before us today. At the Judiciary Committee's markup, I was glad to see that several Republican amendments that would strengthen this bill were adopted by voice vote. One was an amendment offered by Representative Chris Cannon that provides for a 1-year revolving-door ban that would prohibit private lawyers and law firms who enter into contracts with congressional committees from lobbying Congress while under contract to such committee and for 1 year thereafter. Republicans passed nearly identical reform provisions over a year ago. I am pleased to finally see legislation come before the House this Congress that substantially mirrors Republican efforts from the last Congress. The concepts of greater transparency and more accountability are not the property of any one political party, but it just so happens that Republicans led the way in the last Congress by writing a reform package very similar to the one we are considering today. A simple comparison of the provisions in this bill with those in H.R. 4975 from the last Congress will show that what we see on the House floor today is a clear reflection of what we saw on the House floor last year. I had hoped a vote on these measures would have occurred much earlier in this Congress, but I am happy to cast my vote again today for these reforms. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, the base bill addresses the same bundling issue that the Judiciary Committee dealt with in a bipartisan fashion last year. Mr. Van Hollen, the principal supporter of these provisions, signed on to that compromise. I offer this motion to recommit because there is a difference between what was covered by the Van Hollen amendment that was adopted in committee last Congress and what is contained in this legislation authored by Mr. Van Hollen in this Congress, a very big difference. This legislation does not require that bundled contributions to political action committees, often referred to as PACs, be disclosed. Why are PACs omitted from the disclosure requirements in this legislation? As has been recently reported in the BNA Money & Politics Report, ``Democrats' new-found majority status has made them the biggest recipients of campaign money from lobbyists and others, a fact that could increase their wariness about passing strict new rules.'' ``For example, a new analysis posted on the politicalmoneyline.com Web site, and based on Federal Election Commission reports, found that in the first quarter of 2007, Federal political action committees, that is the PACs this legislation exempts, reported giving all Federal candidates $27 million, of which almost $17 million, or 62 percent, went to Democrats, and only 38 percent went to Republicans. The Democrats' newfound fundraising prowess could cause them to have second thoughts about such proposals as increased disclosure of bundled contributions arranged by lobbyists, some observers said.'' It appears these observers were correct. The majority has let the color of money dampen their desire for more openness and reform. The loophole in this bill that exempts bundled contributions to PACs is big enough to ride a Democratic donkey through. If we are requiring the disclosure of bundled contributions to political party committees, those same disclosure rules should also apply to contributions to PACs. Party committees represent all members of that party affiliation. PACs, on the other hand, represent more narrow, special interests. Why should the former be exposed to more sunshine, but not the latter? The fact that PACs give more money to Democrats is not a serious answer. Time and again the majority party finds itself presenting legislation that picks favorites, when what the American people want is more honesty and more accountability. This motion to recommit would achieve that by including bundled contributions to PACs under the same provisions that cover Federal candidates, other PACs, and political party committees. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit so that we can have a more open and honest government. To put it another way, what was good for the Democrats last year should be good for the Democrats this year. Madam Speaker, the American people want and deserve a government that operates in the sunlight and not in the shadows.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I am in its current form.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I, too, urge my colleagues to support this legislation and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, at this time I have no other speakers on this particular bill. So I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this bill addresses the issue of the disclosure of campaign contributions bundled together by lobbyists. The Judiciary Committee addressed this issue in the last Congress when we adopted an amendment by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) by a vote of 28-4. As a principal supporter of these provisions, Mr. Van Hollen signed the following statement in last year's committee report: ``At the markup, we were able to develop a bipartisan provision concerning the areas of Judiciary Committee jurisdiction, principally the Lobbying Disclosure Act.'' So I'm glad to see a provision brought to the floor today that is so similar to what we did last year. However, I do find it ironic that we are bringing this bill to the floor with little advance notice. Yesterday we received notice that this bill would come up less than an hour before the Rules Committee was to start. That hardly gave us a fair opportunity to offer amendments to the bill. Madam Speaker, this bill and the other bill that we consider today on lobbying reform are supposed to be about open government, but the process by which this bill has been rushed to the floor shows how this House sometimes lacks a fair and open process. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.