HONEST LEADERSHIP AND OPEN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - July 31, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we all deplore unethical conduct by Members of Congress and their staff. Each party has their fair share of examples. The public wants and deserves honest government. Unfortunately, this legislation does not bode well for this Congress' ability to deliver it.
In May, this House brought up a base bill that seemed very familiar to Republicans because the increased disclosures required in the bill were largely those contained in H.R. 4975, which was introduced by Congressman David Dreier, and which passed the House in the last Congress.
Last year's H.R. 4975 contained all of the following provisions: a requirement for Members to disclose post-employment 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 Election Commission filings.
That Republican legislation also increased civil and criminal penalties for failures 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.
Legislation the Democrats introduced this Congress, in the form of H.R. 2316, largely replicated Republican efforts from the previous Congress.
At the Judiciary Committee's markup of H.R. 2316, several additional Republican amendments that would strengthen this bill were adopted by voice vote. One provided 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.
That amendment by Representative Chris Cannon was adopted by voice vote at the committee, and was passed out of the House of Representatives. But it is nowhere to be found in the bill before us today.
Also, in May, Democrats supported and passed two motions to recommit offered by Republicans that contained even more ethics reforms. Those reforms required lobbyists to disclose which special projects they lobbied for.
If a special interest lobbyist is having closed-door meetings with Members of Congress regarding programs that do not benefit all Americans but only benefit a small group of people in one part of the country, then those projects should be disclosed.
The Republican motion to recommit also closed the existing loophole that allows State and local government entities to give gifts and travel to Members and their staff that other entities cannot give. It makes little sense to exempt entities that operate on taxpayer dollars from the gift and travel ban.
Current rules allow taxpayer-funded entities to give gifts and travel to Members and staff while they try to convince those same Members and staff to send more Federal taxpayer dollars their way. That is not fair, and the Republican motion to recommit, which was adopted, would have ended that practice.
The Republicans' motion to recommit also contained a reverse revolving door provision that would have prohibited a congressional employee who was a registered lobbyist prior to their congressional employment from engaging in official business with their former private employer for a period of 1 year.
The Republicans' motion to recommit also included the Republican-amended text to H.R. 2317, which required that bundled contributions to political action committees, often referred to as PACs, be fully disclosed.
Viewed in the harsh light of recent history, the legislation we consider today is a hollow shell of reform. Just listen to the following list of reforms that Democrats have abandoned.
The provisions in this bill requiring the disclosure of contributions bundled together by lobbyists is weaker than the reforms passed in May, as this legislation requires the disclosure of bundled contributions exceeding $15,000 rather than the original $5,000.
That means less disclosure and less accountability to the American people. The weakened bundling disclosure provisions in this bill do not even cover bundled disclosures to PACs, a reform that 33 Democrats supported when it was accepted as part of the Republicans' motion to recommit H.R. 2317, and that 158 Democrats supported when it was accepted as part of the Republicans' motion to recommit H.R. 2316.
The newspaper Roll Call reported yesterday that, "The average Democratic incumbent raised over 63 percent more from PACs during the first half of this year than during the same period in 2005.'' Could that be why Democrats don't want to disclose the bundled contributions lobbyists give to PACs?
This bill also fails to contain the following reforms that 158 Democrats supported in May. The length of this list defines the credibility chasm that now separates the Democratic Party from American voters.
The provision requiring the disclosure of bundled contributions by political action committees? Gone.
The provision requiring lobbyists to disclose the special projects they lobby for? Gone.
The provision prohibiting State and local governments from giving expensive gifts and lavish travel to Members of Congress in return for taxpayer dollars? Gone.
The provision prohibiting congressional employees who were lobbyists from engaging in official business with their former lobbyist employers? Gone.
Last May, the Washington Post reported that the Democrats brought up their original legislation "after scrapping most key elements of an ethics package meant to deliver on Democratic promises to bring unprecedented accountability to Congress.''
Today, essential reforms have been thrown overboard, and the Democratic pledge of reform is sinking fast.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
First of all, I would like to thank the majority leader for acknowledging this bill that we considered today largely mirrors the Republican legislation on ethics from the last Congress. As I mentioned in my opening statement a few minutes ago, I went through all the provisions that, in fact, had been carried over from the Republican bill last year.
But I would correct the majority leader in one respect, and that is many of the Republican reforms that were included in our motion to recommit which passed successfully with largely Democratic support earlier, all of those Republican reforms were eliminated. So this bill would have been much improved and much better if all the Republican reforms had, in fact, been included. I regret that was not the case.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 1/2 minutes to my friend and my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT