27–181 

109TH CONGRESS REPT. 109–439 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 3 

LOBBYING ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT 

OF 2006 

APRIL 25, 2006.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. DREIER, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 4975] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Rules, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 

4975) to provide greater transparency with respect to lobbying activities, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report 

favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill 

as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Amendments ............................................................................................................ 00 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 00 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 00 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 00 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 00 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 00 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 00 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 00 

New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures ............. 00 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 00 

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ................................................................... 00 

Federal Mandates Statement ................................................................................. 00 

Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 00 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 00 

Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 00 

Exchange of Committee Correspondence ............................................................... 00 

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ...................................................... 00 

Changes in the Rules of the House Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................... 00 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
2 

Minority, Additional, or Dissenting Views ............................................................ 00 

AMENDMENTS

The amendments (stated in terms of the page and line numbers 

of the introduced bill) are as follows: 

Page 20, strike line 14 and all that follows through page 21, line 

4, and insert the following: 

‘‘(d)(1) For the purpose of this section, the term ‘earmark’ means a provision in a bill, joint resolution or conference report, or language in an accompanying committee 

report or joint statement of managers, providing or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority to a non-Federal entity, if such entity is specifically 

identified in the report or bill; or if the discretionary budget authority is allocated outside of the normal formuladriven or competitive bidding process and is targeted or directed to an identifiable person, specific State, or Congressional district. 

‘‘(2) For the purpose of paragraph (1), government-sponsored enterprises, Federal facilities, and Federal lands 

shall be considered Federal entities. 

‘‘(3) For the purpose of paragraph (1), to the extent that 

the non-Federal entity is a State or territory, an Indian 

tribe, a foreign government or an intergovernmental international organization, the provision or language shall not 

be considered an earmark unless the provision or language 

also specifies the specific purpose for which the designated 

budget authority is to be expended.’’. 

Page 21, strike line 5 and all that follows through page 22, line 

3 and insert the following: 

SEC. 502. MANDATORY ETHICS TRAINING FOR HOUSE EMPLOYEES. 

(a) MANDATORY ETHICS TRAINING FOR HOUSE EMPLOYEES.—

(1) CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.—Clause 4 of 

rule II of the Rules of the House of Representatives is 

amended by inserting the following new paragraph at 

the end: 

‘‘(d) The Chief Administrative Officer may not pay any 

compensation to any employee of the House with respect 

to any pay period during which the employee, as determined by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 

is not in compliance with the applicable requirements of 

regulations promulgated pursuant to clause 3(r) of Rule 

XI.’’. 

(2) MANDATORY ETHICS TRAINING PROGRAM.—Clause 

3 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(r) The committee shall establish a program of regular 

ethics training for employees of the House and promulgate 

regulations providing for the following: ‘‘(1)(A) Except as otherwise provided, all employees 

of the House are required to complete ethics training 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
3 

offered by the committee at least once during each 

congress. Any employee who is hired after the date of 

adoption of such rules is required to complete such 

training within 30 days of being hired. ‘‘(B) Any employee of the House who works in a 

Member’s district office shall not be required to complete such ethics training until 30 days after the district office has received a notice from the Committee 

on Standards of Official Conduct that the required 

ethics training program is available on the Internet. ‘‘(2) After any employee of the House completes such 

ethics training, that employee shall file a written certification with the committee that he is familiar with 

the contents of any pertinent publications that are so 

designated by the committee and has completed the 

required ethics training. ‘‘(3) As used in this paragraph, the term ‘employee 

of the House’ refers to any individual whose compensation is disbursed by the Chief Administrative Officer, including any staff assigned to a Member’s personal office, any staff of a committee or leadership office, or any employee of the Office of the Clerk, of the 

Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, or of the 

Sergeant-at-Arms, but does not include a Member, 

Delegate, or Resident Commissioner. ‘‘(b) ETHICS TRAINING FOR MEMBERS, DELEGATES AND

THE RESIDENT COMMISSIONER.—Clause 3 of rule XI of the 

Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by inserting the following new paragraph at the end: ‘‘(s) The committee shall establish a program of regular 

ethics training for Members, Delegates, and the Resident 

Commissioner similar to the program established in paragraph (r), and encourage participation in such program.’’. 

Page 2, in the matter following line 2, by striking the item relating to section 502 (in the table of sections contained in section 1(b)) 

and inserting the following: 

Sec. 502. Mandatory ethics training for House employees. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 4975, the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 

2006, provides greater accountability and transparency with respect to lobbying activities, protects the institution of the legislative branch of government, and maintains the First Amendment 

right of all Americans to petition their government. 

The bill improves the current disclosure regime under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to provide more complete disclosures 

regarding lobbying activity, and requires that they be made electronically and rapidly made available in a searchable format on the 

Internet to ensure public access. The bill also vests audit authority 

over those disclosures in the House Inspector General, the first 

time anyone has been given a mandate to regularly review these 

disclosures for accuracy. 

The bill also makes several improvements to the institutional 

functions of the House, including addressing potential conflicts 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
4 

arising from employment negotiations of Members, an explicit prohibition on the linkage of official actions to partisan employment 

decisions by outside entities, and addresses potential problems in 

the current rules governing acceptance of gifts and privately funded travel by Members, officers, and employees of the House. The 

bill also includes provisions addressing the potential for a Member 

convicted of certain felonies to face the loss of Government contributions to his or her Congressional pension. The bill also establishes a new regime for ethics training for House employees and 

ensures that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct maintains up to date information regarding the rules and standards 

which comprise the ethical principles for conduct in the House. 

The bill includes a new rule requiring the disclosure of earmarks 

in a general appropriations bill, its report, or an accompanying conference report. Finally, the bill includes provisions ensuring that 

so-called ‘‘527’’ organizations are subject to the same kinds of campaign finance regulations as other organizations. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Scandals involving lobbying in Washington are not new, and they 

have occurred both when Democrats and Republicans have held the 

majority. Perhaps one of the first major scandals occurred during 

the 19th Century’s Gilded Age. In the ‘‘Credit Mobilier’’ scandal in 

1872-73, the careers of several politicians came to an end when 

they were found to have taken shares in a railroad construction 

company and then approved lucrative Federal subsidies for that 

company. In the 20th Century, there were the Korean Influence investigations in the 1970s, the ‘‘Abscam’’ bribery cases of the 1980s, 

and the ‘‘Keating Five’’ inquiry of the 1990s. The recent convictions 

and guilty pleas of lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his associates Tony 

Rudy and Michael Scanlon, as well as the guilty pleas of former 

Representative Randy ‘‘Duke’’ Cunningham and of former congressional staffer Brett Pfeffer have cast a pall over Americans’ faith 

in their government. 

Indeed, in October 2005, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll found ‘‘only one-third of Americans give Congress good ratings for its ethics and honesty.’’ (Will Lister, Associated Press, Oct. 29, 2005.) A 

Washington Post-ABC News poll taken in January 2006 showed 

that 58 percent of those polled thought a recent corruption case involving Jack Abramoff was evidence of widespread corruption in 

Washington, and 90 percent thought it should be illegal for registered lobbyists to give Members of Congress gifts, trips, or other 

things of value. (Richard Morin and Claudia Deane, ‘‘In Abramoff 

Case, Most See Evidence of Wider Problem,’’ Washington Post, Jan. 

10, 2006, at A7.) However, a Pew poll taken about the same time 

showed that ‘‘most people around the country aren’t paying close 

attention’’ to the corruption scandal involving Abramoff. (Will Lester, ‘‘Corruption Scandal That Rocked Washington Draws Little 

Scrutiny Elsewhere,’’ Associated Press, Jan. 11, 2006.) 

In the wake of these lobbying scandals, it is important to keep 

in mind that lobbying is a constitutionally protected profession. 

The First Amendment to the Constitution provides that ‘‘Congress 

shall make no law * * * abridging the freedom of speech * * * and 

to petition the Government for redress of grievances.’’ The law that 

currently governs lobbying, the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
5 

(LDA; P.L. No. 104–65, 109 Stat. 691, 2 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), explicitly recognizes this constitutional protection in its section 8, which 

states ‘‘Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit or 

interfere with the right to petition the Government . . . [and] 

[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit, or to authorize any court to prohibit, lobbying activities or lobbying contacts by any person or entity, regardless of whether such person or 

entity is in compliance with’’ the LDA. (2 U.S.C. §1607.) 

Founding Father James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10 

about the importance to democracy of organized interests or what 

he termed ‘‘factions.’’ Madison believed that our representative 

form of government would safeguard against the worst impulses of 

the factions, and that the factions would protect the Nation from 

falling into tyranny. Madison’s belief in protecting the rights of individuals and organized groups to influence the policymaking process has endured for more than 200 years. Lobbying is an honorable 

profession, and lobbyists do serve an important function in a 

participatory democracy. As Senator Carl Levin, one of the primary 

authors of the LDA, recently stated: 

[L]obbying has assumed a vital role in providing a flow 

of information in the political process that assists our democracy by improving decision making. Totalitarian regimes don’t need lobbyists, because there’s no opportunity 

for persons out side the government to affect the decisions 

made on the inside of the government. It’s just the opposite with a democracy. Information on all sides of issues is 

crucial to enacting laws that express the will of the people, 

thereby helping to maintain a vital democratic government. (Forward to The Lobbying Manual: A Complete 

Guide to Federal Law Governing Lawyers and Lobbyists 

(William V. Luneburg and Thomas S. Susman eds., 3d ed. 

at xxvi-xxvii (2005).) 

Thus, in the aftermath of every scandal, the legislative reforms 

that Congress undertakes to protect the public against the undue 

influence of a few criminals have to be balanced by the constitutionally protected and democratically important role served by the 

vast majority of lobbyists. One of the earliest efforts to find this 

balance came in 1852, when the House of Representatives passed 

a lobbying regulation provision prohibiting a newspaperman ‘‘who 

shall be employed as an agent to prosecute any claim pending before Congress’’ from being on the floor of the House. (Cong. Globe, 

32nd Cong., 2d Sess. 52 (1852).) Obviously, the balance struck then 

was that such a newspaperman acting as a lobbyist could lobby 

Members, but not on the House floor. For many years, the rules of 

the House of Representatives have prohibited Members from being 

on the House floor if they have a pecuniary interest in the legislation being considered. To respond to concerns about former Members who become registered lobbyists abusing their privileges as 

former Members, the House recently amended its rules to prohibit 

former Members who are registered lobbyists from being on the 

floor of the House (or in the rooms adjacent to the floor) or in the 

Member’s gym. (H. Res. 648; adopted by the House on February 1, 

2006.) 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
6 

The first comprehensive lobbying reform legislation came in 

1946, when the Congress passed the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act as a part of the larger Legislative Reorganization Act. It 

required lobbyists to register, to make reports of the money they 

received from clients and spent in support or opposition to legislation, and provided criminal penalties for non-compliance. From the 

start, this legislation was considered problematic and was substantially re-written by the Supreme Court in the case of United States 

v. Harriss (1954). One of the chief complaints about this legislation 

was that it lacked a regularized mechanism for the flow of information about lobbyists’ reporting from the legislative branch to the 

Department of Justice for prosecution. 

Most recently, the Congress enacted the LDA which requires improved disclosure in broad categories about the activities and income-making of registered lobbyists. It also includes a referral 

power for the Clerk of the House to the Department of Justice for 

lobbyists’ failure to comply with the LDA. The LDA has functioned 

for a little over a decade to give the public some access to information regarding the pressures applied to the legislative process. In 

addition, since its enactment, Congress has fundamentally revamped the laws governing our campaign finance system in order 

to provide the public with more information about contributions 

made to influence the political process. 

However, with the recent Abramoff, Cunningham, Pfeffer, and 

other scandals, there has been a bipartisan groundswell of support 

for major changes to not only the LDA but also to the rules of the 

House governing gifts, travel and other ethics matters. The Committee received many suggestions about such reform from Members, and H.R. 4975 incorporates a number of these suggestions. 

In Title I of the bill, the LDA is substantially improved by adding 

to the quality and quantity of information the public receives as 

well as the speediness with which it is made available through 

technology. For example, for the first time, lobbyists will have to 

electronically disclose on the same form to whom they gave gifts 

and political contributions, and this information will have to be 

promptly posted on the Internet. Title II addresses the concerns of 

the American people about Member and staff self-dealing while not 

unfairly penalizing those who choose not to make a career of Federal service. It provides that each and every Congressional office 

that a person cannot lobby for their one year ‘‘cooling off’’ period 

under the Federal criminal code (i.e., 18 U.S.C. 207(e)) is told in 

writing the start and end date of that period. The former Members 

and staff who are leaving for the private sector are also told in 

writing, and their willful disregard of this provision can be prosecuted for a felony with up to five years in prison (18 U.S.C. 216.) 

Title III makes improvements to the Rules of the House of Representatives for gifts and travel, and addresses many of the concerns raised by the behavior of lobbyists such as Abramoff. House 

rules provide that gifts can only be accepted in certain circumstances, and they place limits on the overall amounts of such 

gifts. Similarly, registered lobbyists are already forbidden in the 

rules from funding the travel of Members or staff. (See rule XXV 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives) Given allegations 

made in the Abramoff matter about whether a proper entity funded 

Member and staff travel, as well as evidence that a large number 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
7 

of Members on both sides of the aisle do not understand all of the 

nuances of the current gift and travel rules, the bill suspends all 

privately funded travel while the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct makes recommendations to the Committee about 

these matters. The report of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is to include, among other things, their views about 

the ability of the gift and travel rules to protect the House, its 

Members, and staff from the appearance of impropriety and about 

how privately funded travel can be ethically conducted. 

During the Committee’s consideration of this legislation, it became clear that many privately funded fact-finding trips do provide 

the Members of the legislative branch of the world’s only superpower with crucial information necessary to make informed decisions on behalf of the American people. While some have suggested 

that drawing a line between an educational trip and ‘‘boondoggle’’ would not be too difficult, the Committee’s review of these issues 

reinforced the need for the Committee on Standards of Official 

Conduct to instruct the Committee about what is ethical travel, 

and how it should be pre-cleared and reported. H.R. 4975 requires 

the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to report its recommendations on these issues to the Committee by December 15, 

2006. This input is very important, for the Standards Committee 

is the interpreter of the Members’ Code of Conduct as well as the 

rules concerning gifts and travel. Accordingly, the Committee rejected an amendment to strike the section of the bill that suspends 

privately funded travel until the Standards Committee can report 

its recommendations. This amendment also would have established 

a pre-approval and disclosure system through the Standards Committee for privately-funded travel, rather than allowing for the 

Standards Committee to first provide its expertise to the Committee on these issues. 

Title IV of H.R. 4975 addresses enforcement, an area of much 

criticism in prior efforts at lobbying reform, by empowering the 

House Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to conduct random audits of lobbying reports and to make referrals to the Department 

of Justice for violations. This is the first time anyone has been 

given a mandate to regularly review these lobbying disclosures for 

accuracy. Additionally, the rules already provide that if the OIG 

finds information involving possible violations of any rule of the 

House or of any law applicable to the performance of official duties, 

this information can be reported to the Committee on Standards of 

Official Conduct. (Clause 6, rule II of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives.) The Constitution, in clause 2, section 5, of Article 

I, gives each House the power to punish its Members for misbehavior. The OIG reporting where necessary to the Committee on 

Standards of Official Conduct regarding Member or staff conduct, 

or to the Department of Justice regarding lobbyist conduct is the 

most appropriate enforcement mechanism under the Constitution. 

Title V of the bill reforms the earmarking process for appropriations, requires frequent and comprehensive ethics training for all 

staff, and requires that the ethics manual be regularly updated. 

Earmark reform is an important part of increasing the transparency of how the peoples’ business is conducted. Regular ethics 

training with up to date materials are key components of restoring 

and maintaining the public’s faith in the Congress and ensuring 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
8 

that Members, Officers, and employees of the House understand 

the intricacies of the House’s standards of conduct. 

During the markup of H.R. 4975, the Committee adopted two 

amendments to title V. First, an amendment was adopted to improve the bill by modifying the definition of an ‘‘earmark’’ in section 

501 to cover earmarks where the budget authority is directed to a 

person, State, or Congressional district through a Federal agency 

when it circumvents normal formulas or the competitive bidding 

process. Second, an amendment was adopted to improve section 

502 to require the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to 

establish a mandatory training program for House employees, and 

to authorize the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives to withhold the pay of any employee who does not 

complete the training at least once per Congress. This amendment 

also directs, within the boundaries of the Constitution, that the 

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall establish a training program for Members and encourage their participation. 

Title VI closes an important loophole in campaign finance law by 

keeping unlimited soft money out of 527 organizations and requiring them to live under the rules that govern other political committees. The House recently expressed its approval for these provisions 

by adopting H.R. 513 by a vote of 218–209 on April 5, 2006. Finally, Title VII of the bill punishes Members who abuse the public 

trust when they are convicted of bribery, acting as an agent of a 

foreign principal, or conspiracy to commit these crimes by eliminating their taxpayer-funded Member pensions. 

Taken together, these provisions in H.R. 4975 improve the transparency of the legislative process while achieving a balance between protecting the public and maintaining constitutional rights. 

The legislation provides for faster reporting, more information, and 

greater public access to reports filed by lobbyists. It addresses the 

problem of the revolving door between the government and the private sector with notice to all affected entities, and it requires notification of employment negotiations by Members. It prohibits taking 

official actions to influence hiring decisions on a partisan basis. 

The bill doubles the penalty for violations, and it empowers the 

House Office of the Inspector General with broad LDA enforcement 

and oversight responsibilities. It suspends privately funded travel 

until the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct can make 

recommendations to the Committee on travel and gifts. It bans registered lobbyists from flying with Members on corporate flights, 

and it values tickets without a price at the highest rate possible. 

It provides real earmarking reform, mandates regular ethics training, and requires a biennial publication of the ethics manual. It 

closes an important soft money loophole in campaign finance law, 

and it punishes Members who abuse the public trust by preventing 

them from collecting their taxpayer-funded Member retirement. 

In conclusion, H.R. 4975, the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, constitutes an important step toward providing the American people with better transparency about the 

pressures applied to the legislative branch by lobbyists. Informed 

voters help keep government officials accountable while decreasing 

the power of the back room. 

Even with the existing rules regarding lobbying, criminals such 

as Abramoff, Rudy, Scanlon, Cunningham, and Pfeffer are going to 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
9 

jail. Their fates will serve as a warning to anyone who seeks to corrupt the American spirit or its institutions. Nonetheless, H.R. 4975 

further strengthens the rules and laws that hold Members, staff, 

and lobbyists accountable for the public trust that they serve. 

HEARINGS

The Committee on Rules held a hearing on H.R. 4975, the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, on March 30, 

2006. The Committee heard testimony from the following Members: 

Messrs. Shays, Buyer, Kirk, Ms. Wilson, Ms. Schmidt, Messrs. 

Obey, Frank of Massachusetts, Cardin, Price of North Carolina, 

Meehan, Blumenauer, Doggett, Allen, Baird, Emanuel, and Ms. 

Bean. 

The Committee also held several days of hearings on the general 

topic of lobbying reform on March 2 and 9, 2006. On those days of 

hearings, the Committee heard testimony from: The Honorable 

Karen Haas, Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives, The Honorable 

James Bacchus, Chairman, Global Trade Practice Group, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Dr. Thomas Mann, Ph.D., Senior Fellow Brookings Institution, Mr. Paul Miller, President, American League of 

Lobbyists, Dr. Norman Ornstein, Ph.D., Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, Dr. James Thurber, Ph.D., Distinguished 

Professor of Government and Director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies, American University, Mr. Fred 

Wertheimer, President, Democracy 21, The Honorable Mickey Edwards, Director, Aspen Institute-Rodel Fellowships in Public Leadership & Lecturer of Public & International Affairs at the Woodrow 

Wilson School, Princeton University, Mr. Robert Bauer, Firmwide 

Chair, Political Law Practice, Perkins Coie, LLP, Mr. William 

Daroff, Vice President for Public Policy and Director of the Washington Office, United Jewish Communities, Mr. Michael G. Franc, 

Vice President, Government Relations, The Heritage Foundation, 

and Mr. Robert Hynes, Principal, Colling Murphy Swift Hynes. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Committee on Rules met on April 5, 2006 in open session 

and ordered H.R. 4975 favorably reported to the House as amended 

by a voice vote. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes on the motion 

to report legislation and amendments thereto. A motion by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida to report the bill to the House with a 

favorable recommendation was agreed to by a voice vote. Record 

votes were ordered on the following amendments; the names of 

Members voting for and against follow: 

Rules Committee Record Vote No. 167 

An amendment by Ms. Slaughter, No. 2, to require an itemized 

list of any scope violations in the rule providing for consideration 

of a conference report (items that were not in either the House or 

Senate passed versions of the bill), to provide for a consideration 

point of order when this rule is violated, and to provide a motion 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
10 

to strike items that are beyond the scope of a conference, was not 

agreed to by a record vote of 4 yeas and 9 nays: 

Mr. Dreier, Chairman—Nay; Mr. Diaz-Balart—Nay; Mr. 

Hastings (WA)—Nay; Mr. Sessions—Nay; Mr. Putnam—Nay; Ms. 

Capito—Nay; Mr. Cole—Nay; Mr. Bishop—Nay; Mr. Gingrey—Nay; 

Mrs. Slaughter—Yea; Mr. McGovern—Yea; Mr. Hastings (FL)—

Yea; Mrs. Matsui—Yea. 

Rules Committee Record Vote No. 168 

An amendment by Ms. Slaughter, No. 4, to require, whenever a 

recorded vote is held open for more than 30 minutes, that the Congressional Record include a log of the voting activity that occurs 

after that 30-minute time frame to show which Members voted 

after that time and which Members changed their votes during 

that period, was not agreed to by a record vote of 4 yeas and 9 

nays: 

Mr. Dreier, Chairman—Nay; Mr. Diaz-Balart—Nay; Mr. 

Hastings (WA)—Nay; Mr. Sessions—Nay; Mr. Putnam—Nay; Ms. 

Capito—Nay; Mr. Cole—Nay; Mr. Bishop—Nay; Mr. Gingrey—Nay; 

Mrs. Slaughter—Yea; Mr. McGovern—Yea; Mr. Hastings (FL)—

Yea; Mrs. Matsui—Yea 

Rules Committee Record Vote No. 169 

An amendment by Ms. Slaughter, No. 5, creating a new Majority/ 

Minority Leader point of order that can be raised against consideration of a conference report where the integrity of the conference 

is in question, was not agreed to by a record vote of 4 yeas and 

9 nays: 

Mr. Dreier, Chairman—Nay; Mr. Diaz-Balart—Nay; Mr. 

Hastings (WA)—Nay; Mr. Sessions—Nay; Mr. Putnam—Nay; Ms. 

Capito—Nay; Mr. Cole—Nay; Mr. Bishop—Nay; Mr. Gingrey—Nay; 

Mrs. Slaughter—Yea; Mr. McGovern—Yea; Mr. Hastings (FL)—

Yea; Mrs. Matsui—Yea 

Rules Committee Record Vote No. 170 

An amendment by Ms. Slaughter, No. 6, providing that staff on 

the Committee of Standards of Official Conduct can be dismissed 

only by an affirmative vote of the Standards Committee, was not 

agreed to by a record vote of 4 yeas and 9 nays: 

Mr. Dreier, Chairman—Nay; Mr. Diaz-Balart—Nay; Mr. 

Hastings (WA)—Nay; Mr. Sessions—Nay; Mr. Putnam—Nay; Ms. 

Capito—Nay; Mr. Cole—Nay; Mr. Bishop—Nay; Mr. Gingrey—Nay; 

Mrs. Slaughter—Yea; Mr. McGovern—Yea; Mr. Hastings (FL)—

Yea; Mrs. Matsui—Yea 

Rules Committee Record Vote No. 171 

An amendment by Mr. McGovern, No. 7, providing that whenever 3–day layover is waived against a conference report, it is in 

order for a Member to raise a point of order to determine whether 

the House will consider the conference report, was not agreed to by 

a record vote of 4 yeas and 9 nays: 

Mr. Dreier, Chairman—Nay; Mr. Diaz-Balart—Nay; Mr. 

Hastings (WA)—Nay; Mr. Sessions—Nay; Mr. Putnam—Nay; Ms. 

Capito—Nay; Mr. Cole—Nay; Mr. Bishop—Nay; Mr. Gingrey—Nay; 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
11 

Mrs. Slaughter—Yea; Mr. McGovern—Yea; Mr. Hastings (FL)—

Yea; Mrs. Matsui—Yea 

Rules Committee Record Vote No. 172 

An amendment by Mr. McGovern, No. 8, regulating Member 

travel on private jets by requiring Members to pay full charter 

costs when using corporate jets for official travel and to disclose 

relevant information in the Congressional Record, including the 

owner or lessee of the aircraft and the other passengers on the 

flight, was not agreed to by a record vote of 4 yeas and 9 nays: 

Mr. Dreier, Chairman—Nay; Mr. Diaz-Balart—Nay; Mr. 

Hastings (WA)—Nay; Mr. Sessions—Nay; Mr. Putnam—Nay; Ms. 

Capito—Nay; Mr. Cole—Nay; Mr. Bishop—Nay; Mr. Gingrey—Nay; 

Mrs. Slaughter—Yea; Mr. McGovern—Yea; Mr. Hastings (FL)—

Yea; Mrs. Matsui—Yea 

Rules Committee Record Vote No. 173 

An amendment by Mr. McGovern, No. 9, clarifying that the ‘‘face 

value’’ of a ticket for the purposes of section 304 means the cost 

of that ticket if a member of the general public were purchasing 

it, was not agreed to by a record vote of 4 yeas and 9 nays: 

Mr. Dreier, Chairman—Nay; Mr. Diaz-Balart—Nay; Mr. 

Hastings (WA)—Nay; Mr. Sessions—Nay; Mr. Putnam—Nay; Ms. 

Capito—Nay; Mr. Cole—Nay; Mr. Bishop—Nay; Mr. Gingrey—Nay; 

Mrs. Slaughter—Yea; Mr. McGovern—Yea; Mr. Hastings (FL)—

Yea; Mrs. Matsui—Yea 

Rules Committee Record Vote No. 174 

An amendment by Mr. Hastings of Florida, No. 11, establishing 

a pre-approval and post-travel disclosure system through the 

Standards Committee for privately-funded travel, was not agreed 

to by a record vote of 3 yeas and 8 nays: 

Mr. Dreier, Chairman—Nay; Mr. Diaz-Balart—Nay; Mr. 

Hastings (WA)—Nay; Mr. Putnam—Nay; Mrs. Capito—Nay; Mr. 

Cole—Nay; Mr. Bishop—Nay; Mr. Gingrey—Nay; Mr. McGovern—

Yea; Mr. Hastings (FL)—Yea; Mrs. Matsui—Yea 

Rules Committee Record Vote No. 175 

An amendment by Ms. Matsui, No. 12, requiring a roll-call vote, 

in an open meeting, on the final version of a conference report, was 

not agreed to by a record vote of 4 yeas and 7 nays: 

Mr. Dreier, Chairman—Nay; Mr. Hastings (WA)—Nay; Mr. Sessions—Nay; Mr. Putnam—Nay; Mrs. Capito—Nay; Mr. Bishop—

Nay; Mr. Gingrey—Nay; Mrs. Slaughter—Yea; Mr. McGovern—

Yea; Mr. Hastings (FL)—Yea; Mrs. Matsui—Yea 

Rules Committee Record Vote No. 176 

An amendment by Ms. Matsui, No. 13, changing the waiting period before a resolution reported by the Committee on Rules may 

be considered on the House Floor after it is reported from one legislative day to a 24-hour period, was not agreed to by a record vote 

of 4 yeas and 8 nays: 

Mr. Dreier, Chairman—Nay; Mr. Hastings (WA)—Nay; Mr. Sessions—Nay; Mr. Putnam—Nay; Mrs. Capito—Nay; Mr. Cole—Nay; 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
12 

Mr. Bishop—Nay; Mr. Gingrey—Nay; Mrs. Slaughter—Yea; Mr. 

McGovern—Yea; Mr. Hastings (FL)—Yea; Mrs. Matsui—Yea 

The following amendments were also considered: 

An amendment by Mrs. Capito, No. 1, improving the training 

provisions of the bill to require the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to establish a mandatory training program for House 

employees, and authorizing the CAO to withhold the pay of any 

employee who does not complete the training at least once per Congress, was agreed to by a voice vote. 

A second degree amendment to the amendment by Mrs. Capito 

by Mr. McGovern, No. 1a, striking section 502(a)(1) (regarding the 

withholding of employee pay for not completing the required ethics 

training), to the Capito Amendment No. 1, was not agreed to by 

voice vote. 

An amendment by Mr. Gingrey, No. 3, modifying the definition 

of ‘‘earmark’’ in section 501 to cover earmarks where the budget 

authority is directed to a person, State, or Congressional district 

through a Federal agency when it circumvents normal formulas or 

competitive bidding process, was agreed to by voice vote. 

An amendment by Mr. Hastings of Florida, No. 11, mandating 

public disclosure of which Members sponsor earmarks and disclosure of whether Members have a financial interest in the earmark, 

and providing that earmarks include authorizations, appropriations, and tax provisions, was not agreed to by voice vote. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee made findings that are reflected 

in this report. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee establishes the following performance related goals and objectives for this legislation: 

Utilizing the authority granted in this legislation, the Clerk of 

the House of Representatives will initiate a more robust electronic 

reporting and disclosure system to track and make available to the 

public the activities of lobbyists, and the Inspector General of the 

House will utilize the authority granted by the bill to ensure the 

accuracy of the information reported pursuant to the Lobby Disclosure Act, as amended. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee finds that this legislation 

would result in no new budget authority, entitlement authority, or 

tax expenditures or revenues. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
13 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate provided by 

the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, April 19, 2006. 

Hon. DAVID DRIER, Chairman, Committee on Rules, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4975, the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Matthew Pickford (for 

federal costs) and Craig Cammarata (for the private-sector impact). 

Sincerely, 

DONALD B. MARRON, 

Acting Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 4975—Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

Summary: H.R. 4975 would amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act 

of 1995 and the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Major provisions of the legislation would expand reporting requirements for 

lobbyists and Members of Congress, temporarily ban privately 

funded travel, create additional restrictions on gifts and travel, and 

require training for Members and staff on ethics issues. The legislation also would eliminate pension benefits for Members convicted 

of certain offenses. In addition, H.R. 4975 would require certain political organizations involved in federal election activities to register with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 4975 would cost about $2 million in fiscal year 2007 and $1 million a year in subsequent 

years, subject to the availability of appropriated funds. Enacting 

the bill could affect direct spending and revenues from reduced 

pensions for certain Members of Congress, and new violations of 

campaign finance laws, but CBO estimates that those effects would 

not be significant. 

H.R. 4975 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no 

costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

H.R. 4975 would impose several private-sector mandates, as defined in UMRA, on the lobbying industry and certain political organizations. Based on information from government sources, CBO estimates that the total direct cost of all of the mandates in the bill 

would fall below the annual threshold established by UMRA for 

private-sector mandates ($128 million in 2006, adjusted annually 

for inflation). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 4975 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 800 (general government). 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
14 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 1

Estmated Authorization Level ................................................................................. 2 1 1 1 1 

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................................... 2 1 1 1 1 

1 Enacting the bill could also reduce pensions for certain Members of Congress, and increase revenues from civil penalties, but CBO estimates any such effects would be less than $500,000 a year. 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill 

will be enacted near the end of fiscal year 2006 and that spending 

will follow historical patterns for similar activities. 

Spending subject to appropriation 

The legislation would expand reporting requirements for lobbyists and would require the Congress to provide Members and staff 

with additional training on ethics issues. Based on information 

from Congressional administrative staff, CBO estimates that Congressional offices and committees would spend about $1 million annually to collect and disseminate newly reported information from 

lobbyists and to provide the required ethics training. 

In addition, H.R. 4975 would require certain political organizations, defined by section 527 of the tax code, to register with the 

FEC. Based on information from the FEC and subject to the availability of appropriated funds, CBO estimates that implementing 

the legislation would cost the FEC about $1 million in fiscal year 

2007. This cost covers the one-time computer-related expenses as 

well as writing new regulations to implement the new provisions 

of the legislation. In future years, the legislation would increase 

general administrative costs to the FEC, but we estimate that 

those additional costs would not be significant. 

Revenues and direct spending 

Enacting H.R. 4975 would likely increase collections of fines and 

penalties for violations of campaign finance law for failure to register with the FEC. Such collections are recorded in the budget as 

revenues. CBO estimates that the additional collections of penalties 

and fines would not be significant because of the relatively small 

number of cases likely to be involved. 

H.R. 4975 would also deny pension benefits (based on periods of 

elected service) to Members convicted of bribery, acting as foreign 

agents, or defrauding the federal government. CBO estimates that 

any savings in direct spending as a result of this provision would 

not be significant because we expect that the number of violations 

would be small. 

Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments: H.R. 

4975 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in the 

UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 4975 would impose 

several private-sector mandates, as defined in UMRA, on the lobbying industry and certain political organizations. The bill would 

impose new restrictions on lobbying activities and require lobbyists 

and lobbying organizations to submit additional reports and disclosures to the Senate Office of Public Records and the Office of the 

Clerk of the House. The bill also would require certain 527 organizations to register as political committees with the Federal Election 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
15 

Commission and comply with current regulations on federal campaign finance. Based on information from government sources, 

CBO estimates that the total direct cost of all of the mandates in 

the bill would fall below the annual threshold established by 

UMRA for private-sector mandates ($128 million in 2006, adjusted 

annually for inflation). 

The bill would impose several new requirements on lobbyists and 

lobbying organizations. Requirements on lobbyists and lobbying organizations would include but not be limited to: • Electronic filing of lobbyist registrations and disclosure reports filed with the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the 

House of Representatives; • Quarterly, instead of semiannual, filing of lobbying disclosure reports; and • Additional information in registration and disclosure reports including information on: contributions to Members, Congressional staff, federal officers and political entities by lobbyists; any gifts distributed by lobbying entities; and whether or 

not each registered lobbyist had prior experience as a covered 

executive or legislative branch official. 

As of January 1, 2006, all lobbyists and lobbying organizations 

must register and file semiannual disclosure reports electronically 

to the Clerk of the House. However, electronic reporting is still optional for lobbyists and lobbying organizations filing in the Senate. 

Since all lobbyists must file similar reports to both the Clerk of the 

House and the Secretary of the Senate, the incremental cost of filing reports electronically to the Senate should be minimal. Generally, because such entities already collect the information requested in the registration and disclosure reports, CBO estimates 

that the incremental costs associated with the new reporting requirements in the bill would not be substantial relative to UMRA’s 

annual threshold for private-sector mandates. 

The bill also would prohibit lobbyists from traveling on an aircraft that is owned by a client and is not licensed by the FAA to 

operate for compensation if a Member, delegate, resident commissioner, officer or employee of the House is on board. According to 

government and industry sources, roughly 500 or less of those recorded flights are made each year. That estimate includes federal 

officials and staff from both the executive and legislative branches. 

H.R. 4975 would only restrict the travel of a lobbyist with House 

officials and staff. The bill would not prohibit employees of the client from traveling on such planes with a Member, delegate, resident commissioner, officer or employee of the House. Thus, CBO estimates that the direct costs associated with complying with the 

mandate would be minimal compared to UMRA’s threshold. 

The bill would change the definition of a political committee to 

include certain ‘‘527’’ organizations, as defined by section 527 of the 

Internal Revenue Code. Those organizations would be required to 

register as political committees with the FEC and comply with current regulations on federal campaign finance including certain limits on contributions and reporting and disclosure requirements. 

Based on information from the FEC, CBO estimates that the direct 

costs associated with those requirements would be minimal. 

Previous CBO estimates: Many of the lobbying reform and campaign finance provisions in the eight pieces of legislation listed 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
16 

below are contained in H.R. 4975. The differences among these bills 

are reflected in the cost estimates. However, the four versions of 

H.R. 4975 are very similar, and as such, their estimated costs are 

nearly identical. 

• On April 19, 2006, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 

4975 as ordered reported by the House Committee on Government 

Reform on April 6, 2006. 

• On April 19, 2006, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 

4975 as ordered reported by the House Committee on House Administration on April 6, 2006. 

• On April 19, 2006, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 

4975 as ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary 

on April 5, 2006. 

• On March 7, 2006, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S. 

2349, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006, 

as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on March 1, 2006. 

• On March 6, 2006, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S. 

2128, the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006, 

as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on March 3, 2006. 

• On July 13, 2005, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 

513, the 527 Reform Act of 2005, as ordered reported by the House 

Committee on Administration on June 29, 2005. 

• On July 6, 2005, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S. 1053, 

the 527 Reform Act of 2005, as ordered reported by the Senate 

Committee on Rules and Administration on April 27, 2005. 

• On June 17, 2005, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 

1316, the 527 Fairness Act of 2005, as ordered reported by the 

House Committee on House Administration on June 8, 2005. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Matthew Pickford and 

Deborah Reis. Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: 

Sarah Puro. Impact on the Private-Sector: Craig Cammarata. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds that the Constitutional authority of Congress to enact this legislation is provided by article 

1, section 5, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States (relating to each House of Congress determining the rules of its proceedings). 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
17 

APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation addresses the terms 

and conditions of employment or access to public services or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act only insofar as they relate to the Legislative Branch, so a statement as to their applicability is not required. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title; table of contents 

This section provides the short title of the bill, the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, and provides a table of 

contents. 

TITLE I—ENHANCING LOBBYING DISCLOSURE

Section 101. Quarterly filing of lobbying disclosure reports 

Section 101 amends section 5 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 

1995 to provide for quarterly filing of reports under the Act, rather 

than the semiannual reporting requirement under existing law, 

and makes other conforming changes. 

Section 102. Electronic filing of lobbying registrations and disclosure reports 

Section 102 provides that registrations and reports mandated 

under the LDA must be filed electronically in addition to any other 

form that may be required by the Secretary of the Senate (Secretary) and the Clerk of the House (Clerk). The provision also permits the Secretary and the Clerk to grant extensions for the time 

to file electronically if (1) the registrant files in every form required 

other than electronic, and (2) the Secretary or Clerk finds good 

cause to extend the due date upon a request by the registrant. 

Section 103. Public database of lobbying disclosure information 

This section mandates that the Secretary and the Clerk maintain 

a searchable, sortable, and downloadable electronic database freely 

available to the public over the Internet that includes the information contained in registrations and reports filed under the LDA and 

is searchable and sortable, at a minimum, by each of the major categories of information required in the registrations and reports. It 

also provides that registrations or reports received electronically by 

the Secretary or Clerk must be made available for public inspection 

over the Internet not later than 48 hours after they are received. 

Finally, it authorizes such sums as may be necessary to carry out 

these provisions. 

Section 104. Disclosure by registered lobbyists of past executive 

branch and congressional employment 

Section 104 amends the LDA by extending the current requirement to disclose past Congressional and executive branch employment from the current 2 years to 7 years. 

Section 105. Disclosure of lobbyist contributions and gifts 

Section 105 requires each registrant (and each political committee affiliated with or each employee listed as a lobbyist by that 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
18 

registrant) to report the recipient, date, and amount of each contribution made to a Federal candidate or officeholder, leadership 

PAC, political party committee, or other political committee, so long 

as that contribution must be reported to the Federal Election Commission. 

The section also requires the reporting of any gifts given to a covered legislative branch official which counts toward the cumulative 

annual limit for gifts under the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

Section 106. Increased penalty for failure to comply with lobbying 

disclosure requirements 

This section increases the civil penalties under the LDA from a 

maximum of $50,000 to $100,000. 

TITLE II—SLOWING THE REVOLVING DOOR

Section 201. Notification of post-employment restrictions 

This section amends the post-employment restrictions contained 

in section 207(e) of title 18, United States Code, to direct the Clerk, 

in consultation with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, to inform a Member, officer, or employee who is subject to the 

post-employment restrictions on lobbying contacts contained in that 

section of the beginning and ending dates of the restriction. The 

Clerk must also inform each office of the House to which the restriction applies of the restriction as well. 

Section 202. Disclosure by Members of the House of Representatives 

of employment negotiations 

Section 202 amends the Code of Official Conduct contained in 

rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives to require 

that once a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner begins 

negotiating compensation for prospective employment (or has any 

other arrangement concerning prospective employment that creates 

a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest), he 

or she must file a statement with the Committee on Standards of 

Official Conduct disclosing the negotiations within 5 days after 

commencing the negotiation. The section also provides that the 

Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner should refrain from 

voting on any legislative measure pending before the House or its 

committees if the negotiation may create a conflict of interest. 

Section 203. Wrongly influencing, on a partisan basis, an entity’s 

employment decisions or practices 

Section 203 amends the Code of Conduct to explicitly restate the 

existing standards of conduct for Members, officers, and employees 

of the House that it is improper to condition the taking or withholding of an official act, or influence or offer or threaten to influence, the official act of another, in return for a private or public 

entity’s employment decision or practice based on partisan political 

affiliation. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
19 

TITLE III—SUSPENSION OF PRIVATELY FUNDED TRAVEL; CURBING

LOBBYIST GIFTS

Section 301. Suspension of privately-funded travel 

Section 301 provides that, notwithstanding the exceptions described in clause 5 of rule XXV of the Rules of the House, no Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer or employee of the 

House may accept a gift of travel from any private source. 

Section 302. Recommendations from the Committee on Standards of 

Official Conduct on gifts and travel 

Section 302 directs the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to report its recommendations on changes to rule XXV of the 

Rules of the House (regarding acceptance of gifts and travel) to the 

Committee on Rules on or before December 15, 2006. In reporting 

its recommendations, the Committee on Standards is directed to 

consider a number of issues, including whether the current rules 

protect Members, officers, and employees from the appearance of 

impropriety, the degree to which privately-funded travel meets the 

representational needs of Members, officers, and employees, the 

sources and methods of funding for privately-funded travel, the 

adequacy of the current system of approval and disclosure of privately-funded travel, the degree to which the current exceptions to 

the prohibition on the acceptance of gifts contained in rule XXV 

meet the representational and personal needs of the House, its 

Members, officers, and employees, the clarity of the limitation and 

its exceptions, and the suitability of the current dollar limitations 

contained in the rule. 

Section 303. Prohibiting registered lobbyists on corporate flights 

Section 303 amends the LDA to prohibit a registered lobbyist 

from traveling as a passenger or crew member aboard the flight of 

an aircraft not licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration to 

operate for compensation or hire and which is owned by the client 

of a lobbyist or lobbying firm when a Member, officer, or employee 

of the House is also a passenger or crew member on the same 

flight. 

Section 304. Valuation of tickets to sporting and entertainment 

events 

This section amends rule XXV of the Rules of the House to provide that, for purposes of valuation under that rule, a gift of a ticket to a sporting or entertainment event must be valued at the face 

value of the ticket, except that when the ticket does not have a face 

value, it must be valued at the highest cost of a ticket with a face 

value for the event. 

TITLE IV—OVERSIGHT OF LOBBYING AND ENFORCEMENT

Section 401. Audits of lobbying reports by House Inspector General 

This section authorizes the Office of the Inspector General of the 

House of Representatives to have access to all registrations and reports received by the Clerk of the House under the LDA. Further, 

the Inspector General is directed to conduct random audits of that 

information as necessary to ensure compliance with the Act. The 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
20 

section also grants the Inspector General the authority to refer violations of the LDA to the Department of Justice. The Committee 

notes that clause 6(a)(5) of rule II of the Rules of the House already 

grants the Inspector General the authority to refer ‘‘information involving possible violations by a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House of any rule of the 

House or of any law applicable to the performance of official duties 

or the discharge of official responsibilities’’ to the Committee on 

Standards of Official Conduct. The Committee expects that the Office of the Inspector General would exercise this authority if it 

found any potential violations during the audit process authorized 

by this section. 

Section 402. House Inspector General review and annual reports 

Subsection (a) requires that the Inspector General of the House 

review on an ongoing basis the effectiveness of the activities carried out by the Clerk under section 6 of the LDA, and whether the 

Clerk has all of the necessary authority and resources for effective 

oversight and compliance of the Act. Subsection (b) requires that 

the Inspector General submit an annual report on the review, including any recommendations for improvements. 

TITLE V—INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS

Section 501. Earmarking reform 

This section provides a special order of the House providing that 

it will not be in order to consider (1) a general appropriation bill 

unless the bill includes a list of earmarks in the bill or in the report to accompany the bill, including the name of any Member who 

submitted a request to the Committee on Appropriations for an 

earmark included in the list, or (2) the conference report accompanying a general appropriation bill unless the joint explanatory 

statement of managers accompanying that conference report includes a list of earmarks, including the name of any Member who 

submitted a request to the Committee on Appropriations for an 

earmark included in the list, which were not committed to conference by either House or were not in the report accompanying the 

House or Senate bills. If a rule waives the application of this order 

to a conference report, a point of order lies against the rule. 

Disposition of the point of order against the bill (or against the 

rule in the case of a conference report) will be as a question of consideration put by the Chair, and debatable for 20 minutes, equally 

divided between a proponent and opponent. 

The section defines an ‘‘earmark’’ as a provision in either legislative or report language providing or recommending a specific 

amount of discretionary budget authority to a non-Federal entity, 

if that entity is specifically identified in the bill or report, or if the 

budget authority is allocated outside of the normal formula-driven 

or competitive bidding process and is targeted or directed to an 

identifiable person, State, or Congressional district. The definition 

also describes the treatment of government sponsored enterprises, 

Federal facilities, Federal lands, Indian tribes, foreign governments, and intergovernmental international organizations. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
21 

Section 502. Mandatory ethics training for House employees 

This section amends rule II of the Rules of the House to prohibit 

the Chief Administrative Officer (‘‘CAO’’) from paying compensation to an employee of the House when the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has determined that the employee is not 

in compliance with the regulations regarding mandatory ethics 

training issued pursuant to clause 3(r) of rule XI. The Committee 

anticipates that this provision will be rarely used, and that the 

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct will make every effort 

to bring the employee in question into compliance with the regulations prior to making the determination described in this provision. 

It also amends rule XI to direct the Committee on Standards of 

Official Conduct to establish a mandatory program of regular ethics 

training for employees of the House. The regulations must provide 

that each employee of the House must complete ethics training offered by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct at least 

once during each congress. Employees hired after the adoption of 

the regulations must complete the training within 30 days of being 

hired. Furthermore, the requirement is tolled for any employee who 

works in a Member’s district office until 30 days after that office 

is notified that the training is available over the Internet. 

Upon the completion of training, each employee is required to file 

a written certification with the Committee on Standards of Official 

Conduct that the employee has completed the required ethics training and is familiar with the contents of any publications designated 

by the Standards Committee. Employees are defined as any individual whose compensation is disbursed by the CAO, but does specifically does not include a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner. 

While the Committee recognizes that a mandatory requirement 

for the ethics training of Members could be construed as a qualification of service that could raise Constitutional questions, the 

Committee believes that ethics training for Members is vitally important so that they know and understand the rules and laws applicable to their service. To that end, the section also directs the 

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to establish a program 

of regular ethics training for Members, Delegates, and the Resident 

Commissioner similar to the program established for employees of 

the House, and encourage Member participation in the program. 

Section 503. Biennial publication of ethics manual 

This section requires that, not later than 120 days after the enactment of this legislation, and one time in each Congress thereafter, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct publish an 

up-to-date ethics manual for Members, officers, and employees of 

the House and make the manual available to those individuals. It 

further provides that the Standards Committee has a duty to keep 

all Members, officers, and employees of the House apprised of current rulings or advisory opinions when those rulings or opinions 

constitute changes to or interpretations of current policies. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
22 

TITLE VI—REFORM OF SECTION 527 ORGANIZATIONS

Section 601. Short title 

This section provides the short title of this title, the 527 Reform 

Act of 2006. 

Section 602. Treatment of section 527 organizations 

This section amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 

(FECA; 2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) to require 527 groups to register as 

political committees with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) 

and comply with Federal campaign finance laws, unless they raise 

and spend money exclusively in connection with non-Federal candidate elections, state or local ballot initiatives, or the nomination 

or confirmation of individuals to non-elected offices, such as judicial 

positions. The bill provides a narrow exception for 527 groups 

whose annual receipts are less than $25,000, or whose activities 

are related exclusively to state or local elections or ballot initiatives. However, this exception doesn’t apply if a 527 group spends more then $1,000 (aggregate) to transmit a public communication 

that promotes, supports, attacks, or opposes a Federal candidate in 

the year prior to a Federal election, or spends more than $1,000 

(aggregate) to conduct any voter drive activities in connection with 

an election in which a Federal candidate appears on the ballot. 

However, the bill makes further exceptions for groups that make 

voter drive disbursements with respect to elections in only 1 state, 

make no references or contributions to Federal candidates, or have 

no Federal candidates, officeholders, or national political parties 

control or materially participate in the direction of the organization, solicit contributions, or direct disbursements. 

This section also provides that 527 groups registered as political 

committees can only use Federal hard money contributions to finance ads that promote or attack Federal candidates, regardless of 

whether the ads expressly advocate the election or defeat of the 

candidate. 

Section 603. Rules for allocation of expenses between Federal and 

non-Federal Activities 

This section generally sets forth rules for allocation and funding 

for certain expenses relating to Federal and non-Federal activities 

of political committees. When a Federal political committee makes 

expenditures for voter mobilization activities or public communications that affect both Federal and non-Federal elections, at least 

50% of the costs of those activities would have to be paid for with 

Federal hard money contributions. Further, at least 50% of administrative and fundraising expenses must be paid with funds from 

a Federal account (not including fundraising solicitations or any 

other activity that constitutes a public communication). 

With regard to the non-Federal funds that can be used to finance 

a portion of voter mobilization activities and public communications 

that affect both Federal and non-Federal elections, those funds 

must come from individuals only and must be in amounts of not 

more than $25,000 per year per individual donor. National political 

parties and Federal candidates are prohibited from soliciting funds 

for these non-Federal accounts. [This is similar to the provision in 

the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that places a limit on 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
23 

the size of a non-Federal contribution that can be spent by state 

parties on activities affecting both Federal and non-Federal elections. $25,000 is the same amount that an individual can contribute to a national political party. An individual can give only 

$5,000 per year to a Federal political committee to influence Federal elections.] The section also requires that 527s must report all 

receipts and disbursements from a qualified non-Federal account. 

Finally, the provision directs the FEC to promulgate regulations 

within 180 days to implement these provisions and establishes the 

effective date as 180 days after the date of enactment of the legislation. 

Section 604. Repeal of limit on amount of party expenditures on behalf of candidates in general elections 

This section repeals the limit on expenditures coordinated between party committees and their candidates contained in section 

315(d) of FECA. 

Section 605. Construction 

This provision specifically provides that nothing in the language 

of this title should be construed as approving, ratifying, or endorsing a FEC regulation, establishing, modifying, or otherwise affecting the IRS’s definition of a political organization, or affecting 

whether a 501(c) organization should be considered a political committee. 

Section 606. Judicial review 

This section establishes certain special rules for actions brought 

on constitutional grounds. Those actions (1) must be filed in United 

States District Court for the District of Columbia and be heard by 

a 3-judge panel; (2) a copy of the complaint must be delivered to 

the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate; and (3) a 

final decision in the actions is only reviewable by direct appeal to 

the Supreme Court. This section also provides that Members of 

Congress have the right to intervene either in support or opposition 

to the position of a party to the case regarding the constitutionality 

of the provision or amendment and any Member may bring an action for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge the constitutionally of any provision of the title. 

Section 607. Severability 

This section provides that, should any part of this title, or 

amendment made by this title, be held to be unconstitutional, the 

remainder of the title and amendments made by the title will remain unaffected. 

TITLE VII—FORFEITURE OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS

Section 701. Loss of pensions accrued during service as a Member 

of Congress for abusing the public trust 

This section amends section 8332 of title 5, United States Code, 

to provide that a Member of Congress, if convicted of bribery or acting as an agent of a foreign government (including the associated 

conspiracy charges), will lose those contributions made by the government to their Congressional pension. The provision also authorVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:53 Apr 26, 2006 Jkt 027181 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR439P3.XXX HR439P3

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
24 

izes the Office of Personnel Management to promulgate regulations 

to carry out the section, including regulations providing for the 

payment of the full amount of the pension to the spouse or children 

of the Member to the extent deemed necessary given the totality 

of the circumstances. 

CHANGES IN THE RULES OF THE HOUSE MADE BY THE BILL, AS

REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(g) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in the Rules of the House made 

by the provisions of the bill referred to the Committee, as reported, 

are shown as follows (existing provisions proposed to be omitted 

are enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, existing provisions in which no change is proposed are shown in 

roman): 

RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

* * * * * * * 

RULE II 

OTHER OFFICERS AND OFFICIALS

* * * * * * * 

Chief Administrative Officer 

4. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d) The Chief Administrative Officer may not pay any compensation to any employee of the House with respect to any pay period 

during which the employee, as determined by the Committee on 

Standards of Official Conduct, is not in compliance with the applicable requirements of regulations promulgated pursuant to clause 

3(r) of Rule XI. 

* * * * * * * 

RULE XI 

PROCEDURES OF COMMITTEES AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS

* * * * * * * 

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 

3. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(r) The committee shall establish a program of regular ethics 

training for employees of the House and promulgate regulations providing for the following: 

(1)(A) Except as otherwise provided, all employees of the 

House are required to complete ethics training offered by the 

committee at least once during each congress. Any employee 

who is hired after the date of adoption of such rules is required 

to complete such training within 30 days of being hired. 

(B) Any employee of the House who works in a Member’s district office shall not be required to complete such ethics training 

until 30 days after the district office has received a notice from 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
25 

the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that the required ethics training program is available on the Internet. 

(2) After any employee of the House completes such ethics 

training, that employee shall file a written certification with the 

committee that he is familiar with the contents of any pertinent 

publications that are so designated by the committee and has 

completed the required ethics training. 

(3) As used in this paragraph, the term ‘‘employee of the 

House’’ refers to any individual whose compensation is disbursed by the Chief Administrative Officer, including any staff 

assigned to a Member’s personal office, any staff of a committee 

or leadership office, or any employee of the Office of the Clerk, 

of the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, or of the Sergeant-at-Arms, but does not include a Member, Delegate, or 

Resident Commissioner. 

(s) The committee shall establish a program of regular ethics 

training for Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner 

similar to the program established in paragraph (r), and encourage 

participation in such program. 

* * * * * * * 

RULE XXIII 

CODE OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT

There is hereby established by and for the House the following 

code of conduct, to be known as the ‘‘Code of Official Conduct’’: 

1. * * * 

* * * * * * * 

14. (a) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall file 

with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct a statement 

that he or she is negotiating compensation for prospective employment or has any arrangement concerning prospective employment if 

a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest may 

exist. Such statement shall be made within 5 days (other than Saturdays, Sundays, or public holidays) after commencing the negotiation for compensation or entering into the arrangement. 

(b) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner should refrain 

from voting on any legislative measure pending before the House or 

any committee thereof if the negotiation described in subparagraph 

(a) may create a conflict of interest. 

15. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House may not, with the intent to influence on the 

basis of political party affiliation an employment decision or employment practice of any private or public entity (except for the Congress)—

(a) take or withhold, or offer or threaten to take or withhold, 

an official act; or 

(b) influence, or offer or threaten to influence, the official act 

of another. 

ø14.¿ 16. (a) In this Code of Official Conduct, the term ‘‘officer or employee of the House’’ means an individual whose compensation is disbursed by the Chief Administrative Officer. 

* * * * * * * 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
26 

RULE XXV 

LIMITATIONS ON OUTSIDE EARNED INCOME AND ACCEPTANCE OF

GIFTS

* * * * * * * 

Gifts 

5. (a)(1)(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(2)(A)(i) In this clause the term ‘‘gift’’ means a gratuity, 

favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance, 

or other item having monetary value. The term includes gifts 

of services, training, transportation, lodging, and meals, whether provided in kind, by purchase of a ticket, payment in advance, or reimbursement after the expense has been incurred. 

(ii) A gift of a ticket to a sporting or entertainment event shall be 

valued at the face value of the ticket, provided that in the case of 

a ticket without a face value, the ticket shall be valued at the highest cost of a ticket with a face value for the event. 

* * * * * * * 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
(27) 

MINORITY VIEWS 

The markup of H.R. 4975 this Committee held on April 5, 2006 

was one of a number of hearings and markups the House of Representatives held in the early months of 2006 on the subject of Congressional corruption, which the Majority has very carefully named 

‘‘Lobbying Reform.’’ The three hearings Chairman Dreier conducted 

in the Rules Committee on this topic allowed us to consider a number of different viewpoints and develop a solid committee record. 

We appreciate Chairman Dreier’s willingness to conduct these 

hearings and sincerely hope he will continue this spirit of deliberation when the Rules Committee takes up the rule for H.R. 4975. 

We urge the Committee to report a rule that will allow the House 

to conduct an open and unrestricted debate on this crucial issue. 

The first step we can take to restore the American people’s confidence in their legislative branch is to show them we are carefully 

considering every reform idea. All of the serious reform proposals 

both Democrats and Republicans have put forward over the past 

few months deserve full consideration on the House floor. 

We oppose this bill in its current form because it pretends that 

the degradation of the legislative process and ethical standards in 

the House of Representatives we have all witnessed over the past 

few Congresses can be solved with a few narrowly-targeted fixes. 

By proposing this legislation, Republicans are telling a seriously ill 

patient to take two aspirin and call them in the morning. As the 

outside experts testified at our hearings, and as a multitude of editorial writers, bloggers, and other commentators have observed, the 

current Congress is suffering from a systemic illness that affects 

every aspect of its operations. We do not believe that a piecemeal 

response to the scandals that have tarnished the reputation of the 

House over the past few years is a credible one. A more serious, 

more comprehensive proposal to reform Congress would address 

the procedural abuses that have flourished in the past few years 

and allowed special interests to capture the legislative process. It 

would also restore accountability and enforcement to the moribund 

House ethics process. Most importantly, it would demand that 

Members and staff renew their commitment to serving the people 

who sent them to Congress and restoring Americans’ faith in the ‘‘People’s House.’’ Finally, we must note with disappointment that while Chairman 

Dreier and the Republican leadership talked constantly about 

crafting a ‘‘bipartisan’’ reform proposal, H.R. 4975 is a Republican 

bill. It does not include any of the major policy ideas put forward 

by Rules Committee Democrats (H. Res. 686), Minority Leader 

Pelosi (H.R. 4682), or senior Democratic Representatives Obey, 

Frank, Price, and Allen (H. Res. 659). Furthermore, as the record 

of our markup demonstrates, bipartisanship ended with the opening statements. During the hearing, Democratic Rules Committee 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
28 

1See our Minority Views in House Report 109–220, Part 1, Establishing the Select Bipartisan 

Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina. 

2Spokesman Review (Spokane, WA) editorial, ‘‘Kick the Habit,’’ April 3, 2006. 

1 USA Today editorial, ‘‘Lobbyist’s Plea Likely to Expose Seamy Underside of Congress,’’ Jan. 

4, 2006. 

Members offered 12 separate amendments we believed would 

strengthen the bill and create a more credible reform package. As 

the record shows, our twelve proposals did not garner even one vote 

from our Republican colleagues on the Rules Committee. As we 

have pointed out before, merely calling a process ‘‘bipartisan’’ does 

not make it so.1

1. ‘‘Lobbying Reform’’—Broad Problem, Narrow Solution 

We think the name the Majority has given to this effort and to 

this legislation (the ‘‘Lobbying Accountability and Transparency 

Act of 2006’’) is very revealing. First of all, by calling their effort ‘‘lobbying reform,’’ Republicans are suggesting that responsibility 

for the corruption scandals that have plagued the House in the 

109th Congress lies not with elected Members of Congress, but 

with the people who lobby them. Their argument seems to be that 

if you tweak a few rules governing the lobbying profession, the ethics controversies that have clouded the 109th Congress will go 

away. If now-convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff had simply been required to disclose his activities four times a year and disclose more 

information about his political activities, supporters of this bill 

seem to be saying, he would not have been able to operate his 

criminal conspiracy in and around Congress. 

But rapacious lobbyists are only part of the problem. As Ranking 

Member Slaughter observed at one our hearings: ‘‘Lobbyists, after 

all, can only knock on the door. Members are the ones who have 

to open it.’’ Or as the editorial page of the Spokesman Review in 

Spokane, Washington recently put it: ‘‘Congress continues to spin 

this as a lobbying issue, but it takes two to do the influence 

tango.’’ 2 In other words, Jack Abramoff was able to demand and 

receive unconscionable fees from his clients because they believed 

he had access to the decision-makers in Congress. The USA Today 

editorial board made this same point in an editorial written earlier 

this year: 

What is most shocking in the Abramoff case is not that 

he would want to make a fortune and spread it around to 

gain power and influence. It is that so many members of 

Congress would be so quick to accommodate him.3

While we wholeheartedly support lobbying reform, we feel the 

authors of H.R. 4975 have confused cause with effect—the key to 

restoring the people’s trust in their Congress is restoring ‘‘accountability and transparency’’ to the way we do our own business. According to an April 10th Washington Post-ABC News poll, only 38% 

of Americans approve of the way the Congress is doing its job—our 

lowest approval rating in 10 years. They have figured out that Congress spends most of its time these days working to help special interests, rather than the public interest. Increasing disclosure requirements for lobbyists and preventing them from flying with 

Members of Congress on corporate jets are perhaps positive steps, 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
29 

4Lobbying Reform: Accountability Through Transparency, Original Jurisdiction Hearing before the House Committee on Rules [hereinafter March 30th Lobbying Reform Hearing], 109th 

Congress (March 30, 2006) (statement of the Honorable David Price); available at: http:// 

www.rules.house.gov/techouse/109/lobref/Accountability/109lloblreflojl3ltrans.htm. 5Lobbying Reform: Accountability Through Transparency, Original Jurisdiction Hearing before the House Committee on Rules [hereinafter March 2nd Lobbying Reform Hearing], 109th 

Congress (March 2, 2006) (statement of Dr. Thomas Mann, Ph.D.); available at: http:// 

www.rules.house.gov/techouse/109/lobref/109ltestlloblrefloj.htm 6Lobbying Reform: Reforming the Gift and Travel Rules, Original Jurisdiction Hearing before 

the House Committee on Rules [hereinafter Gift and Travel Reform Hearing], 109th Congress 

(March 9, 2006) (statement of Robert Bauer); available at: http://www.rules.house.gov/techouse/ 

109/lobref/travel/109ltestlloblreftravelloj.htm. 

but they will do little to change our constituents’ current attitude 

towards the legislative branch. Congressional reform, not lobbying 

reform, is the key to restoring the Americans’ confidence in the 

people’s House. As our colleague, Representative David Price, observed in his Rules Committee testimony, ‘‘a debate focused only on 

lobbyist disclosure and travel and gift rules risks missing the forest 

for the trees.’’ 4 Another Committee witness, Thomas Mann of the 

Brookings Institution, made this point to us during our March 2nd 

hearing. He testified: 

All professional groups, including lobbyists, can benefit 

from higher ethical standards and self-regulation. But I 

think it is a mistake to assume the broader problem is one 

of their own making. The Congress would be well advised 

to focus on its own Members and staff, for its leaders to 

articulate and champion high ethical standards in dealing 

with lobbyists and to set up educational programs whereby 

those inside Congress are assisted in meeting those standards, and to establish effective systems of transparency 

and enforcement.5

Dubbing this legislation ‘‘lobbying reform’’ also suggests the current rules governing Members and staff members are not adequate 

to regulate their behavior. While we have proposed a number of reforms that we feel will improve the accountability of the Congress 

to our constituents, we also must point out that there are already 

a number of statutes and rules setting standards for Members’ behavior and regulating our relationships with registered lobbyists. 

Moreover, as attorney Robert Bauer reminded us at our March 9th 

hearing, our ethics rules require us to not only follow their ‘‘blackletter’’ requirements; they also command us to ‘‘observe their spirit 

as well as their letter.’’ The Code of Official Conduct requires Members and staff not only to follow the rules, but also to avoid actions 

(even lawful ones) that would discredit the House.6

It is painfully obvious to all of us that the current ethics scandals 

occurred because some Members and staff lost sight of their obligation to observe the spirit of our rules. Because Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive authority to govern the conduct of and discipline its Members, the House is a self-governing 

body. It is ultimately our responsibility to create, and then honor, 

rules of conduct that inspire confidence in the American people 

that their elected representatives are acting in our country’s best 

interest. Perhaps the most effective ‘‘lobbying reform’’ would be a 

new commitment by Members and staff of the House to conduct 

themselves ‘‘at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably 

on the House,’’ as we are required to do under clause 1 of Rule 

XXIII. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
30 

7March 2nd Lobbying Reform Hearing (statement of Dr. James Thurber, Ph.D.). 

8March 2nd Lobbying Reform Hearing (statement of the Honorable James Bachus). 

9March 2nd Lobbying Reform Hearing (statement of Dr. James Thurber, Ph.D.). 

10March 30th Lobbying Reform Hearing (statement of the Honorable Heather Wilson). 

11March 2nd Lobbying Reform Hearing (statement of Dr. James Thurber, Ph.D.). 

A number of witnesses before the Rules Committee made this 

same point—plenty of good rules already exist, but they are useless 

if the House does not enforce them. Professor James Thurber urged 

us to ‘‘strengthen the enforcement of existing laws and ethics rules 

that cover Members of Congress, staff, and lobbyists.’’ He described 

the committees that oversee the current rules as ‘‘moribund’’ and 

proposed the following: 

At a minimum the Congressional committees with jurisdiction over lobbying and ethics must hold regular oversight hearings, investigate allegations of existing ethics 

and lobbying law violations, and hold regular training sessions for Members of Congress and staff about existing 

rules and standards of conduct.7

Former Representative James Bachus reminded us that ‘‘Rules 

without the resources to make them real are but empty promises.’’ 8

On the issue of gift ban limits, Professor Thurber testified that the 

House does not need to change the limits, rather ‘‘it needs to effectively oversee and enforce the existing gift ban rules.’’ 9 Our Republican colleague, Representative Heather Wilson, made exactly the 

same point a few weeks later when she testified: ‘‘The problem 

with the gift ban isn’t the limit, it is the failure to enforce the gift 

rule effectively.’’ 10 On Member travel rules, Professor Thurber offered the following thought: 

Congress does not need to prohibit the support of legitimate 

educational travel by Members and staff; it needs to enforce 

existing rules and ban non-educational travel for Members of 

Congress and staff. Obviously, the appropriate travel would 

not be, for example, an eight-day golf trip to St. Andrews that 

happened to include a one hour meeting or lecture.11

During our markup, Representative Hastings of Florida offered 

an amendment (amendment # 11) that would have reinforced the 

current House rules that allow Members to take educational trips 

sponsored by private entities that are truly education in nature. 

His proposal to require the Ethics Committee to pre-approve 

groups for privately-funded travel and to require Members and 

staff to more fully disclose their travel itineraries was intended to 

clarify the common-sense difference between education travel and 

travel that involves playing golf with lobbyists. The Hastings 

amendment was consistent with the almost unanimous view we 

heard from Members and outside experts that legitimate educational travel helps Members deepen their knowledge of important 

issues and forge relationships with their House colleagues. Unfortunately, Rules Committee Republicans rejected this proposal on 

party-line 3–9 vote, and instead supported a temporary travel moratorium (section 301) that kicks the issue of privately-funded travel 

down the road until after the November elections by banning all 

travel (educational or not) until December 15, 2006. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
31 

We must also point out that H.R. 4975 does not fix all of the 

problems it claims to fix, nor close all of the loopholes it claims to 

close. For example, while section 303 of the bill prohibits lobbyists 

from flying with Members of Congress on corporate jets, it still allows Members of Congress to fly on these private jets at the cost 

of a first-class ticket on a commercial airline. While Section 304 of 

the bill requires gifts of tickets to sporting events, concerts, or theater performances to be valued at their ‘‘face value,’’ it does not requires the tickets to be valued at the price a member of the public 

would pay for the same ticket. During the markup, Representative 

McGovern offered two amendments that would have fixed these 

problems and applied the laws of economic supply-and-demand to 

Members of Congress. One of his amendments (amendment # 9), 

which was defeated on a party-line vote of 4–9, would have valued 

a ticket for entertainment according to what it would cost a member of the general public. His other amendment (amendment # 8), 

again defeated by a party-line vote of 4–9, would have required 

Members of Congress to pay the same amount to fly on a private 

jet as it would cost a member of the general public to fly on a corporate-owned or chartered jet. This amendment also would have required Member to disclose who owns the jet and the names of the 

people who accompanied him or her on the flight. 

The section of the bill addressing earmarks (section 501) also appears to be less than airtight. While H.R. 4975 claims to address 

the proliferation of earmarks in the legislative process, the bill as 

it is currently written will not touch many bills that contain provisions specifically targeted to benefit individual persons or small 

groups. While the current version of the bill requires appropriations bills to list earmarks and the names of their sponsors in the 

text of the bill or accompanying report, it does not address the increasingly common earmarking that occurs in authorizing committees. As Ranking Member Obey pointed out in his March 30th testimony, the 2005 transportation authorization bill contained more 

than 5,000 earmarks totaling more than $24 billion, while last 

year’s FSC-ETI tax bill contained billions of dollars of narrowly targeted tax benefits to aid special interests such as horse race tracks 

and fishing tackle box manufacturers. To correct this oversight, 

Representative Hastings of Florida offered an amendment (amendment # 10) requiring Members to disclose their earmark requests 

for any type of bill, not just appropriations legislation. Unfortunately, Rules Committee Republicans rejected this amendment to 

broaden the earmark disclosure process. 

Finally, in the past few days, we have learned that Republican 

leaders have blocked bipartisan improvements the Judiciary Committee made to H.R. 4975 during its markup of the lobbying disclosure sections of the bill. The Committee Print posted on the Rules 

Committee website on Friday, April 21, 2006 removed and/or watered down several Democratic and bipartisan amendments the Judiciary Committee adopted that required lobbyists to disclose more 

of their fundraising activities. In other words, the Republican leadership unilaterally blocked a bipartisan idea to improve lobbyist 

disclosure (the stated goal of this legislation). Mr. Fred 

Wertheimer, President of Democracy 21, who participated in our 

March 2nd hearing, commented on this change, ‘‘House Republican 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
32 

12 Elana Schor, ‘‘Watchdog Groups Blast House Lobby Reform Bill,’’ The Hill, April 25, 2006. 

13March 30th Lobbying Reform Hearing, (statement of the Honorable Christopher Shays). 

14March 2nd Lobbying Reform Hearing (statement of Mr. Fred Wertheimer). 

leaders have turned an already unacceptable lobbying and ethics 

bill into a complete joke.’’ 12

2. A House Without Ethics 

It was amazing after the 2004 election we considered repealing the rule requiring a Republican leader to step 

down if indicted. Next, we proceeded to remove the members of the Ethics Committee who had voted to hold our 

former Majority Leader accountable for his actions. And 

then, we proceeded to make it more difficult to initiate an 

Ethics Committee investigation. It is clear to me power 

corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We need 

bold action. We need bold reform.—Representative Christopher Shays, Testimony before the House Rules Committee, March 30, 2006 13

Although H.R. 4975 treads lightly around the subject, it is obvious to all observers of Congress (including many who testified before our Committee) that one of the major problems in the 109th 

Congress has been the failure of the Committee on Standards of 

Official Conduct (the Ethics Committee) to enforce our Code of Official Conduct (codified at Rule XXIII of the current House rules). 

During his testimony before the Rules Committee on March 2nd, 

Mr. Fred Wertheimer, the President of Democracy 21, did not 

mince his words. He said: 

The performance of the House ethics committee, in particular, is its own scandal. During the entire year of 2005, 

the House ethics committee was not even functional. This 

failure of the Committee to be able to operate for an entire 

year is unprecedented and demonstrates a complete breakdown of the process in the House for overseeing and enforcing House ethics rules.14

It was a particularly bad year to operate without an Ethics Committee, since 2005 was a year in which a number of new congressional ethical scandals came to light. One particularly embarrassing episode for the House was former Representative Randy 

‘‘Duke’’ Cunningham’s pleading guilty in November 2005 to accept- ing more than $2 million in bribes from defense contractors. While 

enterprising reporters from Cunningham’s hometown newspaper 

published story after story on his shady financial transactions 

through the spring and summer of 2005, the Ethics Committee 

took no formal notice of the exploding scandal and conducted no investigation. 

The failure of the Ethics Committee to investigate Cunningham’s 

actions inspired a rare unity among government watchdog groups. 

Commenters across the ideological spectrum agreed that the 

Cunningham case demonstrated a total failure of the current Congress to police Members’ behavior. As Tom Fitton, president of conservative Judicial Watch put it: ‘‘There is no ethics enforcement in 

Congress today, and it’s inexcusable.’’ Melanie Sloan, speaking on 

behalf of the liberal Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in WashVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:53 Apr 26, 2006 Jkt 027181 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR439P3.XXX HR439P3

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
33 

15 Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, ‘‘In a Season of Scandals, Ethics Panels Are on Sidelines,’’ Washington 

Post, Dec. 5, 2005. 16 Roll Call editorial, ‘‘Ethics vs. Justice,’’ December 7, 2005 

17 Nashvile Tennessean editorial, ‘‘Abramoff’s plea signals need for real reforms, It’s the whole 

system, not just one lobbyist, that has become corrupt,’’ Jan. 5, 2006. 

ington commented, ‘‘No matter what level of corruption the members of Congress engage in, the ethics committees do nothing. . . It’s a national embarrassment.’’ Senator John McCain commented on Meet the Press: ‘‘I don’t think the Ethics Committees 

are working very well. The latest Cunningham scandal was uncovered by the San Diego newspaper, not by anyone here....’’ 15 A 

Roll Call editorial bluntly summed it up: ‘‘Let’s face it: The Justice 

Department has become the de facto ethics police force for Congress.’’ 16 The editorial board of the Nashville Tennessean wrote: 

‘‘While federal prosecutors spent 2005 building cases 

against politicians, like Rep. Randy Cunningham, R-Calif., 

the House so-called Ethics Committee met once and did 

nothing. Surely members of Congress can understand that 

it is better for them to police their own members for ethics 

violations than to wait until those violations devolve into 

crimes, forcing prosecutors to come in to clean house.17

What sometimes gets lost in discussions about the breakdown of 

ethics enforcement in the 109th Congress is that it was not inevitable. The ethics shutdown was engineered by the House Republican leadership at the beginning of the 109th Congress in order to 

protect their Members from the scrutiny and accountability of the 

ethics process. Ethics enforcement was shut down in 2005 because 

the Majority launched an unprecedented, partisan attack on a process that the House has proudly protected from partisanship since 

it established the Ethics Committee in 1967. Key to this process is 

the structural bipartisanship of the Committee. It is made up of 

five Republican and five Democratic Members and is staffed by 

non-partisan professionals who are appointed only by majority vote 

of the Committee. 

The attack started on the first day of the 109th Congress, when 

Republican leaders included several controversial ‘‘ethics reform’’ proposals in their new rules package (H. Res. 5). The ethics reforms that were forced through on the Opening Day of the 109th 

Congress on a party-line vote changed a key provision in the 1997 

ethics rules that prevented Members of only one party from blocking ethics investigations. Under the 1997 rules, a validly filed complaint that the Committee does not act on within 45 days automatically goes to a subcommittee for investigation. The purpose of this 

rule (called the ‘‘automatic transmittal’’ rule) is to encourage committee Members to reach a bipartisan decision to either dispose of 

the complaint if it has no merit, or begin an investigation within 

45 days. The knowledge that an investigation will automatically 

move forward if they do not act within the 45-day period, however, 

prompts quick action on a complaint. 

By removing the 45-day default provision, Republican leaders 

knew that they were fundamentally changing the incentive structure created in the 1997 reforms. Eliminating the 45-day transmittal rule would allow committee Members from one party to ‘‘run 

out the clock’’ on ethics complaints against Members from their 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
34 

18 Roll Call editorial, ‘‘Ethics Retreat,’’ Jan. 10, 2005. 

19 House Rule XXIII, clause 1. 20Washington Post editorial, ‘‘Rigging the Rules,’’ Dec. 31, 2004. 

own party. In other words, five members of the Committee (less 

than a majority of the 10-member committee) could force the dismissal of an ethics complaint simply by doing nothing. As a Roll 

Call editorial observed at the time, by jamming this rule change 

through on opening day, the Republican leadership ‘‘made it unmistakably clear that the House ethics process henceforward will be a 

partisan undertaking, not a bipartisan one.’’ 18 After trying to defend this indefensible ethics rule change for several months, the 

Republican leadership of the House finally gave up and allowed the 

House, by an overwhelming 406–20 vote, to restore the 45-day rule 

to its 1997 version (H. Res. 240). 

Even more outrageous was an ethics rule change that the Republican leadership had been forced to abandon by the time the House 

adopted its rules package on the first day of the 109th Congress. 

The week before the 109th Congress convened, GOP leaders had 

circulated a proposal to eliminate the most fundamental tenet and 

first rule of the House ethics code, namely that ‘‘A Member . . . 

shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect 

creditably on the House.’’ 19 The effect of this change would have 

been to turn a code of conduct based on each Member’s duty to behave in a manner worthy of the United States House of Representatives into a code of enumerated offenses. Members would be allowed to act in a way that brought discredit to the House, as long 

as they did not violate one of the ‘‘black-letter’’ ethics rules. As a 

Washington Post editorial explained this provision: 

No matter how slimy a lawmaker’s behavior, it couldn’t 

be deemed an ethical violation unless the ethics committee 

could cite a specific subparagraph of a specific regulation 

that was breached. 

The editorial went on to point out that by eliminating this general 

principle of honorable conduct, the House was holding itself to a 

lower standard than it requires from members of the Armed 

Forces. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, soldiers can be 

court martialed for ‘‘all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon 

the Armed Forces.’’ 20

It was no mystery why the House leadership was desperately 

struggling to water down the House ethics rules at the beginning 

of the 109th Congress. In the final months of the 108th Congress, 

the House Ethics Committee admonished then-Majority Leader 

Tom DeLay for (1) improperly promising political support in exchange for a vote on the Medicare bill, (2) appearing to link campaign contributions to proposed energy legislation, and (3) using 

Federal Aviation Administration resources to track down Texas legislators who opposed Representative DeLay’s Congressional redistricting plan. The effect of these admonishments was not to force 

Representative DeLay and the Majority leadership to pause and 

think about how they could modify their behavior to better conform 

with the House’s ethical standards; instead, they tried to lower the 

House’s ethical standards to make their unacceptable behavior acceptable. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
35 

21 Roll Call editorial, ‘‘Ethics Odor,’’ Feb. 9, 2005. 22 John Bresnahan, ‘‘Critics Slam Hastings’ Dismissal of Ethics Staff,’’ Roll Call, Feb. 17, 

2005. 23 Rules of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 109th Congress, Rule 6(a). 24 John Bresnahan and Ben Pershing, ‘‘Ethics Panel Finally; Ready to Hire Staff,’’ Roll Call, 

July 5, 2005. 

In the months leading up to and following these ethics rules 

changes, the Republican leadership took several further steps to 

punish the people who dared stand up for the House Code of Conduct. Late in the 108th Congress, the Republican Conference repealed its internal rule prohibiting a Member from holding a leadership position if he or she were under indictment. This indictment 

rule, obviously intended to protect the job of then-Majority Leader 

DeLay, was reinstated at the beginning of the 109th Congress after 

a storm of criticism. 

A GOP leadership decision that was not repealed, however, was 

the Speaker’s February 2nd ‘‘Wednesday Afternoon Massacre’’ dismissal of Chairman Joel Hefley, and two other Republican Ethics 

Committee Members. According to Chairman Hefley, there was ‘‘a 

bad perception out there that there was a purge in the committee 

and that people were put in that would protect our side of the aisle 

better than I did.’’ 21 One of the first actions of the new Chairman, 

our Rules Committee colleague Representative Hastings of Washington, was to halt the Committee’s ongoing investigations and dismiss the Committee’s long-time non-partisan staff director and 

chief counsel.22 In spite of the Ethics Committee’s rule that its staff 

be professional and nonpartisan,23 Chairman Hastings then tried 

to unilaterally hire a long-time political aide as the committee’s 

staff director.24 Chairman Hastings’ insistence on hiring a political 

aide to fill this key non-partisan position paralyzed the Committee’s activities for months. In fact, the Committee did not fill its 

staff director position until November 2005. 

During the Rules Committee markup of H.R. 4975, Representative Slaughter offered an amendment (amendment # 6) to prevent 

the disruption caused by the dismissal of the Ethics Committee’s 

counsel at the beginning of the 109th Congress. Her amendment 

would have required a majority vote to dismiss a member of the 

Committee’s non-partisan staff, which would therefore require the 

votes of Members from both parties. The purpose of this amendment was to re-confirm the Ethics Committee’s commitment to bipartisan decision-making. Unfortunately, Rules Committee Republicans rejected this amendment—as they rejected all of the amendments Democrats proposed—on a party-line vote of 4–9. 

3. A House Without Rules 

We also oppose this bill because it does almost nothing to address the procedural abuses that have become so commonplace in 

our legislative process. By dubbing this legislation ‘‘lobbying reform,’’ the Majority ignores the fact that one of the biggest problems currently plaguing the House is the breakdown of the deliberative process. They have chosen to ignore the obvious connection 

between the ethics scandals that have plagued the 109th Congress 

and the closed, undemocratic way in which the House has conducted its business over the past few years. A legislative process 

that does not allow open debate and provide opportunity for 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
36 

25March 2nd Lobbying Reform Hearing (statement of Dr. Norman Ornstein, Ph.D.). 26See, for example, Profoundly Un-Democratic: A Congressional Report on the Unprecedented 

Erosion of the Democratic Process in the HJouse of Representatives and the Rise of the ’Imperial Congress’ During the 108th Congres, (March 2005), available at: http:// 

www.housedemocrats.gov/Docs?BrokenPromises.pdf 27 Rules Committee Republicans, The Decline of Deliberative Democracy in the People’s 

House, Congressional Record, Apr. 21, 1995, p. 14 1956. 

amendment on legislation, and instead allows small groups of 

House leaders and private interests to write the bills, is a process 

vulnerable to corruption and improper influence from lobbyists. 

Making the lobbying process more transparent will do little good 

if we do not act to make the legislative process more credible and 

transparent as well. 

Although our colleagues in the Majority choose to ignore the connection between corruption and the lack of procedural fairness, it 

is obvious to outside observers. During our March 2nd hearing, for 

example, longtime Congressional scholar Dr. Norman Ornstein of 

the American Enterprise Institute testified: 

The problem goes beyond corrupt lobbyists or the relationship between lobbyists and lawmakers. It gets to a legislative process that has lost the transparency, accountability, and deliberation that are at the core of the American system; the failure to abide by basic rules and norms 

has contributed, I believe, to a loss of sensitivity among 

many members and leaders about what is and what is not 

appropriate. Three-hour votes, thousand-page-plus bills 

sprung on the floor with no notice, conference reports 

changed in the dead of night, self-executing rules that suppress debate along with an explosion of closed rules, are 

just a few of the practices that have become common and 

that are a distortion of the regular order.25

Over the past few years, Rules Committee Democrats have carefully compiled a record of the procedural abuses that have unfortunately come to define the last several Congresses. In other venues, 

we have detailed how the number of closed and severely restricted 

rules has increased over time, thereby restricting the ability of both 

Democratic and Republican Members to debate, amend, and improve legislation. We have also documented how the Majority routinely jams large, complex conference reports through the House 

with just a few hours notice. At the same time it has severely limited deliberation on controversial issues, the House occupies more 

of its already short work week debating non-controversial suspension bills.26 In spite of the promises they made to restore ‘‘deliberative democracy’’ when they took over the House in 1994, Republicans have taken unprecedented steps to quash debate and stifle 

‘‘the full and free airing of conflicting opinions through hearings, 

debates, and amendments.’’ 27

During the markup of H.R. 4975, Democratic Rules Committee 

Members offered a number of proposals addressing the procedural 

abuses that have taken root in the House over the past few Congresses. Most of these proposals came from a rules reform package 

we introduced on February 16, 2006 (H. Res. 686) in response to 

Chairman Dreier’s promise to consider reform proposals in a bipartisan manner. Unfortunately, our reform proposals did not make it 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
37 

28 Rule XXII, cl. 9. 29 Rule XXII, cl. 12(a)(1). 30 Rule XXII, cl. 7(e). 31 Rule XXII, cl. 8(a)(1)(A). 

into H.R. 4975. Furthermore, when we presented our ideas in the 

Rules Committee markup of H.R. 4975, Rules Committee Republicans voted all of them down on straight party-line votes. As we 

mentioned earlier in these views, a bipartisan process requires 

more than the constant repetition of the word ‘‘bipartisan.’’ Bipartisanship requires the majority party to seriously consider the minority’s ideas, to conduct a good-faith discussion of these ideas, and 

perhaps even adopt a few of them. 

One of the procedural abuses we have repeatedly highlighted 

over the past few years is the Republican leadership’s use of the 

conference committee to jam unfamiliar (sometimes even un-read) 

material through the legislative process. House-Senate conferences 

are a critical part of the deliberative process because they produce 

the final legislative product that will become the law of the land. 

Although Members can follow and influence legislation as it moves 

through the committees and then to the House floor, the conference 

is where the final compromises are made and the final statutory 

language on the bill’s toughest issues is negotiated and drafted. 

Since only a restricted group of House Members participates in 

conferences and because conference reports can contain significant 

policy changes from the House-approved version of a bill, the 

standing House Rules provide Members a number of protections 

against abuses during the conference process. Under these rules, 

House conferees are not permitted to adopt modifications outside 

the scope of the House-passed bill.28 They must also comply with 

numerous provisions of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. In 

addition, the standing House rules are designed to prevent the 

House from rushing a conference report to the floor for an up-ordown vote without giving Members the adequate time to understand the contents of the final product. Rule XXII requires the conference committee to hold at least one public meeting 29 and requires the conferees to attach a joint explanatory statement to the 

report that is ‘‘sufficiently detailed and explicit to inform the House 

of the effects of the report on the matters committed to conference.’’ 30 Perhaps most importantly, House rules require conference reports and explanatory statements to be available to Members for three days after publication in the Congressional Record.31

This three-day layover requirement is specifically intended to give 

Members time to read the conference report and weigh its merits 

before a final vote. 

Over the past few years, we have repeatedly objected to the 

Rules Committee’s practice of granting ‘‘blanket waivers’’ to conference reports headed to the House floor. The effect of these waivers is to negate all of the protections the House rules give Members 

against abusive conferences. These blanket waivers strip the right 

of Members who did not participate in the conference to insist on 

regular order so they can have time to learn what is in the final 

conference report before they vote on it. As the statistics we have 

collected on the conference process so far in the 109th Congress 

show, Rules Committee Republicans have protected all 18 conVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:53 Apr 26, 2006 Jkt 027181 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR439P3.XXX HR439P3

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
38 

32 Congressional Record, Dec. 22, 2005, p. H13181. 

ference reports the House has considered with blanket waivers. 

Furthermore, they waived three-day layover on all but two of these 

conference reports (see appendix 2). The result is that House members are regularly forced to vote on major legislation totaling hundreds or even thousands of pages, sometimes only hours after the 

conference report has been presented in the House. Thanks to the 

blanket waiver, these conference reports may contain non-germane 

provisions and/or earmarks that have never been considered in the 

House or Senate. The results of this broken conference process are 

a number of embarrassing episodes that have made Congress an 

object of ridicule. Among the most notorious episodes were: • The embarrassing provision Republican leaders slipped into 

the Homeland Security conference report at the end of the 107th 

Congress that protected Eli Lilly and a number of other pharmaceutical companies from civil liability for their production of the 

vaccine preservative Thimerosal. • The notorious ‘‘greenbonds initiative’’ that appeared in the Energy Bill conference report in the 108th Congress, which turned out 

to be a subsidy to build a Hooters restaurant in Shreveport, Louisiana. • The egregious provision in the Fiscal Year 05 Omnibus appropriations conference report that gave Congressional staffers access 

to the confidential tax returns of U.S. citizens. • The provision in the Fiscal Year 2006 Agriculture Appropriations conference report that changed the regulations governing the 

organic food standards hundreds of thousands of American families 

rely on when buying their groceries. 

The most notorious recent episode of conference report abuse occurred late last year during consideration of the FY 06 Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 2863), the bill that funds our troops and 

military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. During the conference 

negotiations, conferees agreed in principle to include funding that 

would allow the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

to begin preparing a response strategy to the emerging threat of 

the avian influenza virus. During discussions on this provision in 

the conference, some conferees supported the addition of language 

that would exempt drug manufacturers involved in creating avian 

flu countermeasures from liability, should their drugs injure people 

who took them. The conference did not accept this language because some conferees thought the exemption was too broad. According to the senior Democratic conferee, Appropriations Ranking 

Member David Obey, when the conference committee ended its session in the early evening on Sunday, December 18, 2005, there was 

an agreement ‘‘in writing and verbally as well, that there would be 

no legislative liability protection language inserted in this bill.’’ 32

The 533-page conference report was signed at 6 p.m. that evening 

and filed in the House at 11:54 p.m. the same night. 

At some point between the time the conference report was signed 

and the time it was filed, however, Republicans broke their word 

and the rules by slipping in 40 new pages of legislative text that 

not only exempted the producers of vaccines related to avian flu, 

but also gave the HHS Secretary discretion to exempt other pharVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:53 Apr 26, 2006 Jkt 027181 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR439P3.XXX HR439P3

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
39 

33 Id. 

34 Bill Theobald, ‘‘Hastert, Frist Said to Rig Bill for Drug Firms; Frist Denies Protection Was 

Added in Secret,’’ Gannett News Service, Feb. 9, 2006. 35 Rules Committee rollcall vote # 144, H. Rept. 109–361. 

maceutical products from liability when they injure consumers. The 

40-page proposal gives the Bush Administration broad new powers 

to exempt drug manufacturers from liability for a wide array of 

drugs that have nothing to do with an avian flu epidemic. It exempts these companies even if they acted with gross negligence. 

While the legislation promises an alternative compensation program, it provided no funding for such a program, which means that 

nurses, first responders and all other American citizens would be 

out of luck if they were harmed by an exempted drug. 

According to Ranking Member Obey, here’s how this massive 

Christmas gift to the drug industry got into the bill: 

But after the conference was finished at 6 p.m., Senator 

Frist marched over to the House side of the Capitol about 

4 hours later and insisted that over 40 pages of legislation, 

which I have in my hand, 40 pages of legislation that had 

never been seen by conferees, be attached to the bill. The 

Speaker joined him in that assistance so that, without a 

vote of the conferees, that legislation was unilaterally and 

arrogantly inserted into the bill after the conference was 

over in a blatantly abusive power play by two of the most 

powerful men in Congress.33

Republican appropriators tell the same story. A top aide to Senate 

Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran said of the provision: 

It was added after the conference had concluded. It was 

added at the specific direction of the speaker of the House 

and the majority leader of the Senate. The conferees did 

not vote on it. It’s a true travesty of the process.34

In other words, in the dark of night, the two top Congressional Republican leaders snuck an extremely controversial piece of legislation that had never been considered in the House or the Senate 

into an already signed conference report. Republican leaders decided to override the collective decision-making process of the Congress to slip in a gift to one of their most important political allies. 

For this underhanded maneuver to succeed in the House, Republican leaders needed to protect this provision from the House rules 

it so blatantly violated. When the Rules Committee met later that 

night, Representative Hastings of Florida tried to strike the vaccine 

language from the conference report, but was defeated on a 

straight party-line vote of 4 to 9.35 The rule protecting this provision (H. Res. 639) was reported from the Rules Committee about 

1:00 a.m. and taken directly to the Floor for consideration pursuant 

to another rule that waived the 1–day layover requirement for consideration of the rule (H. Res. 632). The House passed this conference report shortly after 5:00 a.m. on the morning of December 

19, 2005, less than seven hours after the 40-page drug company 

giveaway had first appeared. 

During the markup of H.R. 4975, we proposed a number of 

amendments to the House rules that would have protected House 

Members from such conference report abuses and restored some 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
40 

36During the markup, Chairman Dreier incorrectly asserted that such a provision is already 

part of the House rules. As Chairman Dreier conceded, it has become the practice of the current 

Rules Committee to waive points of order against out-of-scope items when it grants rules for 

conference reports, but it is impossible for Members to learn which parts of the bill are actually 

in violation of the scope rule. Amendment # 5 would rectify this problem by requiring the rule 

itself to list the out-of-scope items. 

badly-needed deliberation to the conference process. Representative 

Matsui proposed adding a requirement (amendment # 12) that a 

conference committee conduct an open meeting and a roll-call vote 

to approve the final version of a conference report, while Representative McGovern (amendment # 7) proposed giving Members a 

point of order against the consideration of conference reports that 

have not been available to Members for three days. Unfortunately, 

both of these amendments seeking to restore Members’ rights to 

know the contents of conference reports failed on party-line votes. 

Ranking Member Slaughter offered an amendment (amendment 

# 2) that would have required any rule granting consideration of a 

conference report to list the items in the report that did not appear 

in the House or Senate versions of the bill. This ‘‘out-of-scope’’ disclosure requirement, which failed on a party line vote of 4–9, would 

have allowed Members to know which items (including earmarks) 

the conference had added to the bill at the last moment, and given 

them the opportunity to strike them.36

Finally, in order to protect the House against the serious corruption of the conference process that occurred on the Defense Appropriations conference report last December, Ranking Member 

Slaughter proposed creating a point of order (amendment # 5) the 

Majority or Minority Leaders could raise if they believed the integrity of the conference report was in question. This amendment also 

failed on a party-line vote. During debate on this amendment, 

Chairman Dreier opposed it on the grounds that it set a vague and 

confusing standard, while Representative Bishop objected that the 

amendment did not provide a precise definition of ‘‘serious violation’’ of the conference rules. We would respond that if our colleagues do not think it was a serious violation of the conference 

rules to add 40 pages of controversial, new, out-of-scope legislative 

language to a report after the conferees had signed it, and only a 

few hours before it came before the House for a final vote, then we 

understand their ‘‘no’’ vote. For our part, we feel that House leaders should be able to bring such gross abuses to the attention of 

the House and give the House an opportunity to block a conference 

report written under these circumstances. 

During the markup, Rules Committee Democrats proposed other 

rules changes that we felt addressed some of the procedural abuses 

that have recently undermined earlier stages of the legislative 

process. Representative Matsui offered an amendment (amendment 

# 13) that would have prevented the Rules Committee’s too common 

practice of gaming the one-day layover requirement of clause 6 of 

rule XIII by reporting a rule early in the morning, adjourning the 

House, coming back in shortly thereafter in a new legislative day, 

then debating and passing the rule. Representative Matsui’s 

amendment would have required a 24-hour layover period, rather 

than a manipulated legislative day. Such a rule would guarantee 

Members at least 24 hours to read and understand a rule, in particular a rule that modifies the text of reported legislation or a rule 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
41 

20Mark Wegner, ‘‘Night Of House Drama Yields A Narrow Medicare Victory,’’ Congress Daily 

AM, Nov. 24, 2003. 

that provides for consideration of a complex manager’s amendment 

that has been submitted to the Committee at the last moment. 

On the very controversial issue of votes held open for longer than 

15 minutes, Ranking Member Slaughter offered an amendment 

(amendment # 4) that would require greater disclosure of what is 

happening on the House floor during votes the Majority holds open 

for long periods. On a number of occasions in recent years, House 

Republicans have made national news by holding votes open for 

long periods while they begged, cajoled, or threatened enough 

Members to switch their votes to pass a bill. The most infamous 

long vote in recent memory was of course the three-hour late-night 

vote on the Medicare conference report during which Republican 

leaders and at least one Bush Administration official roamed the 

House floor offering political favors to Republican Members who 

would support the legislation. A Republican Member present at the 

scene commented, ‘‘It was an outrage. It was profoundly ugly and 

beneath the dignity of Congress.’’ 37 As the table below shows, in 

the 108th and 109th Congresses, Republicans have held votes open 

for periods significantly longer than 15 minutes on at least eight 

separate occasions. 

HOUSE VOTES HELD OPEN BEYOND THE CUSTOMARY 17 MINUTES IN THE 108TH AND 109TH 

CONGRESSES 

Date Bill/Vote Description Length of Vote 

November 17, 2005 Final Passage of Labor-HHS Appropriations Conference Report. Rejected 224–

209..

36 minutes 

October 7, 2005 ...... H.R. 3893–Gas Act—vote began at 1:57 pm (a five minute vote) and was 

gaveled down at 2:43 pm) vote #519..

46 minutes (for a 

5–minute vote) 

July 27 & 28, 2005 

(legislative day of 

July 27, 2005).

H.R. 3045-CAFTA the vote started at 11:00 pm on the 27th and went on until 

12:03 am) Vote #443..

63 minutes 

July 8, 2004 ............ Sanders amendment on PATRIOT Act to FY 2005 Commerce-Justice State Appropriations bill..38 minutes 

March 30, 2004 ...... Motion to instruct conferees on PAYGO on the FY 2005 Budget Resolution. ...... 28 minutes (on 5–

minute vote) 

November 22, 2003 Final Passage of the Conference Report on H.R. 1, the Prescription Drug bill. 3 hours. (during 

this vote, former 

Rep. Nick Smith 

claimed to have 

been offered a 

bribe by then 

Majority Leader 

Tom DeLay) 

June 26, 2003 ......... Final Passage of HR 1, the Prescription Drug bill. .............................................. 50 minutes. 

March 20, 2003 ...... Final Passage of Budget Resolution. .................................................................... 26 minutes 

Ranking Member Slaughter’s amendment would not prevent the 

Speaker from holding a vote open for longer than 15 minutes (as 

is allowed under clause 2 of rule XX), because there are sometimes 

legitimate reasons to extend votes (for example, Members are en 

route from the airport or stuck in an elevator). But if the Speaker 

is holding a vote open to bully Members or to change a vote outcome, the American people should be allowed to know what their 

Members of Congress were doing during the vote. The Slaughter 

amendment would require that a log be printed in the CongresVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:53 Apr 26, 2006 Jkt 027181 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR439P3.XXX HR439P3

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
42 

sional Record showing which Members voted after the initial 30- 

minute period and the time they voted. It would also list which 

Members switched their votes and the time they switched. As 

Chairman Dreier correctly stated during the Committee markup, 

current practices in the House do require a listing of any vote 

changes that occur during a vote. However, it requires no record 

of when these changes occurred and, in particular, no indication of 

when an initial vote was cast or when a vote was changed. Letting 

the public know what voting activity occurs after the 30-minute 

mark is an important step in bringing more accountability and 

transparency to the voting process in the House. 

Conclusion—An opportunity lost 

If the markup of this legislation in the Rules Committee is any 

indication of the tone and process that will occur when we consider 

this bill again in the Rules Committee and on the House floor, then 

the Republican leadership has squandered a real opportunity to reform Congress. The American people have very accurately concluded that the current Congress acts not in their interests, but at 

the behest of special interests who have purchased access to the 

legislative process. While Republicans have had some success in labeling the scandals of the 109th Congress as ‘‘lobbying’’ scandals, 

Americans understand that at their core, they are Congressional 

scandals. They understand that lobbyists like Jack Abramoff would 

not have won access to the halls of Congress without the help of 

their friends on the inside. 

As a result, a narrowly-targeted, watered-down set of reforms focused on ‘‘lobbyists’’ is just not enough to convince a skeptical 

American public that their representatives are finally committed to 

making Congress work again. A partisan process that excludes 

many reform ideas from the debate and that Republicans pushed 

through the process by party-line votes is likely to make them even 

more skeptical of the final product. We are disappointed that the 

Majority’s commitment to reform seems to be lacking, because restoring ethical standards and a truly deliberative lawmaking process to the House would be good for both parties, for this institution, 

and for our country. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
(43) 

Appendix 1—RULES ORIGINAL JURISDICTION MARKUP ON 

H.R. 4975 DEMOCRATIC AMENDMENTS OFFERED AND REJECTED 

Slaughter-Amendment 2 (two part amendment) 

Require an itemized list of any scope violations in the rule providing for consideration of a conference report (items that were not 

in either the House or Senate passed versions of the bill) and provides for a consideration point of order guaranteeing a vote when 

this rule is violated and provide a motion to strike items that are 

beyond the scope of a conference. Rejected 4–9 party-line vote 

Matsui-Amendment 12 

Require a roll-call vote, in an open meeting, on the final version 

of a conference report. Rejected 4–7 party-line vote 

Matsui-Amendment 13 

Use actual time (24-hours as opposed to one legislative day) to 

determine how soon a rule can be called up on the House Floor 

after it is reported from the Rules Committee. Rejected 4–8 partyline vote 

Slaughter-Amendment 4 

Require, whenever a recorded vote is held open for more than 30 

minutes, that the Congressional Record include a log of the voting 

activity that occurs after that 30–minute time frame to show which 

Members voted after that time and which Members changed their 

votes during that period. Rejected 4–9 party-line vote 

McGovern-Amendment 7 

Whenever 3-day layover is waived against a conference report, it 

is in order for a Member to raise a point of order guaranteeing a 

vote to determine whether the House will consider the conference 

report. Rejected 4–9 party-line vote 

Slaughter-Amendment 5 

Create a new Majority/Minority leader point of order with a 

guaranteed vote that can be raised against consideration of a conference report where the integrity of the conference is in question. 

Rejected 4–9 party-line vote 

McGovern-Amendment 8 

Regulates Member travel on private jets by requiring Members 

to pay full charter costs when using corporate jets for official travel 

and to disclose relevant information in the Congressional Record, 

including the owner or lessee of the aircraft and the other passengers on the flight. Rejected 4–9 party-line vote 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
44 

Hastings (FL)-Amendment 10 (strike section 501 and insert new 

language) 

Mandates public disclosure of which Members sponsor earmarks 

and disclosure of whether Members have a financial interest in the 

earmark. Earmarks include authorizations, appropriations, and tax 

provisions. Rejected voice vote 

Hastings (FL)-Amendment 11 

Establishes pre-approval and disclosure system through the 

Standards Committee for privately-funded travel. Rejected 3–9 

party-line vote 

McGovern-Amendment 9 

Clarifies that the ‘‘face value’’ of a ticket for the purposes of section 304 means the cost of that ticket if a member of the general 

public were purchasing it. Rejected 4–9 party-line vote 

Slaughter-Amendment 6 

To provide that staff on the Committee of Standards of Official 

Conduct can be dismissed only by an affirmative vote of the Standards Committee. Rejected 4–9 party-line vote 

APPENDIX 2.—109TH CONGRESS-CONFERENCE REPORTS IN RULES-THROUGH APRIL 6, 2006—

PREPARED BY RULES’ DEMOCRATS 

[E-Rule done as emergency measure] 

Rule/Bill number/Title 

Date & Time Conference filed on 

Floor & Date and Time reported 

from Rules Committee 

Date & Time 

passed on 

House Floor 

(time taken 

from Clerk’s recorded votes 

chart) & final 

passage vote of 

conference report 

Report number 

and number of 

pages in conference report 

(page numbers 

from PDF 

version where 

possible) 

Time between 

Floor filing and 

final passage & 

between Rules’

action and final 

passage (rounded to nearest 1

⁄2 hour) 

All conference reports were given blanket waivers 

except as otherwise noted 

1) 

H. Res. 248–E .............................................. Floor—4/28/05–2:46 pm ... 4/28/05 ........ 109–62 ......... 6 hours 

Conference on H.Con.Res. 95—FY06 Concurrent Budget Resolution, plus new 

point of order for Appropriations bills that exceed 

302(b) allocations.

Rules—4/28/05–4:30 pm .. 8:30 pm .......

214–211 

(#149).

91 pages ...... 4 hours 

H. Res. 242 ......................................... ............................................. ...................... ...................... 3–day 

layover 

waived 

2) 

H. Res. 258–E .............................................. Floor—5/3/05–11:50 pm ... 5/5/05 .......... 109–72 ......... 1 day 14 

hours 

Conference on H.R. 1268—Emergency Supplemental Iraq, Afghanistan, Tsunami 

Approps., Real ID & Sec. 2 on Judiciary Report on H.R. 748.

Rules—5/4/05–5:00 pm .... 2:04 pm .......

368–58 

(#161).

188 pages .... 21 hours 

3-day layover 

waived 

3) 

H. Res. 392–E .............................................. Floor—7/26/05–11:47 pm 7/28/05 ........ 109–188 ....... 1 day 18 

hours 

Conference on H.R. 2361—Interior FY06 

Approps.

Rules—7/27/05–8:45 pm .. 5:47 pm .......

410–10 

(#450).

164 pages .... 21 hours 

3-day layover 

waived 

4) 

H. Res. 394–E .............................................. Floor—7/27/05–1:22 pm ... 7/28/05 ........ 109–190 ....... 24 hours 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
45 

APPENDIX 2.—109TH CONGRESS-CONFERENCE REPORTS IN RULES-THROUGH APRIL 6, 2006—

PREPARED BY RULES’ DEMOCRATS—Continued 

[E-Rule done as emergency measure] 

Rule/Bill number/Title 

Date & Time Conference filed on 

Floor & Date and Time reported from Rules Committee 

Date & Time 

passed on 

House Floor 

(time taken 

from Clerk’s re- corded votes 

chart) & final 

passage vote of 

conference re- port 

Report number 

and number of 

pages in conference report 

(page numbers from PDF 

version where 

possible) 

Time between 

Floor filing and 

final passage & 

between Rules’ action and final 

passage (rounded to nearest 1

⁄2 hour) 

All conference reports were given blanket waivers 

except as otherwise noted 

Conference on H.R. 6—Energy Policy Act .. Rules—7/27/05–8:45 pm .. 1:10 pm .......

275–156 

(#445).

567 pages .... 161

⁄2 hours 

3-day layover 

waived 

5) 

H. Res. 396–E .............................................. Floor—7/26/05–11:46 pm 7/28/05 ........ 109–189 ....... 1 day 18 

hours 

Conference on H.R. 2985—Legislative 

Branch FY06 Approps.

Rules—7/27/05–8:45 pm .. 5:55 pm .......

305–122 

(#451).

41 pages ...... 21 hours 

3-day layover 

waived 

6) 

H. Res.ll-E ............................................. Floor—7/28/05–6:59 pm ... See 2nd rule 

(#7) next 

vote.

See 2nd rule 

(#7) next 

vote.

See 2nd rule 

(#7) next 

vote 

Conference on H.R. 3—TEA–LU Highway 

Reauthorization—1st rule.

Rules—7/28/05–10:15 pm.

*H. Res. 393–rule not used—Rule 

reported but not filed-rule not 

used.

............................................. ...................... ...................... 3-day layover 

waived 

7) 

H. Res. 388–E .............................................. Floor—7/28/05–6:59 pm ... 7/29/05 ........ 109–203 ....... 161

⁄2 hours 

Conference on H.R. 3—TEA–LU Highway 

Reauthorization—2nd rule.

Rules—7/29/05 (Leg day of 

7/28/05)–12:30 am.

11:38 am .....

412–8 (#453) 

1231 pages .. 11 hours 

Rule done by u/c on House Floor ....... ............................................. ...................... ...................... 3-day layover 

waived 

8) 

H. Res. 474–E .............................................. Floor—9/29/05–5:30 pm ... 10/6/05 ........ 109–241 ....... 7 days 3 

hours 

Conference on H.R. 2360—Homeland Security FY06 Approps.Rules—9/29/05–6:30 pm .. 8:43 pm .......

347–70 

(#512).

104 pages .... 7 days & 2 

hours 

Appendix 2—109th Congress-Conference Reports in Rules-through April 6, 2006—prepared by 

Rules’ Democrats 

Rule done as emergency measure 

Rule/Bill number/Title 

Date & Time Conference filed on 

Floor & Date and Time reported 

from Rules Committee 

Date & Time 

passed on 

House Floor 

(time taken 

from Clerk’s recorded votes 

chart) & final 

passage vote of 

conference report 

Report number 

and number of 

pages in conference report 

(page numbers 

from PDF 

version where 

possible) 

Time between 

Floor filing and 

final passage & 

between Rules’

action and final 

passage (rounded to nearest ° 

hour) 

All conference reports were given blanket waivers 

except as otherwise noted 

9) 

H. Res. 520–E .............................................. Floor—10/26/05–6:37 pm 10/28/05 ...... 109–255 ....... 1 day & 17 

hours 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
46 

Appendix 2—109th Congress-Conference Reports in Rules-through April 6, 2006—prepared by 

Rules’ Democrats—Continued 

Rule done as emergency measure 

Rule/Bill number/Title 

Date & Time Conference filed on 

Floor & Date and Time reported from Rules Committee 

Date & Time 

passed on 

House Floor 

(time taken 

from Clerk’s re- corded votes 

chart) & final 

passage vote of 

conference re- port 

Report number 

and number of 

pages in conference report 

(page numbers from PDF 

version where 

possible) 

Time between 

Floor filing and 

final passage & 

between Rules’ action and final 

passage (rounded to nearest ° hour) 

All conference reports were given blanket waivers 

except as otherwise noted 

Conference on H.R. 2744—Agriculture 

FY06 Approps..

Rules—10/27/05–4:30 pm 11:34 am .....

318–63 

(#555).

109 pages .... 19 hours 

3–day 

layover 

waived 

10) 

H. Res. 532–E .............................................. Floor—11/2/05–8:42 pm ... 11/4/05 ........ 109–265 ....... 1 day 141

⁄2

hours 

Conference on H.R. 3057—Foreign Operations, Export Financing FY06 Approps..Rules—11/3/05–3:25 pm .. 11:13 am .....

358–39 

(#569).

128 pages .... 20 hours 

3–day 

layover 

waived 

11) 

H. Res. 538–E .............................................. Floor—11/7/05–6:32 pm ... 11/9/05 ........ 109–272 ....... 1 day 201

⁄2

hours 

Conference on H.R. 2862—Science, State, 

Justice, Commerce FY06 Approps..

Rules—11/8/05–5:45 pm .. 3:04 pm .......

397–19 

(#581).

212 pages .... 211

⁄2 hours 

3–day 

layover 

waived 

12) 

H. Res. 539–E .............................................. Floor—11/7/05–7:24 pm ... 11/9/05 ........ 109–275 ....... 1 day 191

⁄2

hours 

Conference on H.R. 2419—Energy & Water 

Development FY06 Approps..

Rules—11/8/05–5:45 pm .. 2:55 pm .......

399–17 

(#580).

199 pages .... 21 hours 

3–day 

layover 

waived 

13) ................................................................ ....................................... Conference 

report 

failed.

H. Res. 559–E .............................................. Floor—11/16/05–9:10 pm 11/17/05 ...... 109–300 ....... 17 hours 

Conference on H.R. 3010—Labor/HHS/Education FY06 Approps.Rules—11/17/05 (leg day 

of 16th)—7:00 am.

2:13 pm .......

209–224 

(#598).

182 pages .... 7 hours 

3–day 

layover 

waived 

1st conference report (failed).

Appendix 2—109th Congress-Conference Reports in Rules-through April 6, 2006—prepared by 

Rules’ Democrats 

Rule done as emergency measure 

Rule/Bill number/Title 

Date & Time Conference filed on 

Floor & Date and Time reported 

from Rules Committee 

Date & Time 

passed on 

House Floor 

(time taken 

from Clerk’s recorded votes 

chart) & final 

passage vote of 

conference report 

Report number 

and number of 

pages in conference report 

(page numbers 

from PDF 

version where 

possible) 

Time between 

Floor filing and 

final passage & 

between Rules’

action and final 

passage (rounded to nearest 1

⁄2 hour) 

All conference reports were given blanket waivers 

except as otherwise noted 

14) 

H. Res. 564–E .............................................. Floor—11/18/05 (leg day of 

17th)–1:50 am.

11/18/05 ...... 109–305 ....... 11 hours 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
47 

Appendix 2—109th Congress-Conference Reports in Rules-through April 6, 2006—prepared by 

Rules’ Democrats—Continued 

Rule done as emergency measure 

Rule/Bill number/Title 

Date & Time Conference filed on 

Floor & Date and Time reported from Rules Committee 

Date & Time 

passed on 

House Floor 

(time taken 

from Clerk’s re- corded votes 

chart) & final 

passage vote of 

conference re- port 

Report number 

and number of 

pages in conference report 

(page numbers from PDF 

version where 

possible) 

Time between 

Floor filing and 

final passage & 

between Rules’ action and final 

passage (rounded to nearest 1

⁄2 hour) 

All conference reports were given blanket waivers 

except as otherwise noted 

Conference on H.R. 2528—Military Quality 

of Life & Veterans Affairs FY06 Approps.

Rules—11/18/05 (leg day 

of 17th)–8:00 am.

12:47 pm .....

427–0 (#604) 

77 pages ...... 5 hours 

3-day layover 

waived 

15).

H. Res. 565–E .............................................. Floor—11/18/05 (leg day of 

17th)–5:30am.

11/18/05 ...... 109–307 ....... 71

⁄2 hours 

Conference on H.R. 3058—Transportation, 

Treasury, HUD, DC FY06 Approps.

Rules—11/18/05 (leg day 

of 17th)–8:00 am.

1:05 pm .......

392–31 

(#605).

308 pages .... 5 hours 

3-day layover 

waived 

16) 

H. Res. 595 .................................................. Floor—12/8/05–5:51 pm ... 12/14/05 ...... 109–333 ....... 5 days 20 

hours 

Conference on H.R. 3199—USA Patriot Improvement & Reauthorization Act of 

2005.

Rules—12/13/05–6:00 pm 2:07 pm. ......

251–174 

(#627).

118 pages .... 20 hours 

17) 

H. Res. 596–E .............................................. Floor—12/13/05–3:00 pm 12/14/05 ...... 109–337 ....... 241

⁄2 hours 

Conference on H.R. 3010—Labor/HHS/Education FY06 Approps.Rules—12/13/05–6:00 pm 3:40 pm .......

215–213 

(#628).

182 pages .... 211

⁄2 hours 

3-day layover 

waived 

2nd conference report.

18) 

H. Res. 639–E .............................................. Floor—12/18/05–11:54 pm 12/19/05 (leg 

day 18th).

109–359 ....... 5 hours 

Conference on H.R. 2863—Department of 

Defense FY06 Approps.

Rules—12/19/05 (leg day 

of 18th)–1:00 am.

5:04 am .......

308–106 

(#669).

533 pages .... 4 hours 

3-day layover 

waived 

*H. Res. 632.

19) 

H. Res. 640 .................................................. Floor—12/19/05 (leg day of 

18th)–1:13 am.

12/19/05 (leg 

day of 

18th).

109–362 ....... 5 hours 

Conference on S. 1932—Deficit Reduction 

Act of 2005.

Rules—12/19/05 (leg day 

of reconciliation 18th)–

1:30 am.

6:07 am .......

212–206 

(#670).

367 pages .... 41

⁄2 hours 

3-day layover 

waived 

*H. Res. 632.

**All conference reports were given blanket waivers unless otherwise noted. 

*Rule done pursuant to this Rule waiving 2

⁄3rds-clause 6(a) of Rule XIII 3-day layover waived. 

LOUISE M. SLAUGHTER. 

JAMES P. MCGOVERN. 

ALCEE L. HASTINGS. 

DORIS O. MATSUI. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING