macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I would just note that the bill puts in new disclosure requirements and also tough enforcement of those requirements. which the gentlemans amendment would essentially remove. I was a little surprised to hear the ar-" gument that the penalty invites suborning perjury on the part of prosecutors. I have never heard that argument advanced in the situation of any other criminal penalty. bribery or drug cases or any other kind of criminal penalty. And I must say that I have yet in my many. many years as an attorney run into a case where a prosecutor suborned perjury in the way described by the gentleman. Maybe he has run into a different situation in his State. But I think to suggest that prosecutors are going to engage in misconduct is misleading. and also it is revealing that that concern is only expressed when it is to protect corrupt lobbyists. Let us remember that the standard that is being outlined in this bill is corruption. Knowingly. willfully and corruptly is the standard. and that has to be proven with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that is the due process protection that we generally rely on in our great country. I would just note in concluding that recently a Roll Call editorial described this bill as. "This bill all but shouts to voters that the GOP is not serious about reform and that it values its ties to K Street more than the publics trust." I would say that the gentlemans amendment is an elevation of that concern for K Street that this House should reject rather soundly. Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I rise to claim the time in opposition. although I am not opposed. Mr. Chairman. I would note that laws already exist to prevent this activity and that to some extent this amendment is redundant and that the enforcement of current laws would solve the problem. And when it comes to lobbyists who are making the kind of money that Mr. Abramoff made. the $50.000 fine may well not be a deterrent. Nevertheless. I think an additional deterrent to some lobbyists for violating the gift rules is useful. I would note that the primary responsibility falls upon Members of Congress for not accepting extravagant gifts. This amendment really looks to the gift giver instead of the guilty gift receiver. Nevertheless. I think it is a useful component of a bill. and I do support it. and I believe that many on this side of the aisle do support it. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I would just. in closing. note that this is not a bipartisan amendment. unless either Mr. CASTLE or Mr. GERLACH has made a party decision that we dont yet know about. However. we dont oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I claim the time in opposition. although I do not oppose the amendment. and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California . our colleague. and one of the authors of the amendment.
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. and I want to thank the cosponsors of this legislation and. those who have worked on this from both sides of the aisle. For the first time this amendment will give the Ethics Committee an opportunity to revise the rules and the standards of conduct for travel which Members of Congress engage in. This amendment embraces all travel that Members of Congress are confronted with. whether it is from the 501(c)(3) community or from the private community. I happen to think that the Ethics Committee is going to have to make different determinations for different kinds of travel. But the fact of the matter is. because of this amendment. they will have that responsibility to bring greater transparency to that process. And hopefully Members will have to get preapproval of that travel. and hopefully the Ethics Committee will have to approve that. They will make determinations about what is a legitimate itinerary. the attendance at the various conferences. the participants and the sources of funding. The problem with travel in the past has not been the travel. it has been those who sought out deliberately to game the system. I believe that if the Ethics Committee meets its responsibility. people will not be able to game the system. .to hide- the sources of financing or hide the purposes of the trip. and Members will be able to deal with it forthrightly and take advantage of travel where it is helpful to their jobs as Members of Congress. to their constituents. and to the country. Also. this will allow for the kind of disclosure and prior disclosure of the trips hopefully -so constituents. the press and others can check out what the Ethics Committee has done and they can comment on it. The Members will defend it or not defend it if they want to take these trips and if they truly believe they are valuable. This give us until June 15 for the Ethics Committee to come up with that process. If there is travel to take place prior to that. it requires a twothirds vote. a strong bipartisan vote of the Ethics Committee to approve any travel prior to that day. I think this is a big step to the reform of congressional travel in the House. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. section 502 of the underlying bill establishes mandatory ethics training for staff and voluntary training for Members. This amendment would not change the voluntary nature of Members ethics training. but it would require the Ethics Committee to post the names of Members who have not taken the training. I guess the purpose of this amendment is a worthy one. Members and staff should certainly know the ethics rules and should go back and refresh their memory of the ethics rules every couple of years. We all support that proposition. and in my opinion most Members are conscientious and know the ethics rule and do their best to follow them. But if posting Members name on a Web site will make them more likely to go and get the training. then that is a good result. But let us be honest here. A couple of new ethics seminars are not going to solve this problem. A Wall Street JournalNBC poll released today found that almost 80 percent of the American people disapprove of the job Congress is doing. The public has watched this Congress bend and break the rules over the past few years. and I think they have had it. It is going to take more than ethics seminars to convince these people that we are interested in cleaning up Congress. Even if this amendment is adopted. and I believe it will be. this bill is not going to change anybodys mind that the majority. who are running this House. are serious about cleaning up the mess that is here. With that. I would note that although many of us go in person for classes. those of us who come from places like Silicon Valley really do our reading over the Internet. For those Members who have not visited the Ethics Committee site. there is a wealth of information online and available and very easy to access from home at any hour of the day or night. and that is a very good alternative for Members whose schedules are very pressed. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I rise to claim the time in opposition. at least until the ranking member of the House Administration Committee arrives.
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will support this amendment. I dont. frankly. know that this has ever been an issue that I have heard of or seen in the press that someone has converted a leadership PAC to personal use. It shouldnt happen and. therefore. I dont have a problem supporting the amendment. To the extent that it is difficult for the FEC to make a judgment call on what is personal use and what is not. this doesnt compound it because they already have to make that judgment when it comes to reelection PACs. I would just note that. like the rest of the bill before us. this is okay. but it really doesnt accomplish the real problem solving that the country is crying out for. I dont think that any of our Members on this side of the aisle oppose. but even approving this will not clean up the ethics swamp that the country is so very concerned about. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I mentioned earlier. we are supporting this amendment. even though it solves a problem that apparently has not yet come into play. But what this amendment and this bill fail to do is to fundamentally reform a culture of corruption. It does not end the practice of lobbyists givinggifts to Members of Congress and their staffs. It does not end the practice of Members using corporate jets. does not require disclosure of lobbyists bundling .contributions to Members of Congress. It does not end the practice of leaving votes open to twist arms and lobby Members on the floor of the House. It does not do anything to close the revolving door from government service to personal gain. It does nothing to clean up our campaign finance system. to take specialinterest money out of politics. The bottom line is that. although we are supporting this amendment. it really doesnt actually reform the system that has the American people so concerned and rightly so. Mr. Chairman. I yield the balance of my time to the ranking member of the House Administration Committee. my colleague from California. the Honorable JUANITA MILLENDERMcDONALD.
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I do not object to this amendment. but like the underlying bill. I think it fails to seriously address the scandals that have made so many Americans distrustful of this Congress. Requiring mandatory ethics training for registered lobbyists is probably a good idea. But I didnt think that classes for lobbyists were the major issue facing the country. Mr. Chairman. I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas. Ms. SHEI-
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to H.R. 4975. the fake lobby regulatiori and transparency act. This is an attempt to fool the American people into thinking that this body is doing something substantive to reform the way lobbyists and Congress do business. This bill does no such thing. This legislation does nothing to address the larger issues of ethics reform. It does not address corporate jet travel. tougher gift rules. or financial perks provided by lobbyists. The temporary suspension of privately funded trips offered here today is not good enough. We should commit to ban private corporate travel. I understand there is some sentiment that we should wait for the Ethics Committee to issue rules on this issue. However. if we want a ban on corporate travel. then we should pass such a ban now. Also. weve heard a lot of talk about strengthening gift rules. but there is no disclosure. We need to tighten gift rules to ensure that people abide by them. The gift rule should address the sometimes extravagant receptions honoring Members of this body paid for by lobbyists and corporations. This bill does not require the disclosure of such events. We could have started to address these issues had the Rules Committee allowed amendments on the Floor today that would have addressed these issues. I offered an amendment to bring transparency to State governments using tax dollars to hire lobbyists here in Washington. The State of Texas hired lobbyists for over $1 million and we have no idea what they have done to earn that money. They have never called. emailed. or come by my office or any other. Democratic Members office from Texas in the years they have been under contract. We have written Governor Perry twice asking what these lobbyists are doing and he has ignored our requests. The bottom line is this bill does nothing to bring true lobbying reform to Congress and we owe the American people better than this. The people of this country can not be fooled. They will not tolerate anything but real lobbying reform that contains true transparency of all lobbying transactions and an ethics system that works. This Republican majority arbitrarily changed the House Ethics rules last year and removed the republican chair and Members who were trying to do their job. Then. they terminated Ethics Committee staff members for partisan reasons. They do not want real lobby reform. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4975 and support the motion to recommit.
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I claim the time in opposition. although I will not oppose the amendment. Members should reaognize that the amendment is redundant at best and really does not do anything to strengthen the lobby laws. This amendment creates a redundancy in the U.S. Code by adding language that is already covered. Section 201(a)(3) already and currently prohibits receiving a personal benefit in exchange for "any decision or action on any question. matter. cause. suit. proceeding. or controversy." This amendment would add to that language "including an earmark as defined in section 501(d) of the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act." but earmarks are already covered under the current code because it is already a decision or action. and thus the .language in the amendment is unnecessary. But. as I told my colleague on the Judiciary Committee. I do not oppose redundancies in the committee or on the floor. I would note. however. that if those across the aisle wanted real reform in the way of earmarks. they would support a measure that would prohibit Members from offering or withholding an earmark to influence how another Member votes. And if those across the aisle wanted real reform. they would require real disclosure of earmarks. I would note further that. in proof of the redundancy comment I made at the start of my comments. our former colleague from the 50th Congressional District in California is living proof that the statute works. He is in prison today for bribery. And I have often thought. although he was convicted of bribery. he actually took money to sell out the military. and. as far as I am concerned. that is treason as well. Our military has the right to expect the very best that we can buy for them by way of intelligence. equipment. They deserve the very best. What they do not deserve is a Member of Congress selling them out for money. and that is what happened in that case. I would note that there were discussions of having some kind of earmark reform in this bill. and it is a measure of how discombobulated the majority is. I believe that the appropriators were unable to come to agreement with the authorizers. and what we have ended up with actually is a bill where you can sneak those earmarks in in the dead of night. You can sneak them in. and although it is a bribe that we are talking about. the real reform. the transparency that would prevent that. is missing from this bill. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time. as I may consume. I would just note that we are today dealing with this rather small effort to. do lobbying reform and missing. I guess. sort of "the check is in the mail" on earmark reform. I do not believe for a minute. and as a matter of fact. former Congressman Cunningham himself admitted that what he did was wrong. that he knew it was wrong. He sold his country. He sold his vote. The fact is that he was convicted of bribery. and he is in prison today. We need to have greater transparency on these earmarks. That is really a very serious issue that is completely missing. I dont oppose the Flake amendment. It doesnt really do anything. but I dont oppose it. We would really accomplish something if we were to publish the earmarks. if we were to make sure that earmarks could not be included in the dark of night. if we" were to make sure that this mess was cleaned up. then we would actually be yielding something for the American people. I dont believe that we are.
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: ZOE LOFGREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. reclaiming my time. I would just like to note it is the entire system that is a problem here. It is a culture that leads to corruption that we are trying to correct here. I dont think -the gentlemans amendment succeeds in that. although I am sure he is sincere in offering it. and the underlying bill does not succeed in cleaning up that swamp. Again. I do not object to the amendment. but I wish this whole bill were a lot more than it is. Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to instruct be considered as read and printed in the RECORD.
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I rise today to honor and pay tribute to my good friend and constituent. John Kross. who is also known to those of us in south Florida as "Footy." the legendary morning radio host who will walk away from the microphone at the end of this week. ending more than 30 years as a morning radio personality. The veteran onair personality whose name is John Kross will host his final segment for the Y100 Morning Show on Friday. May 5. 2006. Footy has been helping south Florida wake up for more than 30 years and is a mainstay in the south Florida community. Footy is a passionate antidrug crusader and an incurablT chickenwing junkie. Originally. he created Footys Wing Ding. a chickenwing eating competition. as a fundraiser to aid Heres Help. a notforprofit organization that assists adults and children with substanceabuse addictions. Although the event began mainly as a competition to crown the maker of south Floridas best chicken wings. it evolved over the years into a popular spot for pop musics hottest stars. Each year. Footys Wing Ding brought a host of celebrities to south Florida to raise thousands of dollars for area charities. including Heres Help. the SunSentinel/WB Television Channel 39 Childrens Fund and many others. While thousands of radio listeners will undoubtedly miss Footys voice on their radios each morning. I am confident he has established a strong foundation that will help inspire generations. of south Floridians to make a difference in their community. It is my privilege to honor his service to our community in south Florida on the floor of the House of Representatives. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing John for a lifetime of achievement in radio broadcasting and charity work to wish him and his family many years of happiness. success and new challenges in the years ahead.
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: LINDA T. SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. a year ago in this body. we were talking about this Central American Free Trade Agreement or CAFTAs terrible labor provisions. At that time. Member after Member raised serious concerns about CAFTAs failure to protect working people here in the United States and abroad. However. the Bush administration ignored every single one of those serious flaws with the CAFTA trade deal. Now the Bush administration is asking this House to consider the Oman and Peru Free Trade Agreements. I would call it a new deal. except there is nothing new about it. I have looked at the labor provisions in the deal. Mr. Speaker. and they are identical to those in CAFTA. The administration has changed nothing. absolutely nothing at all. I So. Mr. Speaker. again I need to say that there is a message we need to send to the President. The message is very simple: No on the CAFTA model. no to inadequate labor protections. and no to the Oman and Peru agreements. If you want to protect workers rights. if you stand for labor protection. if you want to halt job losses in this country. then say no to the CAFTA model. say no to inadequate labor protection. and say no to the Oman and Peru agreements.
Date: 2006-05-03
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

what you all do on the floor. of sharing with folks of what is happening here in this Capitol building. Because I can tell you -that at no other time in the history of this country did we have the kind of over spending. the borrowing. the reach of the private sector into this great country. this democracy of ours. and having the kind of influence that they have and having this lady here. who is just trying to make her way out of nowhere. putting gas in her tank. She is probably squeezing the pump saying. I cannot go over $30 because I am already outside of my budget. Meanwhile. there are- folks running around here with suits being driven in black limos with $4 million pension plans. $150.000 a day in a pension plan. And then we got folks out in Mr. RYANS district that are being laid off that do not even know if they are going to have a pension when it is all over.