Original Jurisdiction Hearing
on
"Lobbying Reform: Accountability Through Transparency"
TRANSCRIPT
DATE:March 2, 2006
TIME: 10:00 AM
LOCATION: H-313 The CapitolCont'd from page 1
Ms. Haas. At this point the individuals that are coming in seeking information we are not hearing complaints from them that certain information isn't available. So at this point I would have to say no, but I am sure ‑‑ the more information we make available, people are going to be anxious to get that information.
Mr. Cole. This probably isn't a fair question to ask you, or maybe even one you can address, but I would like your opinion insofar as you can give it. You can have information on file accessible, but doesn't mean it is the truth, doesn't mean it is accurate or complete. Frankly, as you said, you get a lot of last‑minute reports. Just like most Americans, I will be the first to confess if I have ever filed my income tax before April 14th, I don't know about it. I am usually right there in line with the last people because it both takes a while, and I am lazy, and I have got other things to do. I suspect you have got the same mentality.
That aside, do you have any way of measuring whether or not, frankly, the information you are being told is accurate, and, therefore, when the public looks at it or when the media looks at it, that they have some level of confidence that, hey, this is the truth?
Ms. Haas. We do not.
Mr. Cole. Again, I am educating myself on this. That is not necessarily your function, but whose function is that to determine to do a spot check, to take a look; anybody's?
Ms. Haas. Not at this point. I guess the inspector general would be ‑‑ excuse me, the House IG would be another avenue for an audit. At this point that does not take place ‑‑ there is nothing in the works that I am aware of.
Mr. Cole. So probably the real risk would be if somebody filed information that wasn't accurate, then if they ended up in an investigation situation and somebody said, this is what you filed, but this is what we find looking at your records. But it is sort of like the income tax. Most Americans don't get audited, but as far as you know, we have no ability to systematically audit or occasionally pick one out and say, we are going to take a check here because it looks unusual?
Ms. Haas. To speak for our operation, we have no audit authority and no investigative authority at all at this point.
Mr. Cole. Would you want that?
Ms. Haas. I am not sure that it is appropriate. I think that is something that would need to be looked into, but I am not sure it is appropriate.
Mr. Cole. The last question, you have answered this in part, I want to go to the issue of access, because you have an enormous amount of information, obviously, that you are responsible for reporting and recording. You sort of discussed this with the Internet, but are there other things in terms of access? Everybody agrees, whatever our disagreements on specific proposals, that the litany I keep hearing, which I think is a good one, is, one, transparency, which to me means access as well, physical access, accountability. Those are the two principles that we are trying to reach. So do you have any thoughts on things that would make the information you have more accessible other than just the Internet?
Ms. Haas. I would say for this particular type of information, the Internet is the most logical way to proceed.
Mr. Cole. Again, thank you for your service, and you give a lot of us a great deal of confidence that you are in the position you are in. Thank you for being here.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Cole.
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, too, would like to congratulate on your position. I think you are going to do a marvelous job, I am sure.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this meeting and especially having it televised, because I am looking at that light over there, and I think I am getting a leg up on my summer tan. I hope we do this a lot more often.
One of the advantages of being the last one here, you don't have to listen to me as much because everything else has been asked at this stage of the game, so I just have a few specific questions for you.
In your office how many FTEs work on this reporting, the collecting of the data?
Ms. Haas. A total of approximately 22. We have a smaller group of 8 that is completely dedicated to this, but for the overall a resource of 22 individuals that we pull, and it includes our IT folks as well as our record and registration people.
Mr. Bishop. Is that full time that work on this?
Ms. Haas. That is correct.
Mr. Bishop. Of the 354 that were sent over, you said they have been sent over, and yet no adjudication on those?
Ms. Haas. We just do not follow up on whether or not there has been conviction. So we only ‑‑ at this point only track those that we have forwarded to the U.S. Attorney.
Mr. Bishop. For those who did not file?
Ms. Haas. Correct.
Mr. Bishop. Adequately.
Ms. Haas. Correct.
Mr. Bishop. The list you maintain of lobbyists, is there any way you have of purging that list other than people just not filing and then referring it somewhere else? Do you have a way of ascertaining who is no longer a lobbyist and should be left off?
Ms. Haas. We don't purge the list. How we handle individuals that are inactive, we keep them on the list, but individuals are required to file a termination filing. So they remain in our system.
You have seen lots of numbers thrown around about the number of lobbyists and who has filed. When I speak to the House specifically, we have the individuals lobbyists that are active lobbyists, so those are the numbers you hear in my testimony, we have other individuals that remain in our system, but they are inactive at this point.
Mr. Bishop. They have to do an actual termination filing to get that status.
Ms. Haas. Correct.
Mr. Bishop. If I could follow up on what Congressman Cole said simply about checking the accuracy of the reports. If we were to come up with a system in which Members were to submit also some kinds of filing or list of their action or interaction with lobbyists, would that be a way of cross‑checking the reports that are given to you by the lobbyists themselves?
Ms. Haas. If the decision was made to go down that road and also require the lobbyists to make similar, absolutely, that would be a way to cross‑check.
Mr. Bishop. What would that do to the size of your office though?
Ms. Haas. It would be an increased demand and something we would have to look at for additional resources.
Mr. Bishop. If we were to piddle around with the definition of a lobbyist, which I am assuming is still in statute, what is a lobbyist, if we were to change the standards, go after the so‑called grass‑roots lobbyist or look at those receiving some kind of compensation that is not necessarily in the form of actual, but indirect compensation, once again could you handle that with the 22 FTEs you have now?
Ms. Haas. It would depend on the extent of the change. I think one of the things, or a few of these things, that you would want to consider if you want to go down that road ‑‑ well, yes, we could handle it.
Mr. Bishop. That is a gutsy statement. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Let me just do two last things. I have told you before I hate to say the phrase "I wish to associate myself." I want to associate myself with the comments of the Clerk, because she is the one here that knows what she is talking about. I feel safe with that, with the one caveat being talking about people who are not technologically savvy. If it is written on a legal pad, it is from God. I am still convinced that we had the Internet at the time of Noah, and that was indeed the cause of the Flood. So besides that, I don't know if it has been said yet, in a meeting I was at a while ago, someone gave a great quote and said there are two things Congress does well, nothing and overreacting. I realize that what we are trying to do is now split that difference, and, Mr. Chairman, I have confidence that with your leadership we are going to be able to split that difference and come up with something that is neither nothing, nor overreacting.
The Chairman. That is a great challenge that we have. I thank you very much for that, Mr. Bishop, and I thank you very much.
Again, congratulations, Karen. You have done a superb job in your first opportunity to testify before a committee. We are all very, very proud of you and happy that you are here. So thanks for your fine work.
Let me say I know there may be other questions. We had some very thoughtful questions offered, and I would like to, without objection, have the hearing record remain open for 30 days so Members on either side of the aisle can ask questions of the Clerk and similarly of the next panel that we will have before us. So thank you very much for being here.
[The information follows:]
******** COMMITTEE INSERT ********
The Chairman. Let me say that we are going to move to our second panel. I will apologize in saying unlike other committees, as you certainly noticed, the Rules Committee provides a wide range of latitude rather than complying with the 5‑minute rule.
Gentlemen, please come forward, and I will introduce you. I have got a team that is going to help you get whatever you need there, glasses of water and all.
Let me at the outset say as I looked at the list of witnesses, it is interesting, our former colleague Mr. Bacchus is here. We are going to begin with him. I have worked closely over the years with Mr. Thurber and Mr. Mann and Mr. Ornstein and Mr. Wertheimer, and the only person I haven't really worked with is the lobbyist who is here. That is kind of ‑‑ I looked at the list of our six witnesses.
I am very, very happy to welcome all of you, and I will say at the outset that, without objection, your prepared statements will be included in the record. Any summation that you would like to provide, you are certainly welcome.
Mr. McGovern. Mr. Chairman, you earlier made a reference to Dana Webster in the opening. I want for the historical record to clarify even though he is from Massachusetts, he was a Whig and that later became the basis of the formation for the Republican Party.
The Chairman. You have underscored very clearly, as Mr. Cole said, and obviously there is no corner on the issue of corruption and challenges that we face. Thank you very much for that.
The Chairman. Let us begin with our distinguished former colleague Mr. Bacchus, who is here representing the Greenberg Traurig Group. He is the chairman of Global Trade Practice Group. So, please, welcome back. It is nice to see you. Thank you very much, and look forward to your remarks.
STATEMENT OF JAMES BACCHUS, FORMER MEMBER OF CONGRESS, CHAIRMAN, GLOBAL TRADE PRACTICE GROUP, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
Mr. Bacchus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee on Rules. My name is Jim Bacchus, and I am indeed an attorney with the Greenberg Traurig law firm. I am also, among other things, a registered lobbyist. As a part of a broad international law practice, I work from time to time with the executive branch of the Federal Government on a number of international trade issues for clients of our firm.
I am also, as you are kind enough to recall, a former Member of Congress from the State of Florida. And in many years of public service along the way, I served, as Congressman Hastings will recall, as an aide for many years to former Florida Governor Reubin Askew. I worked on sunshine in government and other ethics reforms in Florida.
I was a special assistant to the U.S. Trade Representative in the Carter administration, and after leaving the Congress in 1995, I served as a member for 8 years and as chairman for 2 terms of the 7‑member Appellate Body that serves as the final tribunal of appeal in international trade disputes among the currently 150 member countries and other customs territories of the World Trade Organization. Some of you were kind enough to support my nomination by the United States, and I am grateful for that. So I bring to the issue of lobbying reform a varied perspective.
You are no doubt aware that one of the lobbyists who formerly worked in the Washington office of Greenberg Traurig is named Jack Abramoff. I trust you are aware that when the firmed learned of his now confessed transgressions, the firm demanded and received his resignation. And the firm has gone to extraordinary lengths to cooperate fully with subsequent investigations as well as to comply fully with all ethical and other obligations to the firm's many clients.
I cannot add anything to what others in the firm have previously testified before the Congress about the actions of Mr. Abramoff. During most of the time he was with the firm, I was on leave of absence from full‑time practice and busy fulfilling my responsibilities to the members of the WTO in Geneva, Switzerland.
I can tell you this: In 27 offices throughout the United States and elsewhere in the world, there are about 1,500 attorneys and other professionals at Greenberg Traurig who are not named Jack Abramoff, and, in my experience, they all work hard every day to do the right thing in the right way, just as each and every one of you does. Nor can I add to what you know about the lobbying of Members of Congress. The truth is, I have considerably more experience in being lobbied than I do in lobbying.
I chose not to seek reelection in 1994. I cast my last vote in November of that year. I have not been back to the floor of the House since, nor have I, I might add, been back to the House gym. So I won't miss those former perks of former Members now that you have ended them. In fact, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I have been back to Capitol Hill since I cast that last vote more than 11 years ago, with a finger or two left over.
All this said, I am grateful for this invitation to offer my former colleagues and others my best advice on how best to reassure the people that the United States House of Representatives truly is representative of the people. I emphasize this is my personal advice on these issues; I do not speak for my firm or for any other member of my firm. I speak only for myself in saying, by all means, toughen the toothless regulations on lobbying. Require full, frequent and public electronic disclosure of the precise details of the earnings of lobbyists from lobbying, of the spending of lobbyists, of the specific and congressional staff targets of lobbying, and all the so‑called grass‑roots lobbying spending intended to influence what you do.
By all means, too, strengthen the legal obligations of Members. If I were still a Member, I would be supporting efforts to ban privately funded gifts, meals and travel altogether. It may be, though, Mr. Chairman, that there is room for bipartisan compromise that would rely in large part on transparency and include much more extensive disclosure of gifts and meals as well as strict prior approval of limited travel for legitimate public purposes. I have worked with a number of you on a bipartisan basis, and I am confident you can come to consensus.
By all means as well, post conference reports on the Internet, limit earmarks in appropriations bills, lengthen the revolving door period for former Members and for former senior staffers alike to at least 2 years, and require the forfeit of pensions for conviction of a job‑related felony. All this will help.
But, from my perspective, all this will not be nearly enough to provide the reassurance that the people need. So I urge you to go beyond these few reforms and do much more. I urge you especially to provide the necessary staff and the necessary funding to ensure effective oversight and enforcement of both the current lobbying rules and the new rules that have been suggested by reformers in both parties. Rules without the resources to make them real are but empty promises.
I urge you also to establish an independent and impartial means of investigating ethics complaints against Members of Congress and their staffs, including the right of private citizens to file such complaints. Back in 1976, as Congressman Hastings and others will recall, in Florida, initiative, by popular initiative, we urged the people to enact a constitutional amendment - the "Sunshine Amendment" that I helped draft. That amendment created an independent commission on ethics for Florida that is in many ways a model for the country. Take a look at that.
I urge Members in both parties to ensure that we have the kind of representation our Constitution requires by supporting reform of congressional redistricting. I support the initiative under way in Florida now. Mr. Chairman, I also supported the proposal made in California by the Governor last year. The fundamental principle of equal representation must not be sacrificed to partisanship, ever.
I urge you, too, above all, to free yourselves from the endless treadmill of political fundraising by enacting real campaign finance reform. I know there is reluctance to do it so soon after the recent legislation, but it must be done. As someone who spent time on that treadmill with you, my personal preference would be to bar all private political financial contributions, direct and indirect, to congressional campaigns, and provide for full public campaign financing. There might be other ways, too, that might also work.
Lastly, I urge my friends and my former colleagues in both parties and in both the House and the Senate to rise above understandable partisan concerns and to find some way of accomplishing these much‑needed reforms on a bipartisan basis. Perhaps more than anything else you might do, that would reassure the people that you are working for them and for their best interests.
Mr. Chairman, I have spent most of the past decade working for 150 countries, including our own, and I have seen firsthand that many of those countries don't have the institutions that we have, they don't have the legitimacy of institutions that we have. Our institutions are precious. We must cherish them. We need to maintain the legitimacy of the House of Representatives, and I believe that it must be a bipartisan goal above all other goals to maintain that legitimacy. Far more important than who happens to be in control in the House at any one time is what all Members are doing to protect the constitutional democratic integrity and legitimacy of the House. If I can help you in any small way, Mr. Chairman, I am more than happy to do so.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Nice to welcome you back after the 11 years. I don't know if you have filled your hand with your number of visits to the Capitol. We are very pleased to have you with us.
[The information follows:]
******** COMMITTEE INSERT ********
The Chairman. Professor Thurber.
STATEMENT OF JAMES THURBER, Ph.D., DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR OF GOVERNMENT, DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR CONGRESSIONAL AND PRESIDENTIAL STUDIES, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
Mr. Thurber. It is my pleasure to be here. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank the Chair for the work that I have done with him on Congress and the Internet and other committee reforms in the past, but also there are other people I would like to thank. I worked with Representative Slaughter in the early 1990s on reform, but I am most proud of the fact that I have 147 students that work on Capitol Hill, and 2 of them are directly related to this hearing, including Hugh Halpern, who received an A on a paper on congressional ethics in 1991, which actually was quite useful in my testimony before this committee leading up to the 95 reforms that occurred.
Mr. Hastings of Florida. Don't tell Fred.
Mr. Thurber. Fred Turner is the chief of staff of Mr. Hastings. He is another former student of mine.
It is hard to summarize 30 years of study of Congress and ethics and the issues before us, but I will try to do that.
Mr. Hastings, I ask permission that my written testimony be put into the record, and I will summarize it.
Mr. Hastings of Washington. [Presiding.] Without objection, all of your written testimony will appear fully in the record, and all of you are welcome to summarize if you choose. I might add, since you gave me this opening, I, too, have a staffer who took a class from you. I won't quiz you.
Mr. Thurber. It is hard to keep up with them. They are doing very well. I want to say that they are all very ethical people, the four Members of Congress, including Mr. McGovern, who are graduates of the School of Public Affairs.
Mr. McGovern. Don't say too many nice things; you will make nine enemies.
Mr. Thurber. I was asked by the Minority and Majority to appear before this committee, and I think it is very important to think about approaching this in a bipartisan approach, and I know both sides have issues, but it is time to find some common ground, to have a cease‑fire on lobbying reform. There are several streams of reform that are going on right now here and outside of Congress; lobbying reform, procedural reform, and reform related to redistricting. I am involved with that, as Tom and Norm are also. But also there is the simple reform of enforcing the existing law and ethics of this institution and abiding by the rules. That is a stream of reform also. I will focus my oral remarks only on lobbying reform, and I am ready to answer any questions related to any of those other forms that are occurring, and I studied those areas and have opinions on them from the past.
Very briefly, I used to work on the Hill 32 years ago, and I also have taught courses on Congress for over 30 years. More importantly, I teach a course on lobbying and ethics. It is funded by a grant from the Bryce Harlow Foundation that is trying to improve integrity in lobbying. I also teach the Lobbying Institute, and have for 20 years, and therefore I have a network of literally hundreds of former students that are lobbyists. We have a strong element of teaching about ethics in the law. As far as I know, none of them are unethical people or gotten into trouble. I am very proud of them. It is from that experience, the experience of working with many lobbyists who come in twice a year to speak in my Lobbying Institute classes that I know these people. The people that I invite to speak are ethical individuals, and they have a lot to say about lobbying reform right now. I talk to many of them about this, and they are for reform, and some of the reforms that I am going to mention today that I support, they certainly support.
Let me summarize very briefly and first say that there is some disagreement about the number of lobbyists in Washington. Let me say that if you define lobbying as direct lobbying with Members of Congress, but also grass roots, astroturf roots, issue ads on television, direct mail, coalition building and maintenance activity and campaigns, I would propose, and we have looked at this, that we have over 100,000 people in Washington, D.C., in the advocacy business.
Now, there are various debates about the number of lobbyists. Is it 32,000, 11,500? That is unimportant compared to the money that is awash in this system. If you combine the money from lobbying, which last year, 2004, was probably 3 billion that is recorded, along with the campaign contributions and spending in each cycle, it is approaching $10‑ to 12 billion per year. Just registered money, money that is recorded, comes to $4 million per Member per year, a little over $350,000 per Member per month. That is a lot of money.
No one is really talking about money. Money is not corrupt, but it is part of the picture that we need to think about. If you look at whether we are recording this or not, we are not. It is not transparent, in my opinion.
I listened to the previous testimony, and I almost wanted just to come in and just talk about Adobe, and that is it. I decided to go beyond that and say that, very simply, we need a common form that is simple to fill out for the House and the Senate. We need to put it up on a Website. The institution has to be monitored. You have to be a real leader in using the Internet through this committee, but also encouraging others to do that, and, of course, you endorse my book called Congress and the Internet, which I appreciate.
The Chairman. Why do you think you are a witness here today?
Mr. Thurber. Let me get that issue out. I feel, and with great respect to Mr. Hastings, that we have had the committees of jurisdiction not pursue oversight and enforcement of existing ethics and rules on Members' staff, but also on the lobbyists. I would and I have endorsed a proposal for an Office of Public Integrity. Senator Obama has proposed this as well as many other people, but if that is not possible, I would strongly recommend that you think about expanding the authority of the Office of Inspector General of the House of Representatives. No one has mentioned this, it has just been mentioned yesterday in the Senate to have a common one. It works in the executive branch, it should work here.
I look at the reports, and with due respect to the Office of Inspector General, they have only had 7 reports in the last 4 years that I can see up on their Website, and that is how I look at it. There were important things like the Postal Service transition in district offices. They could easily be funded and have an expansion of authority to look at this area of ethics and law.
Let me go on and say that the primary thing that I am interested in is not talking about a gift ban, whether it should be $49.99 for a lunch. I am for transparency, for recording the gifts that come in under existing law and making sure that there is some penalties for people who don't record them, but also transparency with respect to lobbying activities in Washington. It is controversial, but I would expand it beyond the law of 1995 into other areas, including coalition building, and coalition maintenance. I know the grass roots issue is very controversial, but millions are spent on grass roots, Astroturf and top roots. There is no reason why that information cannot be recorded and given to the American public. I know the people who are doing it. They record it in their office about who their clients are and what they are doing. Requiring them to report these activities would not hurt their business. It might help their business, in fact, since it would show what they are doing for clients.
I also would say that problems with the enforcement area, I think, are serious with respect to the Department of Justice. I actually have tried for a month now to find out if there are any cases ‑‑ maybe someone here can tell me ‑‑ any cases that have been prosecuted under the referrals from the Clerk of the House of Representatives or from the Senate. I cannot find that. I can't even find out the number until today of referrals to the Department of Justice for problems.
I know we are limited on time, so let me summarize very quickly and say that transparency and enforcement are the two most important things. Transparency will enhance, I think, the public opinions about this institution. That was the intent of the 1995 act. It starts out with that purpose.
The act has failed, in my opinion, in terms of transparency, and therefore it is important to go back to make sure that before we have major reforms, that we enforce the transparency of the 1995 act as amended in 1998. That means that we need to also have other aspects of transparency.
I think that the individual lobbying and reporting forms in the House and the Senate should include the following: A list of Members' offices and congressional committees that were lobbied during the period of the report; and disclosure of political contributions by lobbyists should be made in the same report.
In 1994, I proposed to this committee something that was a little wacky -- but that the Federal Election Commission should record campaign contributions as well as the money spent on lobbying. But I would not recommend that now, looking at the way the Federal Election Commission is working. I think that needs to be done separately.
The form should also require disclosure by lobbyists of all prior government employment, disclosure of all travel for members they arrange or are paid for, and detailed disclosure on all gifts over $20.
I recommend strongly that you increase the fines and the sanctions for failing to comply with disclosure, the other aspects of disclosure, that people are late or they don't file at all. There are many major firms in town that have never filed. It is a mystery to me why that occurs. Every one of my speakers in the Lobbying Institute that I have asked say they file. Mike Berman, who teaches an ethics class for me, says there is no problem at his firm, he has a staff member who takes care of the dislcosure reports. Why aren't these other lobbyists filing? That is a major issue, and the way to handle it is to have some sanctions for not filing, in my opinion.
Travel. Lots of people have talked about travel. Let me just summarize my feelings on travel. I think it would be a very poor idea to stop travel that is educational. I think that gaming of the system to go out and give a 1‑hour speech in Aspen and then spend 3 days out there on recreation is not right. I think we should have preclearance of travel by some office, an Office of Public Integrity or some other office that would approve appropriate trips.. And, yes, it is all right to have the private sector pay for the travel if it is educational and if it is reported.
So I am sort of a radical moderate on that one. I don't want to ban travel, because I want Members to know about what is going on and learn about that. That is one of the great things about the Aspen Institute -- it is bipartisan, but it is also transparent, and they learn a great deal. The Members get to know each other on these trips. In Congress they are sometimes here from 2:00 clock Tuesday afternoon and leave 2:00 on Thursday afternoon, so there aren't many opportunities to get to know each other. The members that go to Iraq have their trips paid for with public funds. Lee Hamilton has said that all congressional travel should be paid by public funds. I disagree. I don't think that is a possible solution.
Thank you very much. I have taken too much time.
The Chairman. No, you haven't. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
******** COMMITTEE INSERT ********
The Chairman. Mr. Mann.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS MANN, Ph.D., SENIOR FELLOW, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
Mr. Mann. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Slaughter, members of the committee, I am delighted to return to this room. I have had the privilege over 35 years of appearing before you under Republican and Democratic Chairs to wrestle with this great institution and its problems, its challenges, and I am delighted that you invited me back once again.
I wish I could be as upbeat as Mr. Diaz‑Balart and Mr. Hastings on the state of this institution. I think the Chairman and others know I have long explained and defended this institution to its critics. I love Congress and believe it is the linchpin of American democracy, and I also believe it has to constantly examine itself. And I certainly worked with the Chairman when he was not Chairman in trying to improve this institution when I felt, we felt, Democrats were abusing their power, and, in effect, it wasn't simply a matter of fairness, it was a matter of making sure the body played to its comparative advantages and fulfilled the role that the Framers set for it. So I have not been fearful or amiss in criticizing Congress when it was under Democratic control, and certainly not under Republican control, as I am sure the Chairman knows as well.
Sadly, I have come to the conclusion, along with my colleague and friend Norman Ornstein, that Congress has become the broken branch. And I implore you to take this criticism seriously, to not see it as sour grapes of a Minority. This institution is being challenged in a fundamental way, and it is not good enough to point to ‑‑ to rationalize how things are actually doing well and making it better.
I would like to associate myself with the comments of those who have come before me and say how heartened I was by Mr. Bacchus' testimony. It reminds us that the lobbying profession is an honorable profession. The Constitution guarantees the right to redress of grievances, and I was struck by the commonality in the critique and in the solution proposed. If you all take this seriously, you really can find a broadly based set of ideas for reform.
My written testimony actually takes those six questions you pose seriously and tries to answer them, and I am not going to repeat that here. It is there for the committee. What I want to say is in these circumstances when we have had a scandal or a series of scandals, the natural reaction of Congress is to do something quickly to try to minimize the political embarrassment and fallout and move on. It usually entails applying Band‑Aids that then fall off within a day or two. This is a chance for you to take a little time and to deliberate; that is, to actually try to do something that has needed doing for a long time before the appearance of Jack Abramoff and before the revelations about Duke Cunningham.
Like Jim, I think all the attention on further restrictions on gifts and private travel is a misallocation of priorities. You can do it if you want, but it will lead you to some really foolish things, getting into trouble over trivialities. I believe, as the title of these hearings argues for, that transparency is the best route, more luminous transparency and effective enforcement.
It is important to understand this isn't just about lobbyists, it is about Members of Congress and their staffs, and there have been some pretty profound changes in the interaction between Members and staff and the lobbying community, and they change the way in which this system is operating.
Moreover, we are not talking about transparency just to report on lobbyists' activities, because that only deals with one side of the equation. It has to be expanded to deal with elements of the broader legislative process, because without that, you will make no real difference.
The reality is the worst example has become the conference committee. I think I can speak for virtually all congressional scholars that have become utterly appalled by what is happened to the conference process in Congress. It is an embarrassment, and it fuels the very problems that now confront you as an institution.
So transparency, yes, but on both sides, the lobbyists and the legislative process and Members and staff.
Secondly, we desperately need to take an ethics process that has been gutted and restore it, and we need to restore it ‑‑ I wish we would restore it to the way it was before, with Members themselves taking the full responsibility and doing it in a bipartisan way. But it has become a way to politicize in this environment, and it really calls for a blending of an independent ethics commission made up primarily of former Members with an Office of Public Integrity. And I think you could sit down with people and work out the details of this, and do it without Congress shirking its responsibilities under the Constitution to police its own Members. They could do that easily, and you can avoid the horrors of the equivalent independent or special counsel who gets off on a vendetta against an individual Member.
Let me conclude with this observation. The majorities are very narrow in this Congress. We live in a time of parity between the parties, and the parties haven't been ideologically polarized since the late 19th or early 20th century. That increases the stakes. You all feel it intensely as you move up to every election. This means there is a huge demand for private money even among those of you who have no electoral risk whatsoever, because you are expected to redistribute funds to those who are at risk. Everyone is under enormous pressure to raise money. You have the demand for private money, and then you have the supply of benefits that are now easier in some respects to provide because of changes in the legislative process. We have seen it in earmarking process, we have seen it in special amendments added late in the process under the veil of secrecy. We see it in invitations to participate in parties and sort of committee groups doing markups. We see it in a whole variety of ways. That is a reality.
The demand is for private money, the supply of public benefits, and unless you deal with both sides of that, whatever changes you make in lobbying regulations, you will not have done anything more than touched the surface of the problem. That means you really are going to have to deal with a reality.
There has been a serious decline in deliberation in Congress associated with the demise of regular order, and there have been new and more troublesome roles for money in politics. As I said before, this is not simply a matter of fairness, it is a matter of equality of the products that you produce, which the Framers always anticipated would result from you actually talking to one another and debating one another and having genuine give and take. It also threatens the integrity of an institution that I have come to respect and admire and feel is absolutely critical to our institution.
Mr. Chairman, I know you share those feelings. I also know you are like every other Member living in this highly partisan environment, and I pray you will be able working with your colleagues to make some headway on this.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
[The information follows:]
******** COMMITTEE INSERT ********
The Chairman. Mr. Miller.
STATEMENT OF PAUL MILLER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN LEAGUE OF LOBBYISTS
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. My name is Paul Miller, and I serve as the current president of the American League of Lobbyists, and I am happy we are going to talk about some transparencies in the legislative process.
Lobbying Congress is not only a completely legitimate part of our process, also essential to its effectiveness. Lobbying is a fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution, and professional members form a critically important role.
Misperception exists about what lobbying involves and what they do. This misperception is elevated to an extraordinary level as a result of those such as Mr. Abramoff and his associates. Those not only strike at the heart of our democracy, they also damage the vast majority of lobbyists who would perform their role in a democracy in a totally legitimate way.
I understand and sympathize with the outrage outside the Beltway in regard to this scandal, but I am saddened by the reaction inside the Beltway. I think we can all agree what he did was appalling, but to say all sorts of new rules would have prevented this from happening is not realistic. We are here having this debate because one man broke the law. We have to remember this. Mr. Abramoff got caught by the system.
If you can step back, I think we can provide a solution that isn't sexy by Washington standards, but one that would make a difference the American people will come to appreciate and understand. To make the system more transparent, I would offer eight principles that would truly make a difference. These are simple ideas, but would have an immediate impact on the call for reform.
The first step has to be a comprehensive review of the current rules to see what, if any, of these rules aren't working. Right now I don't think we can say with certainty that the current system is broken. We can't know if the current rules work or not because we don't have an enforcement mechanism in place to gauge this.
No matter how well‑intentioned the reform effort may be, it will not be meaningful if we don't begin talking about the enforcement of the current rules. Otherwise, without that critical first step, we risk finding ourselves back here again next year facing a similar scandal and with the public even more outraged, and they will have every right to feel that way.
If we can solve the enforcement issue, we can begin to discuss the current rules and regulations. Absent an enforcement mechanism, we don't know if current laws are inadequate, as some critics have suggested. Before we create new ones, we should urge Congress to undertake a detailed review of what is in place to see how effective those would be with enforcement.
If Congress is going to draft meaningful reform that provides the transparency and openness, I believe it must take into consideration the following. We just talked about review and enforcement.
RPTS CASWELL
DCMN HERZFELD
[12 p.m.]
Mr. Miller. Congress should support and review the enforcement of the current Lobbying Disclosure Act before Congress can impose these sets of regulations with potential loopholes. We urge Congress to carefully review the current LDA to determine if and where problems may exist.
If the current LDA is not being enforced, additional penalties and rules without proper enforcement will have no real effect. Review of the idea of a commission to review current rules and report back to Congress on any new proposals or change ‑‑ the commission should be made up of current Members of Congress, former Members who do not lobby, practicing lobbyists, current interest groups, and a representative from the general public with no political ties or affiliations or ties with any group currently represented on the commission.
Rules and regulations should apply to all. Right now the current definition is pretty strict as to who qualifies as a lobbyist, but we have to look at the current situation. Mr. Abramoff has pled guilty now to crimes. He is going to go to prison. Mr. Scanlon is another one who has pled guilty, but he was not a lobbyist. He is a PR consultant, by his definition.
But Mr. Scanlon is also, by my opinion, a lobbyist, because Mr. Scanlon has acted in the way that lobbyists do. He advocates for individuals, he advocates for policy, he tried to sway the decision on the issues. He has played in this arena. He has advocated on behalf of clients. So Mr. Scanlon is not a PR consultant, but he should be defined as a lobbyist.
So my concern right now is the definition of lobbyist is too broad. It needs to be expanded to include a lot of other groups, and folks who are doing ‑‑ too narrow, I am sorry, too narrow ‑‑ to include other folks who are doing what we do but currently aren't part of the system. If you are talking about where the money goes, and you want your transparency, why not expand that definition to cover these folks, because if you are looking for where the money is spent and how it is spent, these folks should file the same reports that we do. You would have a better indication of who is spending that money and where it is going.
A uniform electronic filing system. I know we heard from the Clerk earlier, and I have great respect for her and her staff and the challenges that they have had as of February 14. I know it hasn't been easy for them. They got a lot of phone calls, but a uniform filing system is needed. Right now you have two very different systems. In the House you have an electronic filing system that is very difficult. One, you have to apply for a digital signature, which was not using the process, and many folks were not able to get that signature completed in time to meet the requirements, so you had to file on paper. In the Senate side you don't have that same requirement. If you want to do it on line, it is much easier. You have an identification number that you can just type in there, and you can send it with the click of a button. It goes over to the Senate side. That still doesn't solve the problem on either side.
If you are going to make this more transparent, the House system right now is electronic, but you and the American people cannot view this over the Internet right now. You have to come to Washington. You have to come to this building, or the Cannon Building, to physically go and view those reports. So, electronic file is nice to put it on a database and those such things, but it is not currently accessible to the current public, whereas the Senate version is.
If you want to fix this problem, get the Senate and the House to come together, pick one's filing system, make it, put it in electronically so that the general public can get it in real time. That will, I think, help the American people better understand what we do, what issues are being worked on, where the money is going and those types of things. I don't think you need quarterly filing. If the information is put up in real time, semiannually filing should appease the public, and the information that they are looking for.
Travel, we have heard a lot about travel. I think this scandal that we have talked about has kind of put a black mark on travel, I think, for one, travel is important. The Congress is not going to pay for all the necessary travel that is needed. These trips, again, 99.9 percent of them are valuable, yes. The junkets should probably go.
No one is objecting to that. What we would object to is forcing folks to not take those trips. Those trips are valuable to you, they are valuable to the community and to the constituents that you represent, but there are easy ways to do that. Strict new rules would be placed on publicly funded travel. Members would be required to submit requests to the Ethics Committee for approval.
If a new body is created to review lobbying regulations, this body would need to vet trips as well. Public groups initiating the invitation must also submit the itinerary, travel plans, accommodations and cost of the travel to the Ethics Committee and review body, if one is created, to oversee the lobbying disclosure. Travel must be made public within 1 month by the Member of Congress and/or their staff. That could easily be done and put on their Website.
Lobbying identification card. Each registered lobbyist would be required to apply for a personal identification card. This card would be worn or carried with you while lobbying any Member of Congress or agency. This card would be similar to those currently worn by congressional staffers.
A Member of Congress or staff should require verifying that a person is a registered lobbyist before meeting with them. If the person does not have a registered identification card, the Member or staff could refuse to meet with that person. It also helps identify these folks in this building for the general staff and public.
If transparency is the issue, why not allow us to have the same type of identification cards that congressional staffers are currently required to wear?
Mandatory ethics class. Every congressional staffer, Member of Congress and registered lobbyist would be required to take a 3‑hour mandatory ethics seminar every 2 years to comply with Federal law. This requirement must meet ‑‑ or a fine would be issued to those not completing this seminar as required.
Part of the problem you have right now is there are gift rules that we are to adhere to, and we do. Again, 99 percent of us do that. But the problem you also have is you have congressional staffers who may not know the rules and were not able to do so. It is putting them in an awkward situation. It is putting them in an awkward situation.
So maybe a little mandatory ethics training for all of us might be useful. It is not going to be something that will hurt anybody, take a lot of time. You are talking about a 3‑hour seminar, maybe every 2 years. It should be something that we should take a look at if we are talking about transparency in the system.
Individual lobbying identification number. Right now, if you are an association or if you are in a company, you get a general identification number. When you file your report, everybody is listed under that not by name, but you have one identification number? Why not require every lobbyist to have their own separate identification number? Again, you put that information up on the Website so people can identify who that person is through their personal identification, which you can't currently do right now. You can only affiliate them with a corporation or with a company.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge Congress to stay away from campaign finance issues. If you begin adding these provisions to the lobbying reform bill, you only complicate this issue and, in my opinion, get a package that is confusing and loaded up with amendments like the appropriations bills we have been hearing about so much lately.
If money and politics is the issue, then Congress should focus its attention on campaign finance issues. These are two very different issues and should, in my opinion, be treated as such. If Congress tries to mesh these two issues together, what you are going to get is a very complex bill that no one will be able to figure out or enforce.
Mr. Chairman, we welcome the opportunity to work with you and your colleagues on this issue. We look forward to a process by which we will be able to submit the current LDA to a thoughtful and rigorous review and find ways to make it more effective. We are confident that working together, we will restore our people's faith in government and their legislative process. We owe them no less.
Mr. Chairman, if I could also leave here today with one request, it is that Members of Congress should not run from us or use this issue to gain political points. For more than 200 years, the lobbying profession has played a critical role in the political life of our country. It continues to play that role today, and Members of Congress should not be afraid to say that.
I want to thank you for the opportunity, and I am happy to answer any questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller.
[The information follows:]
******** COMMITTEE INSERT ********
The Chairman. Dr. Ornstein.
STATEMENT OF NORMAN ORNSTEIN, Ph.D., RESIDENT SCHOLAR, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
Mr. Ornstein. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Like many do, I recall many warm hours spent in this room testifying before different Chairs, and also working with you intensively, especially on the very constructive reforms discussed by some, implemented through the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress of which you were a leader in the early 1990s. You then followed through with some very courageous committee reforms in the aftermath of those.
I must say, though, it is a little depressing for me this morning. Tom and I came here at the same time, 36 years ago, 4 years before young Jim Thurber; of course, a little bit after Fred Wertheimer, who was here, I think, at the time of his namesake, Fred Muhlenberg.
But to sit here a few minutes into the hearing and realize that we have been working on congressional reform and studying the institution since long before Mr. Putnam was born, and long before any of you were Members of Congress, is a little depressing, to tell you the truth, although you have held up a lot ‑‑
The Chairman. A work in progress.
Mr. Ornstein. A work in progress. Although you have held up a lot better than we have, Mr. Chairman.
It is a wonderful opportunity that you have to step back and take a look at many elements of Congress and bring some sensible and tough changes. It is not going to be easy. As you know, many of your colleagues had an initial wave of sympathy for reform and now would prefer to do a few small things, hunker down and hope that this all blows over, and other things will take over, and you don't have to do things which will discomfort your lives or change the way you do business.
I don't think that you can ‑‑ I hope you will understand, and I believe that you will ‑‑ you won't shrink from that responsibility. This is certainly something that is responding to a wave of public cynicism and a low level of public confidence in Congress, but it is not just that.
As Tom suggested, this is about the integrity of Congress itself, and we believe, as many others do, that the way in which the institution itself operates needs a careful look and some serious changes. The regular order needs to be restored, and that includes a process of deliberation.
I don't think when you bring major bills to the floor without any hearings, without any give and take, without the kind of serious notice so that people inside and outside can take a look at the legislation is good for anybody. Bad process results in bad policy, and ultimately that reflects back on a Majority and on the institution itself, and it is not a good thing to do.
One of the most salutary things that came up when the Republicans took over, an idea that I think really was Newt Gingrich's, but which I think you helped implement, was the Thomas system. It has been absolutely wonderful for people outside ‑‑ and that includes average citizens, as well as those of us who follow this for a living ‑‑ to be able to go up and have the range of information readily available to us.
If we do not return to a process, for example, where conference reports are out for 72 hours, and they ought to be up on Thomas for all of us, and you, to see, then we are making a big mistake here. That is a part of this process, I think, the conference element, 1,000‑page bills brought to the floor without notice, and other things that distort the regular order and need to be changed.
Tom and I have just been going back for a book that we are doing on Congress and rereading the reports that we did to work with you back in the early 1990s, called Renewing Congress. We were very tough on a Majority party then, the Democratic Party, that itself had begun to stray from the regular order and ignore the rights of minorities, sometimes gratuitously. We were tough on them then in the early 1990s. We are tough now when some of those things have occurred and have even been expanded very dramatically. We will be, again, if and when the Majority changes, but serious changes are necessary right now.
Now, before I get to the lobbying reform itself, I want to address the ethics issue a little bit.
I would strongly endorse the bill that has been introduced by Senator Obama to create a Commission on Ethics, which is modeled on the Florida and Kentucky commissions. Frankly, I don't see how any Member of Congress from Florida or Kentucky, to start with, could not strongly endorse and cosponsor such a proposal. If they don't, it is basically suggesting that they don't have much confidence in the proposals or the processes of their own States. But it ought to go well beyond that.
Now, there is a parallel proposal that is out there that is likely to be voted on in the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee today, which has also been endorsed by a lot of reform groups, for this Office of Public Integrity. I do not believe the that these are mutually exclusive plans. The British system has a chief ethics officer, but that ethics officer is overseen by an outside panel of distinguished citizens. Melding these two proposals, creating an Office of Public Integrity with a chief ethics officer, with an expanded staff that can engage in education of Members, staff and others about what the rules and ethical procedures are, that can take in these lobbying reports and disseminate them and have a capacity to make sure that there are serious sanctions which you have to build into this process, for a failure to file or for distortion of forms.
By the way, listening to the Clerk talk about how it is possible to put together the Senate and House systems, but how they are completely incapable, to use one of Newt's favorite phrases, it is insane that each House has a separate system and separate set of requirements. You ought to, certainly, start by making sure that there is one system for the entire Congress when it comes to lobbying and lobbying disclosure.
But it would make sense to me to have this chief ethics officer, with an independence akin to that of the Comptroller General, have an outside commission with members of impeccable integrity overseeing it. By the way, that is to keep it from ‑‑ and this chief ethics officer would have the ability to start investigations, move them to recommendations to the Ethics Committee and the House and Senate itself.
I don't want to see the equivalent of an independent counsel, somebody who can run amok investigating Members willy‑nilly. I think you can build a check of that with an outside commission. But I also don't want to see something happen from time to time in States that do have independent commissions, which is legislatures that get upset with them because they are doing their job too well, cut their funding or restrict their ability to operate. I think if you had an outside group with people like Lee Hamilton, Jon Porter, Nancy Kassebaum, just to pick examples, that they would let neither of those things happen.
In either case, whether you opt for an office, a chief ethics officer, something akin to the inspector general, or expanded inspector general status, the salutary plans for a commission, or both, you have got to focus on enforcement here.
Transparency, accountability are wonderful things if there is not enforcement of ethical procedures and rules, and I do not believe we have had it for a long time. I should note that for more than 20 years we have advocated an outside group in a bifurcated process to handle initial investigations here and taking the complaints. It is something that was endorsed by the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. It does not have constitutional issues if you draw it carefully. Needs to be done.
Now, as for lobbying, just one little note on the issue of ignoring money and politics, campaign finance, as we move towards lobbying reform. I disagree with that fundamentally, but even if you decide that you want to make some separation of the issues, whatever restrictions you put on travel and meals, if you leave open the loophole that allows Members to have meals paid for, whatever variety or cost, as long as the person paying for the meal also gives them a $2,000 campaign check, and you ban or greatly restrict travel, but allow people to travel anywhere as long as they are with a campaign funder who can be a lobbyist to a fundraiser, then you are making things worse, not better.
It is wrong to allow those things to happen, and you have got to really address that element of the campaign issue. Most of us believe that this is a system in which the money process has also gotten dangerously out of whack and needs to be dealt with along with these issues. Frankly, if I had my druthers, I would start with a ban on leadership PACs, which I think have just careened out of control.
When I looked at the process of which the Appropriations Committee chairmanship was decided the last time, and it was very clear that the candidates for the chairmanship, all good, strong Members of Congress who were on that committee because of their legislative work ‑‑ understanding that the price for admission to consideration of the chairmanship was raising huge sums of money for the team. What they had to go through to do so is just wrong, and it is something that has gotten out of hand.
Along with that, let me say when it comes to the meals and travel, I think Members of Congress can live without gifts, meals or private travel. But having said that, as my colleagues have suggested, this is not the biggest issue facing you. It has to be done, dealt with in a serious and careful fashion.
Beyond the Aspen Institute trips, and just to pick one example, Tom and I ‑‑ one of our myriad projects now ‑‑ are working together on election reform. We are not done with election reform with HAVA or with its implementation. But a part of what we are doing is holding regular lunches. We have people doing work in this area from the Federal Election Commission, the Federal Assistance Commission, the scholarly community, the election officials community, and we have brought up staff from the Hill who work on these issues to sit around for working lunches to talk about them, to share information to move forward.
If you ban all meals, you are going to get yourself into an area where you are going to basically throw out some very good things. Making some of these distinctions is difficult. I actually think the $50 limit and the gift lift are not working terribly ‑‑ this is not the corrupting ‑‑ of our problem here. If we put too much focus on this, we are making a mistake.
The travel itself is another issue. I would just add a couple of other things to what my colleague has said. One is we have seen, with the Abramoff case, the use of outside, nonprofit groups as conduits FOR money coming from lobbyists to pay for travel. It IS often used as an excuse by Members to say, well, I know, the money seemed to come from a nonprofit group. You cannot leave these sham transactions in place.
What you have got to do, I think, among other things, is to have serious penalties for people who are involved in nonprofit organizations that take in money from the outside and basically launder it through to pay for travel, even if you leave an exemption for outside nonprofit groups, and you need a much higher level of transparency when it comes to such things, if they are allowed.
I think you also have to either end the practice of private jet travel, or at least make people who take such trips pay the real costs, not the equivalent of first‑class airfare. The idea that these trips, corporate jets, with lobbyists accompanying Members on the trips for hours of unfettered access, is something that is appropriate in this day and age, I think, is simply wrong‑headed.
You have got a lot of work cut out for you. We appreciate the difficulties involved here. I am particularly heartened by the openness, Mr. Chairman, that you showed to the bill that the Minority has introduced, with many of its elements to restore the regular order and to move in these directions. I hope we can genuinely make this a bipartisan process.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
******** COMMITTEE INSERT ********
The Chairman. We have just a very few minutes down on the House floor. We have two votes taking place. The idea of our not having a full complement of Members here to hear from Speaker Muhlenberg is something I find very, very distressing. What I would like to do is give you the option. I don't know what your testimony is, Fred, if you would like to go downstairs and vote and come back.
Mr. Wertheimer. Why don't you go vote.
The Chairman. Let us do that. We will recess, go vote, and reconvene at the beginning of the second vote.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. The committee will reconvene.Let me begin to express my appreciation to all of our panelists for their patience and for the very thoughtful testimony that has been provided so far, and I guess to be likened to the first Speaker of the House of Representatives is the ultimate compliment here in this hearing room. As you all know very well, the Speaker was Chairman of the House Rules Committee until Cannon's revolt ‑‑ until 1910. So I will say that to have Fred Wertheimer compared in any way to the first Speaker of the House, I think, is the best introduction that could be provided. I have enjoyed working with you, and very helpful input on this issue, and look forward to your testimony.
Cont'd page 3
*all testimony in .pdf format
