Original Jurisdiction Hearing
on
"Lobbying Reform: Accountability Through Transparency"
TRANSCRIPT
DATE:March 2, 2006
TIME: 10:00 AM
LOCATION: H-313 The Capitol
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5Cont'd from page 4
Mr. Cole. Maybe fear.
[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
Mr. Ornstein. First, I think the Department of Justice may have a resource problem, but it is also very clear that nobody cares. Congress has not sent a signal that this is anything they care about. The public hasn't said you should be prosecuting these things. Why would they possibly prosecute when there is no demand and no sense that this has been seen as a violation of law that is taken seriously on Capitol Hill?
That might change, if you make some changes. If you do make some changes, though, the only way you are going to get any likelihood that more people fill out forms, and that there is any possibility of catching them up if they distort them and go beyond unwillful violations, is to have some serious penalties.
You may not want to do that the first time. Somebody might know you have a sliding scale, but believe me, if you had $100,000 fine for somebody who didn't file disclosure forms, you would suddenly get a whole lot more people filing disclosure forms. If you had the possibility of a serious misdemeanor conviction, if you made willful misstatements in these forms, you would have a very different level of compliance.
To do this it seems to me, one, it can't be done by an Ethics Committee, it can't be done effectively by a Clerk's office over a period of time. It ought to be done by a beefed‑up organization like an Office of Public Integrity. Things have to be done in an electronic fashion. You have to have far more disclosure than we have.
It will be a burden on nonprofits. Filing our tax returns are burdens. But that is the sort of thing that we ought to do. It all ought to be available on the Internet, because one way you will catch people beyond audits or random audits ‑‑ the way in which you are going to catch people in this process is if somebody looks and sees a disclosure form filed by a lobbying organization that they know has been up here regularly, spending a lot of money, saying, wait a minute, that is not there ‑‑ and by somebody looking at the forms and finding that somebody they have seen lobbying regularly didn't file and notify the organization. That is going to happen far more from the outside. This has got to be electronically filed and available on the Internet with a significant set of penalties.
Mr. Cole. Please leave whenever you need to. I understand.
Mr. Thurber. One quick comment about penalties. One penalty could easily be established right now. That is a list of individuals and organizations that are in noncompliance and leave it up on the Web site. No money associated with it. That would be embarrassing, and it would not be good for business for them.
Mr. Cole. The second related question, right now we have a situation where, frankly, Members are quite often subject to criminal violations for gift violations or meal violations. Lobbyists aren't, which most of the public doesn't know. The people that are actually in control of the records and keeping track of this and have a vested financial interest in it are lobbyists.
I would be very interested if you have a viewpoint ‑‑ technically you, Mr. Miller, obviously professionally ‑‑ but the rest of you as well in terms of making lobbyists subjected to the same penalties for the same kind of offense that a Member would be.
Mr. Miller. I don't think most of us would oppose that. If it is going to open up the system so everybody sees what is happening, I don't think we are opposed to it. All we are asking for is that it be fair and balanced. That is all we are asking for, and that so many burdens be placed on us and so much blame be placed on us ‑‑ this is not all lobbyists, this is a small few.
Mr. Wertheimer. I agree that whatever the restrictions are should apply to both lobbyists and Members. Now, the gift and travel rules only are ethics rules so they are not subject to criminal penalties. But it is an aberration where the Members could violate a rule by winding up getting some kind of benefit, when the person giving the benefit has no responsibility. So I agree with that.
Mr. Thurber. I think lobbyists should be subject to the same penalties in the way they are now in the sense that you want to go home after work and not go out to dinner. They want to go home and not go out to dinner. You have the same penalty now. You all have to go out sometimes for dinner after work. It is the last thing you want to do after working very hard all day.
Mr. Cole. I don't know if this is an exception, but I want your thoughts on this, because I will tell you ‑‑ it may work that way with the most senior Members. The people I generally go out to dinner with are the people from my local chamber of commerce that are up here for their one big trip to Washington, and they want to go, and I really maybe don't. Or a couple of people that go, couple of guys, they are insurance salesmen, they come up for their national meeting; they are told by their association head chief, gee, we want every one of you to go out and take your local Congressman. They are my constituents. They usually have a nice list that they didn't know a whole lot about, somebody has written down, asking these five questions, and we do that.
Or on the gift limitation, I promise you, I already have a lifetime supply of baseball caps. I have more plaques than I have walls to put them up on. But they are, quite technically, gifts.
You are in an awkward position on something like that. It is clearly a trivial or trinket‑type thing. How do you draw the rules for that? Or do you just say, hey, here is your ball cap back?
Mr. Wertheimer. There are already a series of exemptions in the gift rules. I don't agree with Mr. Miller that they should all be eliminated. I think they should be reviewed, but I don't think people are at all concerned about caps and trinkets.
Even in terms of meals restrictions, when they were passed 10 years ago, we certainly supported them, a $50 limit, $100 overall limit in a year, seemed reasonable to us. I think the problem that has arisen comes from the fact that they are not disclosed, there is no way to enforce them, there is no oversight. All of a sudden you have some folks that start going out and violating them in a very public way, and everyone pays the price.
I mean, Mr. Abramoff had his own restaurant, was very happy to give a whole lot of people free meals. He wasn't violating any rules based on what you just noted, but some of the Members probably were. That becomes a story and an issue. Then you are faced with this question on meals and gifts.
Mr. Miller. Let me answer the question about the gifts, the 14 exemptions. Right now, if it is up to you to decide whether or not I am a friend, if I say that I am a friend because I send you a birthday card or a Christmas card, I can give you any gift I want. It is my decision or your decision to classify me as a friend or not. If you are going to get rid of all gifts, you have to look all 14 exemptions and get rid of them or not get any gifts. I don't think it is fair to get them. It is subjective. It is up to me to say whether or not I am a friend of yours.
Mr. Wertheimer. Excuse me, I think that is an argument not to get rid of gifts. That is not an argument to get rid of all of the exemptions.
Mr. Miller. I think ‑‑
Mr. Wertheimer. Let me finish, please. If you are going to get a wedding present from your cousin or brother, I don't think we plan to cover that under any kind of gift rule. There are legitimate exemptions that ought to exist for any set of gift rules. They are not always necessarily easy to figure out. But caps, a wedding present from your sister‑in‑law, et cetera, et cetera, are not the kinds of things that anyone is talking about. I think this argument is an argument that says either adopt a rule that simply will not work, or don't adopt the rule, and it is an argument for not adopting the rule.
Mr. Cole. I want to thank you both for making the point that the experts don't always agree.
Mr. Miller. I want to just say if you want to eliminate the rule, eliminate them all and clean up these 14 exemptions. That was my point.
Mr. Cole. I am going to go to Dr. Thurber.
Mr. Thurber. I want to point out something to you. Mr. Moakley up there is smiling, because these arguments came up in 1994, almost exactly, in terms of questions and answers. I don't think that these trinkets are a problem. I think you should review what is going on and leave it. I don't think that is the problem. It is the $100,000 parties at conventions.
Mr. Cole. What about the meal from your constituents in the chamber of commerce that is up here?
Mr. Thurber. Well, I think that they probably come ‑‑ I am from rural Oregon. It is very hard to find a meal that costs $49.
Mr. Cole. No, when they come to Washington, you will literally be amazed the number of communities that now send local delegations to Washington, D.C., and the size of them. It is not necessarily large. Then a lot of times they are not even up here to ask for anything. It just becomes sort of the chamber of commerce annual outing.
Mr. Thurber. I think it is reasonable for them to buy a meal and I think the limit is okay, if that is what you are asking.
Mr. Cole. Let me move quickly. I am really indulging in this chairmanship. I am sure it will never come back. Two other areas. One, I want a quick opinion from those of you who did address it or didn't on 527s. I will just tell you as a commentary, I am always disturbed when five or six people can give $80 million to the process and affect the outcome of elections.
Anybody ‑‑ you are never going to get politicians to disarm ‑‑ when there are more people outside campaigns than are involved in campaigns than I have ever seen in a 25‑year career of running campaigns ‑‑ and they are massive in terms of the firepower that they can lay down. Members are on both sides of the aisle. Then you are in an arms race against an opponent you don't even know you have until it is too late to deal with. That is one of the arguments for always being ‑‑ you never know when it will come from an election.
The idea you can have a limited war chest and not run a risk, even in a safe district. I could give you example after example of people in the last election cycle in a safe district that had millions of dollars dumped on them by 527, and a supposedly invulnerable candidate becomes vulnerable immediately. It is a real problem.
Mr. Thurber. As you know, I have written five books on campaigning. I had a $3.5 million grant to study campaigning over a 7‑year period. We have addressed these issues. I think the problem ‑‑ there are a couple of problems. One problem is the FEC. It is a broken organization. It didn't do its job, in my opinion, with the 527s. I know that some Democrats disagree with me on this. But I think the 527s are a problem. There is a dam, and then the dam is breached, and the money went around the dam because of the FEC. They also are very weak in terms of investigating things that are a problem.
But beyond this, I think it is not the money that is the problem; it is restricting, which is a whole other topic. There are only 28 seats that are competitive. You mentioned the money flows into these competitive districts where people win by 55 percent or less.
Mr. Cole. You and I would disagree on that.
Ms. Slaughter. I am with you. Have you seen my district?
Mr. Thurber. Let me respectfully say that people don't want to go to a football game when they think somebody is going to win by 30 points. They want competition. In fact, Republicans like competition in the marketplace. We need more competition. That is the problem.
Mr. Cole. I would be happy to debate redistricting with you at any point. There are a lot of problems. The real question is whether or not it is a State or a national issue. I will promise you, gerrymandering is not a new science ‑‑ even the people that tell you that technologically it is even more advanced and cheaper, it is not any more advanced than it used to be. Easy. Many people can do it.
Mr. Thurber. I know. I redistricted the State of Washington in 1972.
Mr. Wertheimer. I will disagree with my colleague on whether there are 28 seats that are competitive this year. I would predict there will be a lot more.
But going to your point on 527s, as you well know, you and I would disagree on many campaign finance issues. But on 527s, we agree, except I would disagree with you in the notion that this is an unintended consequence. This is just a failure of the Federal Election Commission to properly enforce the law. These groups are required to comply with Federal campaign finance laws when they are spending millions of dollars to influence Federal elections.
If we win the lawsuit that is pending right now, that would be made clear. But the FEC chose not to do this. We are kind of in a circumstance right now where Democrats tend see 527s as a advantage. The Republicans see it as a disadvantage. I think both sides are going to be wrong here in the end, but that is irrelevant.
The bottom line is, people are spending money to influence Federal elections and should be playing by the same set of rules. It is essential to get this straightened out, the sooner the better.
Mr. Wertheimer. I would abolish 527s.
Mr. Cole. Last question, then I will turn it over. It is a process issue, but it is a sort of issue which is earmarked, and what role they play and how do you do them. Most Members will tell you when they go home, people expect you to be able to look at needed projects or whatever in your district, and try to be successful. Or you may have an interest in technology or something that is important, and it is not being responsive.
It is a really tough call here. I will use the highway bill as an example. In my State, if all the money moves to a State, number one, we have a formula. So we are a donor State, so we will lose.
Number two, the people that will make the decision, who are honorable and able people, are all appointed by the Governor in the Ohio commission. The new Governor appoints them all with the idea it is not going to be political, depending on who the Governor is, is fanciful. We just move it down to another level with people that may be less interested or less knowledgeable about my district that I am.
So those things become really tough issues. I am all for the openness. That is, you need, if you request one, it needs to be obvious, they need to be looked at by the Congress. You make a very good point about not putting them in conference committees, that we have a chance to take these out on the floor and debate them. I would love it, because, frankly, people would find out how bipartisan earmarks are, it is about 55/45 most of the time on that. So that would be a good thing.
On the other hand, do you think we should just eliminate? Because I am mindful of the point that a couple of you have made that obviously the pursuit of earmarks motivates part of the lobbying business.
Mr. Thurber. You have the power of the purse. You have the right to earmark. You have the right to make decisions about the budget. Why should the executive branch earmark? What is an earmark? Is an earmark some money for the University of Oklahoma, for the Department of Agriculture, that goes through the regular process? The issue is whether they are transparent, whether there is an individual associated with them, whether there is justification, and whether you can vote on that, if they are controversial.
The controversial ones are the ones that are done late at night after a conference committee has voted on something that has happened, but also late at night in the conference committee, when they have not been considered against the rules of the House and the Senate, in the House and the Senate, before voting on the bill. That is the problem, in my opinion.
It is not only, I will say again, appropriations. It is Tax Code and it is authorizations. There is more money spent in the last two categories, I would argue, than on the money side of things.
Mr. Wertheimer. The less opportunity Members have to vote around here, the more problematic earmarks become. I mean, earmarks are the way of Congress. You know, they have been there for forever in different names and different forms. You and I now have a process which is undemocratic, secret, evades the legislative process; I mean the worst sort are things that end up in the House or in conference when they weren't in the Senate.
I think most of the reform proposals I have seen involves making this process both transparent and accountable and giving people ways to vote on these issues or to force the issues. Once you get back to that stage, you will have a different kind of public context of earmarks. I haven't seen very many people talking about banning earmarks, because I frankly don't know how you do it.
Mr. Thurber. I have read a history of the Appropriations Committee when it was 125 years old. Let me tell you, there have been earmarks from the very beginning. They are the glue that keeps the committee together and Members together when they get to the floor. It just depends on whether you are transparent and open and whether you can justify them or not.
Mr. Cole. Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. I don't necessarily agree that this is an issue that needs to be legislated. I think the leadership on both sides can change the rules here and deal with the earmark problem. If you want to make it an open process, the leadership is more than welcome and able to do that. I don't agree that this is an issue that needs to be legislated.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. Let me, if I may, turn to the gentlelady from West Virginia.
Mrs. Capito. Well, since that would be unethical of me to jump right back into my seat after being gone for an hour and half into questioning, I will pass to the next question. Thank you.
Mr. Cole. I know the gentleman from Utah would not be nearly so ethical.
Mr. Bishop. I just came back from an outside meeting, too, which means ‑‑
Mr. Cole. The gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Bishop. Then I will come back and be nasty.
Mr. Gingrey. I have been sitting here for the duration. I thank you for your consideration, and I really thank my colleagues for passing to me. I will in deference to them be brief.
I will say to my friend, Chairman Cole, I think you asked me for two favors this week, and I have to tell him now the answer is no.
In all seriousness, I was sitting over here doing a scientific experiment. Now, I know the attention span of a 63‑year‑old is a little shorter than I thought it was. Sitting in this seat, of course, you end up ‑‑ either all of your questions are asked by your colleagues or the ones that you had thought to ask you have long since forgotten, but I thank my colleagues for letting me go ahead of them.
Mr. Bishop. They were all explored before I came in.
Mr. Gingrey. And then Shelley came in.
But I really want to thank the panelists who have been here for 3 or 4 hours and, of course, Dr. Ornstein had to leave and catch a plane. But I think you also ‑‑ he made a comment about the committee, the 13 of us, and the fact that we are here too ‑‑ and I think if some members had not been on a trip to the gulf coast to see the devastation there in a bipartisan fashion, we probably all would still be here.
Clearly, this is a bipartisan effort to do exactly what the hearing calls for, lobbying reform. I know we have talked about legislative process reform and railed about that. I know we have talked about 527s and campaign finance reform and railed about that. These clearly are problems that we do need to address.
I think that the main focus of this hearing, lobbying reform, has been the most informative to me, and the most meaningful and beneficial. I know my good friend Tom Cole said that sometimes we get unintended consequences of some of the things that we do. I know he would agree with me on this statement: that I think that maybe now is the time to act boldly on this issue and to advance on unintended consequences. Because I haven't heard much from either side of the aisle that I disagree with, or from the panelists. Maybe a few things in regard to lobbyists writing bills.
I mean, I think clearly when I was in the Georgia General Assembly, Mother's Against Drunk Driving would bring me a bill they had written, or the Georgia Right to Life would bring me a bill they had written. Obviously we have legislative counsel, we have legislative shops in our office. These bills go through the subcommittee and committee process; they get amended. I don't really have a problem with that.
You know, we talk a little bit about the meal and gift ban and things like that. When earlier on in the hearing ‑‑ I think it was Mr. Wertheimer talked about ‑‑ some of the things that are being paid for by lobbyists, that I guess I should know about, but I am still a relatively new Member as a second termer. But this business about the fact that Members, leaderships, PACs, or anybody ‑‑ I have a PAC, I call it Doc PAC, some pun intended.
But I had absolutely no idea, absolutely no idea that money could be converted to personal use. I assumed it was just like my regular Gingrey for Congress campaign account, that this is not my money. This is raised for good reasons and for good purposes, but absolutely not for my personal benefit.
I, again, I think we have got some serious issues here. I do not believe that Abramoff is the only problem. I think maybe Ms. Slaughter mentioned this. He is a symptom of the disease. I truly believe he was caught, but there were others out there. If we don't do something about this in a Draconian fashion, these names that we already know about will multiply and they are going multiply on both sides of the aisle.
This has been probably the best hearing that I have attended, Madam Speaker, Madam Chair, since I have had an opportunity to serve in this great body. I think that we will, in the final analysis, I truly believe will come together in a bipartisan way. We will adopt some of the things that are in the Democratic proposals. We will go through regular order, as the Speaker has committed to do, and we will do this thing right.
Because as has been said by several Members, the American people demand it, and this great body is something that we all honor and respect. We are going to do it. I thank all of you, and I thank my colleagues for the time that we put in today.
Mrs. Capito. [Presiding] Thank you. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thurber. I would like to request that you send a letter to my provost and dean and explain that this was the best hearing, and this is why I missed a meeting this afternoon.
Mrs. Capito. Mr. Bishop, did you have a question?
Mr. Bishop. I have a couple, and I appreciate it. It is still Thursday. I also appreciate all the comments we have about being a political body, and how that is supported. I would remind you that the Speaker went over to the Senate one day and came back to the House. The first thing he said, thank God we are not a deliberative body, because we go that far. Which one of you would give me some answers about the U.K. system?
Mr. Thurber. About the what?
Mr. Bishop. The United Kingdom ethics system. I know it wasn't brought up by any of you, but are any of you familiar about it? Okay, I screwed up that opportunity.
Mr. Thurber. I can comment a little bit about it
Mr. Bishop. Can you tell me why it was established and when it was established and for what ‑‑ was it a reaction?
Mr. Thurber. No, I want to say something. They have public finance of their campaigns, they do not have the same world of lobbyists as we do here. Yes, they have people advocating, but it is nothing like this. It is because it is a strong party system that would discipline ‑‑ the discipline that goes through that party system. Yes, they have an Office of Ethics. If you want me to, if you send me a note, I will try to get some information on that for you.
Mr. Bishop. It would be nice to find out the cause that precipitated it, and also the checks and balances if we want look at that. I want to thank Mr. Miller for being what I would call a devil's advocate. You did a good job with that.
I would suggest on the legislative side there be a lobbyist ID, maybe a skull with "L" that they can wear around would be helpful at some times.
I think one of the others of you said one time, I don't golf, I don't ski. Which is another potential solution. Just make sure our lobbyists are all dull people, and you can solve that problem.
I do have two things that are legitimate.
First one is definition of a lobbyist. Dr. Thurber, you are here, you are advocating a position. This is part of your job. You have some kind of inherent value by being here that has added to the luster of your occupation. Do you consider yourself a lobbyist in this role?
Mr. Thurber. Absolutely.
Mr. Bishop. That would be part of the regulatory process you would see.
Mr. Thurber. I have a very broad definition of lobbying. My wife and I argue about this all the time. She was lead attorney for OSHA for the health standards for the United States. I felt like people were going in and lobbying her all the time. She said not.
I think anyone advocating a position to change public policy, whether it is buying a Boeing aircraft or putting in an earmark here or performing, obviously, before a regulatory body is a lobbyist.
Now, the question is, where do you want it defined in terms of regulation?
Mr. Bishop. That is it. Would you include yourself in that, for what you are doing today?
Mr. Thurber. Right now. I appeared 18 times over the Hill for lost causes, lost reform causes. I believe I am an academic lobbying ‑‑ advocating for particular positions, yes. I have no shame about that at all. I think that it is a role that academics should take.
Mr. Bishop. I think both of you would do that. If you could talk to me, both of you, about how you could change the definition of what we have today is a lobbyist.
Mr. Wertheimer. I think the definition is a good definition. I don't think the definition is a problem. I think it involves lobbying, and the current definition involves contacting Members of Congress for compensation. So a constituent who comes in to lobby a Member does not come under the regulation or is not required to file reports.
But people who are trying to influence Congress and are being compensated and make contacts, lobbying contacts, triggers the regulation now, and I think it has worked pretty well. I would also say there is an exemption for people who come up here to testify in response to requests from committees. So that if someone is asked to testify, that doesn't turn them into a lobbyist.
Mr. Bishop. I would like Mr. Miller to answer that. But once again, go back through the row here again. It is direct compensation. There are also indirect forms of compensation. I don't know if you want to consider that. Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. I support broadening the definition. What I don't want to see those is those who have associations who bring their members here once or twice a year, come and visit with their Members of Congress, seeing those folks caught up in this, having to register, fill out forms, do what have you.
What I am talking about is you have one lobbyist who has been convicted of crimes. You also have someone who considered himself a PR consultant but basically was doing what we do on a day‑to‑day basis, and that is lobby. I would like to see the definition expanded to anybody who was trying to advocate for a position one way or the another. That includes church groups, it includes ‑‑ it would incorporate a lot of people.
Mr. Bishop. Dr. Thurber, if you would want to add to that.
Mr. Thurber. I would broaden the definition from existing law to include ‑‑ and I know this is controversial ‑‑ but to include grassroots lobbying and coalition building. Millions are spent in this area. There are firms ‑‑ they come in and speak in my class ‑‑ that will be hired by an outside corporation or a union to go after, in a grassroots ‑‑ I call it Astroturf ‑‑ and Astroturf activity against 15 Members of Congress.
Direct lobbying is only one little piece of the lobbying activity up here. It is grassroots, it is top roots, it is issue ads, it is coalition building. If you don't have all of those things going, you will not be successful up here unless it is a very narrow issue, like with earmarks. So I would broaden it to include grassroots as well as coalition building.
Mr. Wertheimer. I certainly share the view that grassroots lobbying, stimulated lobbying to the general public that is intended to directly lobby you, should be covered by this act and isn't. We cover all of the lobbying firms in Washington that are hired to do direct lobbying. There are many firms that are hired simply for the purpose of simulating public response to reach you, direct lobbying to you; they are not covered. Those firms should be covered and that grassroots lobbying should be covered as well. My original comment was narrowly focused on the direct lobby.
Mr. Bishop. For any of the four of you, somebody at one of these times talked about expanding the information in terms of what a lobbyist does, including specific visits to specific individuals. Is there any one of the four that actually recommended that?
Mr. Thurber. Yes. It is in my testimony. I include in it ‑‑ I think it is very important ‑‑ the amount of money that the lobbyist is contributing in that form. You can get it in another way. The amount of money that the lobbyist is contributing to candidates, and whether they sponsor trips, how much the trips cost, other things.
Mr. Bishop. Do either of you see problems in the day‑to‑day function of the lobbyist in having them make specific reference with whom they are speaking on issues?
Mr. Miller. I do. I will tell you why. If you will make it that the lobbyists have to report that information, what makes you think you will be able to verify. If I wanted to be the next ‑‑ I will use an example. If I wanted to be the next Jack Abramoff and impress my clients, all I have to do is go down and look at the issues that are important to them, find the committees of jurisdiction, and write down senior staff and Members of Congress who I may say that I met with ‑‑ and didn't ‑‑ and turn it in. It is a he said/she said argument. So you wouldn't be able to verify that I have never met with your office or your staff or you personally.
That is the problem I see with this. If you are going to make some reporting requirements, it will have to be on both sides ‑‑ the Member, the staff and us ‑‑ I see problems with that. If you are walking down the hall and you say, hi, Paul, how are you doing? Hey, by the way, how is the highway bill? Is that a contact? And you forget to write it down.
You guys have very busy schedules and very busy days. We know that. You may forget to write down a contact that I may have down, or I may forget to do one that you have down. I think you have to look at that very carefully. I think there are a lot of problems with that part of the system.
Mr. Bishop. I have specific questions also about the concept of the Office of Public Integrity and how you maintain ‑‑ ensure that there will not be some kind of death of the checks and balances you build in that system.
Let me do this in a different way that is more philosophical, once again, for all of you too. I would like to just address the issue on talking about transparency, talking about letting people know what is going on, the issue of regulation versus simply disclosure. Everything we have talked about so far is talking about a whole bunch of regulations we want to have in a new report, and penalties attached to it. We have seen in the other areas we have branched off into. This is supposed to be about lobbying. We have talked about campaigns and everything else, all of whom seem to have complicated the process by coming up with some really obscure regulations and hoops to jump through.
Would it not be simpler, easier, and clearer simply to have everyone list down the disclosure, have Members list down the disclosure, even though there are some problems with that ‑‑ list down the disclosures, and without having the kinds of penalties attached to it, allow people then to just look at it and make decisions whether they find that is appropriate for reelection or not?
Mr. Miller. You could do that. I think it would be a lot of paperwork when it comes to filling out the LDA part. Too, if you wanted to do this, one simple way to do this would be to create some sort of a card that you come into your office, you scan so that it is automatically tracked into a database, so that the House and Senate have that information. It makes it very easy.
The problem you have is when you go off the Hill and Members of Congress go to speak to groups or coalitions. I don't know if you want to be collecting cards or somehow carry a scanning device to have to scan that all in. I think it is a very complicated issue. But one easy way to do it when you are on the Hill, anybody who walks in the door when you are a lobbyist, you scan it in for a meeting, and it is tracked. It makes it easy.
Mr. Wertheimer. I think there are certain areas where disclosure is the best way to go, but there are other areas where prohibitions are needed. I don't think it is either/or.
For example, you have restrictions right now, gift restrictions, $50 and $100. You could, from a philosophical standpoint, take off all of the restrictions. You could get any level of gifts, and just leave it up to your constituents. Or you could do that as you do now, where lobbyists can put up $50,000 and throw up a party for you.
But this is not just about voting constituencies. It is about ways of influencing the process, it is about the way decisions are made here that affect everyone, not just your constituents. And certain kinds of activities have the ability to potentially buy influence that will affect decisions that go way beyond your constituents, they affect all of us. I think it is a balancing question, and, in some areas, prohibitions are needed.
Mr. Thurber. I would like to respond to your specific question. In order to have accurate disclosure, you need to have some form of enforcement. In order to have transparency, you have to have disclosure of things. I do agree with you that ultimately it is the competition in an election, it is your opponent, or maybe the local newspaper in your district, or others that see some pattern that they think is questionable from the public record, that ultimately will be the punishment, or will help somebody, in terms of the way they are behaving.
In other words, I agree with you. It is the open campaign that counts. But then we get to the redistricting problem, where we have a lot of districts that aren't very safe.
Mr. Miller. May I also add to that? I had an opportunity to talk to a reporter, and we had this discussion about the importance of writing down and tracking every conversation you have with a Member of Congress and their staff. I say, what value does that offer to you? Well, she said, I am not so sure it offers me anything other than it is interesting. The last thing I want to do is put people out there, you all in a position; again, campaign issue, somebody uses it against you, a reporter using it just to write a sexy article that will find interest.
I am not sure there is a lot of value. If the LDA form has any problem with it, it is that we need to be more specific on it. I don't say write down who you are meeting with, but committees of jurisdiction, actual bill numbers, and specific issues is important. That is where it lacks ‑‑ I don't think you will be able to come up with a good system where you track every meeting that you have, because there will just be some days where you forget to write one down.
Mr. Bishop. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the answers. I appreciate your willingness to stick here this long.
Let me just do one last bit of venting. As the answers you have given to us specifically about lobbyists I think have been very good and very direct, and I appreciate that ‑‑ sometimes we have branched into areas about other kinds of reform that deal with the process. I never thought of myself as being a reformer until I came here. This is much about the way we do things that I think should have systemic reform. To be honest, no one has really delved into that particular situation.
We have conflicts between authorizations, appropriations processes here. That is a systemic issue. We have talked sometimes about doing regular order and having hearings, but as you can see, it would be nice to have people hear what the hearings have to offer. We do much for the record, but no one really cares about the record. It is like checking off the box. We have gone through that. In all sincerity, as we have talked more about changing Congress, I would like to see some look at how we have evolved over the years systemically, and especially in contrast to how certain State legislatures have done it.
Forty years ago my State went through this process. We have a unique system of legislative process among the 50 States. It is a process that I like a lot more, I think it is open, it has a lot more opportunity of interaction than we have evolved here. In some respects, I would hope, as the future goes on, as we start talking about this, we would broaden to look at what we are doing. I think there are some things we would take for granted, that in reality have a negative or limiting concept of what is going on.
I apologize for that. I apologize for taking more of your time. Thank you. I am done.
Mrs. Capito. I want to thank the gentleman. I want to thank the members of the committee for very thoughtful questioning, and a lot of stick‑to‑it‑iveness. I think as the meeting has gone on, we have realized we have a lot more commonality maybe in some of these areas than the beginning statements might have led you to believe.
I want to thank the panelists for being so patient. Also, as a relative newcomer to Congress, I thank you for your admiration for the institution. I think that your very thoughtful answers are out of respect for Congress and for our Nation. I appreciate all of your sincere sentiments. Thank you very much.
Ms. Slaughter. May I thank ‑‑
Mrs. Capito. Yes.
Ms. Slaughter. I also want to thank the panel. I am sorry that we didn't give you lunch and you have come all day, but you have done a good service for your country today. I want to thank C‑SPAN for covering this, because I think this is of great interest to the people and the country. We are just scratching the surface, though. I know you have all graciously allowed us to ask you more questions, but I hope you will have some that you want to send us as well.
Thank you very much for being here with us. It really has been one of the most informative hearings I have attended in 20 years. Thank you.
*all testimony in .pdf format
