Order Code RS22226
Updated August 23, 2005
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Summary and Analysis of Provisions of H.R.
2412, the Special Interest Lobbying and
Ethics Accountability Act of 2005
Jack Maskell
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division
Summary
This report provides a summary and brief analysis of the provisions of H.R. 2412,
entitled the Special Interest Lobbying and Ethics Accountability Act of 2005. The
provisions of H.R. 2412, as introduced, address four general areas of federal law and
congressional rules dealing with ethics and lobbying. Initially, the bill amends the
federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to extend the information required to be
disclosed by professional lobbyists and to facilitate the public accessability to those
reports and disclosures. Secondly, the legislation extends the so-called “cooling off”
period of the “revolving door” law to restrict certain lobbying contacts by senior
Government officials and Members of Congress for two years after leaving the
Government, and requires Members of Congress to publicly disclose current
negotiations for future employment. The legislation also seeks to amend internal
congressional rules on officially-related travel by Members, officers and employees paid
for by outside, private third parties by increasing disclosure and requiring more diligence
by Members and staff concerning the permissible source of private funding for such
trips. Finally, the legislation would criminalize attempts by Members, officers or
employees of Congress to influence certain private or public employment decisions on
the basis of party affiliation and would also change internal congressional rules to
expressly prohibit the taking, or threatening to take or withhold, official action on the
basis of one’s partisan affiliation or campaign support or contributions.
The legislation, H.R. 2412, 109th Congress, as introduced on May 17, 2005, would
affect changes in provisions concerning ethics, conflicts of interest and lobbying through
amendments to both the federal law and to internal, congressional rules. The changes and
additions in the bill to current provisions of federal law, either the Lobbying Disclosure
Act of 1995, the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, or the criminal conflict of interest
statutes in title 18 of the United States Code, would generally apply with equal force to
the House or the Senate. However, where the legislation affects changes to the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the bill as introduced generally leaves blank the provisions
with respect to the Senate, with a notation that the text “is to be supplied by the Senate.”
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
The Senate, if it desires, could possibly change its rules through legislation such as this
vehicle, or could change its own internal rules through the more common practice of the
passage of a Senate resolution.1 When changing internal congressional rules by way of
legislation it has been a suggested legislative practice to expressly note within the law that
the changes made by legislation are made pursuant to the exercise of the House or
Senate’s express constitutional authority to make the rules for its own proceedings, and
therefore may be changed, amended, or repealed by simple resolution.2
The legislation addresses a fairly wide-range of statutory and rule provisions dealing
generally with (1) disclosure and reporting of lobbying activities by professional
lobbyists; (2) potential post-employment conflicts of interest; (3) ethical practices in the
House of Representatives involving Member and staff travel paid for by outside, private
third parties, and (4) attempts to exert influence on certain employment decisions outside
of Congress based on partisan considerations.
The provisions of Title I, concerning lobbying disclosure, apply to the registration
and reporting statements of professional “lobbyists” under the Lobbying Disclosure Act
of 1995 and, as currently structured, would apply with equal weight to those lobbying the
House or Senate. These provisions would require quarterly, rather than semi-annual,
filings and reports by covered professional lobbyists (Section 101), would require
electronic filing by such lobbyists (Section 102), rather than merely paper filings as are
done now, and would require the establishment and maintenance of a searchable database
of lobbyist filings and disclosures by the Clerk of the House and Secretary of the Senate
(Section 103), in an effort to assist with greater public accessability of the reports, and
their usefulness to the public and the media. The new provisions regarding lobbying
would also require specific identification by lobbyists of the covered executive branch and
legislative branch officials whom they have contacted (Section 104), would require
disclosure of all past legislative or executive branch employment by a lobbyist (Section
105), would specifically require the disclosure and reporting of expenses for “grassroots”
lobbying campaigns funded and engaged in by otherwise registered lobbyists (Section
106), and would require greater disclosure of the identity of the individual member
organizations of certain lobbying “coalitions” as the actual clients of lobbyists, as opposed
to merely identifying the coalitions themselves as the “client” (Section 107). The
additional disclosure of “grassroots” lobbying expenditures in Section 106 would appear
to apply only to those “lobbyists” or organizations which are currently required to register
and to file under existing law (that is, only those who are compensated a particular
amount to engage in sufficient “direct” lobbying contacts), and thus the expenditure of
funds on “grassroots” lobbying campaigns only would not separately qualify one as a
“lobbyist” and would not separately subject a person or an organization to the registration
and reporting requirements.
The provisions of Title II of the bill would extend the current one-year “cooling off”
period in the so-called “revolving door” (or post-employment) conflict of interest law [18
U.S.C. § 207] to two years (Section 201 of the bill), such that high-level Government
1 Riddick and Fruman, Riddick’s Senate Procedure, Precedents and Practices, S. Doc. No. 101-
28, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. at 1218-1220 (1992).
2 See, for example, the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, P.L. 101-194, Title X, Section 1001, 103 Stat.
1781 (1989).

---

CRS-3
officials and Members of Congress leaving Government service would not be allowed to
“lobby” their former agencies, departments or offices for two years after leaving the
Government. Section 202 of the bill provides new procedures for granting and disclosing
conflict of interest waivers in the executive branch of Government [18 U.S.C. § 208], and
Section 204 of the bill would add a statute to criminalize attempts by Members, officers
or employees of Congress to influence private or public employment decisions, on the
basis of party affiliation, through withholding, taking or threatening to withhold or take
official action on any matter. Sections 203 and 205 of the bill would change internal
congressional rules to require, at Section 203, Members of the House to disclose
negotiations or arrangements for future private employment “if a conflict of interest or the
appearance of a conflict of interest may exist,” while Section 205 would also change
internal congressional rules to expressly prohibit the taking, or threatening to take or
withhold, official action on the basis of one’s partisan affiliation or campaign support or
contributions.
With respect specifically to the issue of “officially connected” congressional travel
paid for by outside, private third parties, the legislation approaches the issue by amending
the internal congressional rules governing such conduct to (1) require knowledge by the
recipient of the travel expenses that the source for such payments is permissible under
congressional rules; (2) clarify the requirement that a registered lobbyist or agent of a
foreign principal is not only prohibited from paying for the expenses of such travel, but
is also prohibited from planning, organizing, arranging or financing such trip, or having
the trip and expenses “organized at the request of” the lobbyist or foreign agent; and (3)
require that the outside sponsoring person or organization has not accepted funds from
“any” source “specifically earmarked for the purpose of financing the travel expenses.”
(Section 301) This is accomplished in the legislation by way of requiring a written
certification to be received by the Member of the House, or officer or employee of the
House from the “person” providing the travel expenses (Section 301), and subjecting such
certification to specific civil penalties for false certifications. (Section 302).3 The
legislation would also require more “detailed description” of the travel expenses received
by Members and staff in the currently required disclosures of such travel and expenses,
as well as a more detailed “description of all meetings, tours, events, and outings during
such travel.” (Section 303) Finally, the issue of privately funded travel expenses is
addressed by requiring the adoption of a rule authorizing the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct in the House to develop and revise guidelines on what constitutes
“reasonable” expenses on such privately financed travel for Members, officers and
employees of the House. The legislation expressly indicates an intent to deal with the
overall costs of transportation, food and lodging (Section 304), but the proposed
guidelines could also be directed, in the context of “reasonableness,” at the purposes and
activities of such privately funded expenses, and the length of stays in relation to the
purposes of such trips. All of the provisions in this part, other than the penalties for false
certification, are accomplished by way of changes to House Rules, and would thus require
similar language or a similar provision to change Senate Rules in this legislation (or a
separate Senate resolution) to be effective in the Senate.
3 A false certification or false statement made to the Clerk of the House under such provision
regarding a required disclosure, if knowingly and intentionally false, or made with an intent to
deceive, may also be subject to existing criminal provisions, such as 18 U.S. C. § 1001.

---

CRS-4
It may be noted that with respect to the issue of “officially connected” travel, the
legislation does not address specifically the issue of what are “necessary” expenses of
travel in relation to accepting privately financed expenses for “recreational” activities,
such as allowing an outside, private third party to pay for one’s golfing, skiing, fishing or
tennis during such “officially connected” travel. It should be emphasized, however, that
the current, existing Rules in both the House and the Senate expressly prohibit the receipt
of expenses or reimbursements for incidental recreational activities in an amount of $50
or more from any private source, and not merely from lobbyists or foreign agents, during
and in relation to “officially connected” travel.4
Title IV of the bill, in Section 401, directs oversight of the lobbying disclosure
provisions by the Comptroller General, and in Section 402 increases penalties for
lobbyists’ failures to comply with the law. Sections 403 and 404 apply to internal House
of Representatives proceedings concerning hearings and (in Section 404) appointment and
duties of an ethics “task force,” and apply only to the House of Representatives with no
comparable provisions for the Senate.
4 The expenses for incidental “recreational” activities during any officially connected trip, such
as the costs for golf or skiing, are not considered “necessary” expenses of such travel under
House or Senate Rules, and thus fall within the general prohibitions on gifts of $50 or more from
private sources in both House and Senate Rules. House Rule XXV, clause 5(b)(4)(C); Senate
Rule XXXV, clause 2(d)(3). Expenses for such things as golf or tennis (in an amount of $50 or
more) may commonly be accepted under congressional rules (other than from certain “personal
friends” or relatives) only in the case of a charitable fund-raising event, when the “tournament”
is the fund-raiser, and a Member accepts an unsolicited offer of free attendance (Senate Rule
XXXV, clause 1(d)(3); House Rule XXV, clause 5(a)(4)(C)), or in the case of a political
fundraising event when the expenses are paid for by the sponsoring “political organization.”
House Rule XXV, clause 5(a)(3)(B), and 5(a)(3)(G)(iii); Senate Rule XXXV, clause 1(c)(2), and
1(c)(7)(C). As to “charitable” events, the House and Senate Rules differ as to the permissibility
of acceptance of non-local expenses of travel for such recreational charitable events, which the
Senate prohibits (Senate Select Committee on Ethics, Senate Ethics Manual, 108th Congress, 1st
Sess. at 45 (2003)), but which the House may allow under certain circumstances. House Rule
XXV, clause 5(a)(4)(C)(i)-(iii).

---