WASHINGTON - APRIL 25 - The League of Women Voters of the United States is deeply concerned about the lobbying reform legislation scheduled to be taken up in the U.S. House of Representatives this week. This legislation, H.R. 4975, the “Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006,” is deeply flawed, and the League is worried that efforts will be made to prevent vital amendments to this bill.

“Americans are extremely concerned about the lobbying and ethics violations that have occurred on Capitol Hill,” said LWVUS President Kay J. Maxwell. “An open process will allow Americans a clear view of what is happening in the fight for lobbying and ethics reform. The last thing the public needs is an effort to obscure the reform process.”

The House leadership may limit debate and consideration of certain amendments to this bill that address the integrity of the House. This would be unacceptable. The legislation as it is currently written is ineffectual. Representatives Shays (R CT) and Meehan (D MA) are expected to offer a number of crucial amendments. They must all be allowed if this is to be a credible process.

For example, H.R. 4975 fails to deal with one of the most important lobbying reform issues before the Congress – the nonfunctioning ethics process. The League supports the proposed Shays-Meehan amendment, which would create an Office of Public Integrity (OPI).

“The House Ethics committee has been AWOL during the current lobbying crisis,” said Maxwell. “The establishment of an independent, nonpartisan, professional office to assist the Ethics Committee will separate investigatory and judgmental functions and add much-needed credibility to the process.”

The failure to reform the ethics process is just one of many problems with the bill. H.R. 4975 fails to deal effectively with much of the corruption evident on Capitol Hill today.

“The League and the American public call on Congress to enact meaningful lobbying reform,” said Maxwell. “The only way this is possible is through a process that allows for open debate and meaningful amendment.”

###