The House Judiciary Committee has pulled a truly galling maneuver. They have removed a provision from HR 2316, ironically titled the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, that would have required congressional staff to publicly disclose that they were negotiating for a job outside of Congress. The favorite career choice for Congressmen, Congresswomen, and staffers nearing the end of their time as public officials? Lobbyist. Who better to lobby Congress than someone who currently serves in it? The possibility for quid pro quo here is tremendous. There is no better way to prove your value as a lobbyist to a prospective employer than to help them secure the language they want in a bill. Especially if it can be done secretly.

The language in Rule 27 had required filing a notification with the House Clerk that employment negotiations were being conducted. That notification would have required public disclosure. The new language now requires the ethics committee be notified instead of the Clerk. This small change removed the need to publicly disclose the employment negotiation. It’s much easier to develop a secret deal if the public doesn’t know who you’re negotiating employment with.

This dovetails very well with another change made by the committee. CQ Today reported that House Judiciary Committee had also “stripped from a lobbying overhaul bill a provision that would have extended the current ban on “revolving door” practices from one year to two.” CQ Today further reported that both Chairman John Conyers, D-MI, and ranking member Lamar Smith, R-TX described the change as necessary to recruit future congressional staffers.

Both Conyers and Smith described the two-year ban on the lobbying of Congress by former members and aides as excessive and suggested it could make it difficult to hire qualified congressional staff down the road.

“A two-year ban is overly punitive to staff and some members,” Smith said during the markup.

Conyers said that the extended ban could have “potential unintended consequences … to attracting and retaining top flight staff,” who might be reluctant to work on Capitol Hill if their future job options were too tightly restricted.

So apparently in the congressional world, not being able to legally lobby your former colleagues for a year is a punishment and a ban of two years is so much punishment that no one will want to work for Congress anymore. This speaks volumes about the real motives staffers and elected officials have for wanting to work in Congress to begin with. The goal apparently isn’t to be a well-paid public servant but rather a highly-paid corporate servant.