[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 35 (Thursday, March 24, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: March 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1994
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 397 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 397
Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of Thursday, March 24, 1994, for the Speaker
to entertain a motion that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill (S. 349) to provide for the disclosure of
lobbying activities to influence the Federal Government, and
for other purposes, as amended, insist on the House amendment
thereto, and request a conference and the Senate thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Moakley is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] pending which I yield myself
such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution,
all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.
(Mr. MOAKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, as Members are well aware, rule XXVII
provides that suspensions may only be considered on Mondays and
Tuesdays of each week. The Rules Committee has reported this rule
providing for the consideration of a suspension today, a Thursday, in
order that the House may consider lobby and gift reform prior to our
adjournment for the Easter district work period.
Mr. Speaker, because the resolution provides that this important
legislation shall be considered under the suspension process, debate on
the bill will be limited to 40 minutes. No amendments are in order save
the House amendment made in order in the rule, and two-thirds vote is
required for passage.
Mr. Speaker, for many months the contents of this bill have been the
subject of intense scrutiny and negotiation. No one--absolutely no
one--is totally satisfied with this product. However, it is time that
we proceed to address these issues, and therefore, the House has been
presented with this bill at this time. I urge my colleagues to adopt
this resolution so that we many proceed to the consideration of this
reform legislation.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DRIER. Mr. Speaker, it is very ironic we are being asked to
consider this so-called reform legislation under business-as-usual
procedure. The leadership cannot be serious about reform when it
resorts to what is nothing more than a procedural gimmick designed to
squash debate.
Is this the kind of treatment that we are going to be able to expect
when we bring forward the work of our Joint Committee on the
Reorganization of Congress?
Mr. Speaker, while S. 349 takes some positive steps toward reforming
the lobbying disclosure laws, there are questions about how nonprofit
groups will be treated. And last night up in the Rules Committee we saw
this great debate rage as we proceeded with consideration of this
special rule to determine whether or not nonprofit groups will be
affected.
There are questions about the gift restrictions and how they will
apply, and it only breeds confusion, and clearly will lead to a greater
sense of cynicism and distrust of this institution.
If it is wrong to accept meals, entertainment and other gifts from
lobbyists, then this practice should be banned. Instead, H.R. 823
leaves loopholes so wide that you can drive a truck through them.
This legislation would have been adopted months ago, had the Democrat
leadership followed its own rules for reporting our legislation.
Whatever happened to the outcry that emanated from the discharge
petition debate against bypassing the committee system? The committee
system, we are told, is the linchpin of the deliberative process where
informed decisions are made in a collective fashion. Yet the lobby
disclosure bill was never considered by the full Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that there are some Members who would simply
like to take the whole issue of lobby reform and sweep it under the
rug. Frankly, that is exactly what is going to happen if this rule is
adopted.
I believe that a majority of us would like to see the gift issued
debated fully, openly and honestly. This bill should be sent to the
Committee on the Judiciary where it can be debated, amended, and
reported to the full House. It should be considered in our Committee on
Rules and brought down here under an open rule. Only through that
process can this legislation represent the consensus of the House and
the people we represent.
I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from California, Mr. Fazio.
(Mr. FAZIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the act of lobbying serves an important
function in our democratic form of Government. It enables people with
similar interests to pool their resources, to petition Congress and to
otherwise become involved in our participatory democracy.
Lobbying is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Whether it comes
in the form of letters, personal meetings, phone calls or even
attendance at town hall meetings--lobbying is an important process that
makes all of us better informed and educated on the pressing issues
facing our country.
And who lobbies Congress--the American Association of Retired
Persons, Veterans of Foreign Wars, farm bureaus, chambers of commerce,
and cities and counties. Lobbyists are not just high priced
representatives of the elite. The represent every American--sometimes
each of us many times over.
I rise in support of the Lobbying Disclosure Act, not to limit or
stop the act of lobbying, but to shed light on the process and to
instill confidence that lobbying is an appropriate avenue for people to
express their concerns and interests to their elected representatives.
The bill also reinforces the lines drawn in the rules and regulations
of the supervising offices and committees of the executive, judicial,
and legislative branches, by putting them in section 201(c) of title
18.
This principle was enunciated by myself and Mr. McCollum in the
bipartisan House floor discussion of the 1989 Act, and its codification
in this bill appropriately insures its application to all pending and
future cases. Because a court would review this as a matter of law, on
an item-by-item basis, this would lead to the requisite explicit
itemization in charges, and, in some cases, to current input during
such cases from the pertinent ethics office.
Mr. Speaker, the American people have a great distrust of lobbyists
and the access they have to lawmakers. The Lobbying Disclosure Act will
address their concerns by requiring those who lobby to disclose their
activities--to document the issues they lobby on and the amount of
money they spend doing so.
When this bill is enacted, the American people will be better
informed and educated. Whether it is a group of activists who organize
a letter writing campaign, or a one-on-one meeting with a company's
representative--the American people will know it happened, know what
issue was discussed and how much money was spent in the process.
the bill bans gifts to members of congress
The bill takes another important step--it bans all gifts from
lobbyists and lobbying firms to Members of Congress. Lobbyist will not
be allowed to pay for a meal, provide entertainment or travel to
Members of Congress.
I say this is an important step not because I believe there is a
wide-spread problem in this institution--but because there is a
perception that highly paid lobbyist wine and dine Members of Congress
in to supporting whatever cause they promote.
This is wrong and this is a perception we must correct.
The Members of this institution, on both sides of the aisle, came
here for many reasons. For some it was lend their efforts to fix a
problem this country is facing--like health care and crime. For some it
was to fight for a cause--to end discrimination, to ensure civil
rights, or the right to choose. For some it was merely the honor of
public service.
Every Member here has a story.
Each Member made huge personal sacrifices to be allowed the honor to
serve in Congress. Many spend every week without their families, only
to return home on the weekend with jam packed schedules that allow
little time for children or spouses.
Every Member of this institution came here for a reason--no one came
here for a free lunch.
critics claims are unfounded
There are those who say the bill fails to go far enough--that in
order to really address the problem we must apply the ban to any
organization who hires lobbyists.
I would say this to the critics. If the VFW or the PTA or any
employer in my district who happens to hire a lobbyist invites me to a
reception, or a lunch in the company cafeteria, I plan to go.
This bill will ban lobbyists from buying lunches, providing gifts and
paying for entertainment for Members of Congress--but it will allow
Members to continue to have legitimate interaction with their
constituents.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and this bill, not because
I believe we need to address a wide-spread problem, but because until
we correct the perception the public has--they will never know why we
came here and what motivates us to stay.
{time} 1210
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reciprocating his kindness of yesterday, I
yield such time as he may consume to my good friend and colleague on
the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss].
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. I thank my distinguished friend from San Dimas, CA [Mr.
Dreier] for his interest in allowing me to speak one more time on this
subject.
Mr. Speaker, we are really under an emergency rule. The Committee on
Rules convened in emergency session last night, unscheduled, to see
what we would do today after developments transpired with the rule that
was being crafted on crime. And I think many were probably surprised
that the draft rule that we came up with, over the objections of the
minority, strong protestations, was so restrictive that the crime bill
has disappeared, and we are not going to be doing that today despite
the fact that we need to be spending a lot of time on that. It is the
No. 1 issue in this country, at least our polls show that.
I am sorry we are not, because America deserves our attention on
that.
But instead we had to find something to do today and one of the
things that was also on the agenda out there was lobby reform. So in
this emergency meeting we decided we would cooperate with the majority
and bring forward this subject for debate, but we do not like the way
we are doing it.
I think America needs to know that the GOP is very much involved in
supporting lobby reform. What we do not know is what this particular
reform we have got today says. In fact, last night, the rule that made
this in order, when we spoke to this in committee, we asked what would
the House amendment actually say, and nobody was able to say what the
House amendment will say.
So we are really not sure what it is we are saying we are going to be
voting on, but we know we cannot amend it, whatever it is, because
under the rules of suspension, you cannot amend it.
So we are going into this without knowing what we are going to vote
on, but knowing that we cannot amend it.
That is not a great way to provide deliberative democracy to the
United States of America on a subject as important as lobbying reform.
Now, I have got to say I start this process off with just a wee
little bit of suspicion back in my mind. I remember back in September
of 1993 the New York Times--now, remember, this is not the Republicans
or some spin doctors on the Republican side--the New York Times came
out with an extremely unflattering editorial entitled ``Mr. Foley's
Decoy,'' on the subject matter of this matter that we have before us,
lobby reform.
Just to quote one line of it:
The bill they are readying for the floor is a sham designed
to protect incumbents and wealthy special interests at the
expense of democracy and cleaner government.
That is a very harsh statement; a Republican did not make that
statement; the New York Times editorial board did, not known for its
assimilation of Republican ideas.
They went on further to say:
President Clinton has a lot on his legislative plate right
now, and we agree to be sure, but if he lets Mr. Foley and
his claque of preservationist Democrats get away with this,
he can't cite overwork; he will have to claim amnesia.
Now, that is an extremely condemning remark by the New York Times.
Have we proceeded? Well, actually, we have proceeded. We have now
another New York Times editorial, now again not Republicans talking,
this is the New York Times, their editorial board on the 8th of this
month of this year, saying, and I quote from the editorial page:
The measure exposes the major weaknesses in the House's
pending gift ban bill sponsored by Representative John Bryant
of Texas. The problem with the bill, as the accompanying
chart suggests, is that it is too permissive to do much good.
In other words, we have got a very, very permissive bill that now
those interested in this subject, those special groups out there that
follow, like Common Cause and others that try to watchdog the citizens'
interests, simply are saying this is cover and it is too weak to do
much good.
I would suggest that what we have got in this House is a credibility
problem. We are trying to bring this reform forward to enhance the
faith and the trust of the people in this country in the House of
Representatives and the institution of the U.S. Congress. And I suspect
that this process today is not going to do it.
To say that we are going to have 20 minutes of debate on an issue we
do not know exactly yet and we cannot amend it is not going to build
credibility in the U.S. Congress.
We should defeat this rule, go back, come up with full debate, full
deliberation on this subject and let the people of America see that we
indeed are capable of treating this properly and coming up with a good
result that they will applaud.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].
(Mr. BRYANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, the bill coming
before us today is the strongest bill with regard to lobbying, lobbying
activities, and lobbying involvement with Members of the House in the
history of this country. If you will just look at the chart to my
right, it makes very plain what it does. It bans the practice of
registered lobbyists buying meals for Members of Congress; it bans the
practice of registered lobbyists paying for entertainment, tickets to
the ballgame and the theater and free golf games for Members of
Congress; and it bans the purchase of gifts for Members of Congress on
the part of lobbyists. The same is true of the firms that they work
for.
There are no loopholes. I think that this bill and the process that
we are participating in today raises questions about whether it is
possible, under any circumstance, to work in a bipartisan fashion on
legislation, after the comments which I just heard a moment ago with
regard to loopholes.
We have waited for months for the Republicans to bring forth their
proposed changes in this bill, and we accepted most of the ones that
they brought forward. No one said there were loopholes that needed to
be plugged. If there were, where were your amendments? But today you
stand up and talk about loopholes. You say that you do not know what
the bill says. Well, that does not say very much for the Republican
members of the subcommittee who voted this bill out unanimously last
November with the announcement that it was supported by the Republican
and the Democratic leadership. There has been no mystery about what is
in this bill. It is not complicated. It is very straightforward. It is
a question of whether you are for it or not. And if you are not for it,
stand up here and say, ``I am not for it, that I believe lobbyists
ought to be able to buy golf games for people, I believe lobbyists
ought to be able to pay for meals.'' Say you believe lobbyists ought to
be able to buy your theater tickets. If that is what you believe, say
it, but do not get up here and say you are concerned about the process.
The fact of the matter is we have been extremely careful and have
taken an inordinate amount of time to try to find a way to make this a
bipartisan bill that has been drafted with the input of all parties.
I would like to say that my ranking Republican member of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] has been a
prince in this regard. We worked together very well. We have had a task
force that worked hard on this thing for 6 or 8 months. For some of you
to come forward today and say you have concerns about the process, come
on. I mean I just got to say if you had concerns about the process,
where have you been? Why weren't you out here talking about it before?
{time} 1220
This matter is on the floor today under a suspension because we
intended to bring it up on suspension on Tuesday, and the gentleman's
leadership asked us to postpone it because they were still considering
the possibility of supporting it. We did that, and then it was decided
they would not support it. So, it is Thursday, and I say to the
gentleman, ``You objected to unanimous consent, and made us bring it up
under a rule to allow a vote on suspension today. That's why we're here
today, not because of any ruse, or any unplanned thing, or anything you
didn't know about. That's the facts, Jack, and I hope you guys will
step out here and help us pass this bill.''
It is a simple question:
Are we going to require disclosure of what lobbyists spend on the
process of lobbying Congress, or are we going to recodify, and
reorganize and reestablish new statutes so lobbyists know what they
have to do, and the American people know what is going on with regard
to the influence of legislation? Are we going to stop the purchase of
gifts, and meals and entertainment for Members of Congress by
registered lobbyists, or are we going to vote no today on this rule and
go home and pretend that we really were for something stronger?
I ask the gentleman, ``Well, if you were for something stronger,
where have you been the last 5 or 6 months?''
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to vote for this rule and vote for
this bill. Let us do right by the American people, do right by this
institution and get on with our business.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Bryant], my friend, by simply responding to the
question: ``Where have I been?''
Mr. Speaker, I have been in the Committee on Rules waiting in the
Committee on Rules for the normal procedure to be followed on this
issue. Did the full Committee on the Judiciary hear this? Did this go
through the full Committee on the Judiciary?
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BRYANT. This bill was handled just like the 1989 revision of the
gift laws in a task force. It went through the subcommittee, was voted
out unanimously. It was the subject of intense scrutiny----
Mr. DREIER. So, in other words, it did not----
Mr. BRYANT. By a task force appointed by our leadership and the
gentleman's leadership.
Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, my response is----
Mr. BRYANT. That is the answer.
Mr. DREIER. Listen: If you listened to my opening statement, I said--
--
Mr. BRYANT. I listened to----
Mr. DREIER. I said that I have grave concerns about the same issues
that the gentleman does, but what I am saying is, as a member of the
Committee on Rules, it seems to me that the very end, before we go on
the Easter recess, to bring this thing up under suspension of the
rules, without allowing for Members--the gentleman said, ``What should
we do?''
We are working on a lot of different issues. It is when legislation
comes to the floor that every Member has a right to participate in the
debate and offer amendments, and unfortunately our Committee on Rules
has not granted that----
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BRYANT. I have asked the gentleman to yield to me one more time
for a response.
I would just say, ``If this bill doesn't pass today, that's exactly
what's going to happen. We're going to be back out here voting----
Mr. DREIER. And that is what I look forward to.
Mr. BRYANT. But we have crafted a bill here which met the objections
of all parties in this House, which was participated in by the
Republican leadership and the Democratic leadership, and we are on the
floor with it today because those guys decided not to object to our
unanimous consent. So do not object to it now.
Mr. DREIER. And I say that I enthusiastically look forward to
welcoming my friend up at the Committee on Rules when we run this
through the normal operating procedure.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from
Sugarland, TX [Mr. DeLay].
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, taking a deep breath, I rise in opposition to
the rule, and I rise in opposition to the rule because I think there
are several reasons to vote against the rule. Most of them have already
been outlined.
As my colleagues know, when we started with this bill it was to be a
reregistration of the lobbyists and do some reform on how lobbyists
operate, register, disclose their operations, a bill that, with a few
amendments, I could have supported. Then we got involved in this gift
rule situation. There are different types of approaches to it, and we
have offered amendments that have not been accepted by the task force.
I know there were only three people on our side on the task force. I do
not know how many were on the Democrat side on the task force. But this
Member of the leadership did not have an opportunity to fashion this
bill other than to discuss it a week ago in a policy forum of our
conference.
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of concerns about the bill that I have,
the procedures not being the least of such that have already been
talked about. Members need to understand that this was plucked out of
the subcommittee, brought to Rules and then to the floor of the House.
The full Committee on the Judiciary has not met to consider the kinds
of amendments that we want to offer, amendments such as one that would
address how private citizens, either United States or foreign
nationals, are hired to represent foreign interests would be handled.
How about LSO's? Under the Bryant bill a Member, a group of Members,
may set up a legislative support organization with an affiliate which
can accept money directly from lobbyists and foreign interests. Members
are then free to spend this money as they wish. We had an amendment to
authorize that, and we sent a letter to the committee listing these
amendments. How about executive branch lobbying. Not addressed. How
about lobbyists contacting the executive branch officials that would
only disclose which agency was contacted, but not which specific
official was contacted? For instance, there are media reports that
certain special interest groups have been given veto authority over
timber sales and a corporate interest having veto authority over
administration nominees to important industry oversight offices, yet
they would not accept an amendment reforming this issue. How about
consultants? Certain people are purporting to be spokesmen for the
administration, to the media are not Government employees. Yet the
Bryant bill would not require the disclosure of whose interests they
are paid to represent. How about nonprofit and for-profit lobbyists?
Under the Bryant bill these lobbyists are still treated differently.
All citizens seeking their constitutional right to petition their
Government should be treated equally under the law.
So, Mr. Speaker, we had plenty of amendments that we could discuss in
order to bring to the full committee consideration in applying this,
but let us talk about the substance. The gentleman from California [Mr.
Fazio] was talking about how hard Members worked in this House. Members
in this House start usually at 7:30 or 8 o'clock in the morning. This
morning alone I had three breakfasts that I had to attend at 8 o'clock,
three breakfasts, and I probably will not get home until about 10
o'clock tonight, and most Members work 12, 14, and 16 hours a day, 6
and 7 days a week. It is very difficult to squeeze in all the people
that want to talk to us and have contact with us on issues that are
important to them.
Now I kind of went back and figured it out. If we do what the
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Bryant] want to do and lock out hearing the views of a lot of our fine
constituents that hire people to represent them, and we are relegated
to operating in this House in a vacuum so that we cannot talk to
anybody, then I have to go back, and I have to talk, try and talk to my
constituents individually, and working 6 days a week at 12 hours a day,
and 60 minutes an hour, I would have to see 1.3 constituents each and
every minute for just a minute in order to talk to all my constituents.
There would not be any time for votes on the floor. There would not be
any time for committee hearings. There would not be any time for markup
of legislation. There would not be any time to meet with people outside
my district. There would not be any time for traveling even from my
district to Washington. That would be all that I could do. I could not
even come vote on the floor of the House.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is important to our process to have people that
represent the interests of a group of people. What we are doing here is
a self-flagellation process. We are setting ourselves up for problems.
We are inhibiting our ability to represent our districts by isolating
us from meeting and knowing, having relations with as many people as we
can. This is a people business, and I say to my colleagues, ``You are
most effective by networking with as many people across the country as
you can in the amount of time that is allotted to you to do so.''
{time} 1230
Also, I call the Bryant bill the Kay Bailey Hutchison bill. It sets
up certain criteria that leave us vulnerable to charges for totally
innocent situations. We could go to a lunch with constituents that
happen to be lobbyists. They pick up the tab and pay for the lunch with
their credit card. We could be vulnerable to charges under this bill
although the lunch is totally innocent. Yet we would have to go through
the whole process of defending ourselves under that particular process.
Mr. Speaker, we should defeat this rule and go back to the drawing
board and see how we can improve this.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the Speaker of the
House, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Foley].
(Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the bill
and I would like to complement the Subcommittee of the Committee on the
Judiciary chaired by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] who has
worked so effectively and--I must say--so tirelessly and patiently on
this legislation for so many months.
Mr. Speaker, I think the bill that comes before us today is one in
which the House can take great pride. There is in fact very little
controversy about the underlying lobby disclosure provisions of this
bill. Most of the controversy and excitement has occurred because of
changes in the gift rules.
Again, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] has worked with others
on both sides of the aisle in an attempt to bring forward rules which
will make it clear to the American people--and they should have no
doubt about it--that this is an institution where we are voting on
legislation without any appearance of influence from any quarter.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the institution of lobbying in an
honorable institution in that every organization in the country has a
right--to approach Members of Congress to seek their support or
opposition to any public issue before the Congress, and we should not
be isolated from the advice and counsel of experts and people who have
the most legitimate and honorable intention of petitioning the
Government and placing before it requests for action.
But there is, in some quarters of public opinion, a belief--I think a
wrong belief--that we are unduly influenced by the provision of meals,
or entertainment, or some other opportunity for a gift of some kind
from someone who is lobbying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, this bill clearly bans that activity. It is
controversial in the House because I think many Members feel that there
is an implication of impropriety where none exists. But I do think that
it is important for us to make it very clear under these rules that
those who are active in carrying forth lobbying activities, registered
lobbyists, should not be involved in such activities, and I believe
that the House will not only accept this legislation but will be proud
that they have been in a Congress that enacted it.
Mr. Speaker, again I salute the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] and
all of his colleagues who have brought this legislation forward and I
urge the adoption of the rule and passage of the suspension.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very
good friend from Millbrook, NY, the ranking member of the Committee on
the Judiciary, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish].
Mr. FISH. Mr. Speaker, had I known the Speaker of the House were
preceding me, I might have had second thoughts because it is with great
trepidation that I follow him in this discussion.
Mr. Speaker, I am reminded, though, of a story Abraham Lincoln was
fond of telling.
That was, he got a telegraph from his Collector of Customs in New
Orleans--in those days that was a very profitable job for the
collector--and the wire read: ``Mr. President, I have been offered a
bribe of $20,000. I request a transfer. They are nearing my price.''
Mr. Speaker, the Speaker of the House spoke of perception here rather
than reality. I agree with his comments with respect to the importance
of lobbyists in our consideration of legislation. But I do not think
that we should legislate on the basis of public perception,
particularly when it is legislation as ill-conceived and as flawed as
this is.
Mr. Speaker, I speak as the ranking member of the full Committee on
the Judiciary. This bill never came to us. I have yet to be told why;
why it was a matter of subcommittee jurisdiction only and never
considered by the full committee when it could have had the judgment
and advice of many senior members of the committee who are not on the
subcommittee.
Mr. Speaker, because of this, there are many unresolved issues, and
consideration under suspension of the rules not allowing any amendments
leaves these issues unresolved.
Mr. Speaker, I think all my colleagues know that I am not against
gift disclosure. In fact, I do not know a single Member of this body
who is against gift disclosure. This is the time-honored manner with
which we deal with potential conflicts of interest as we did in 1978 in
the Ethics in Government Act, imposing financial disclosure.
Mr. Speaker, I understand the Senate version of this bill that
started this whole process calls for disclosure. But before us is not
disclosure; it is a ban. We cannot consider an amendment to go back to
our usual process today.
Mr. Speaker, I point out one major flaw here and I do not know really
how this was allowed to happen. It is the totally different, uneven
treatment accorded staff--our personal staff--and by that I mean case
workers and legislative assistants--and GS-12's, 13's, 14's, 15's, and
16's, members of the executive branch with substantial responsibilities
and the ability to make multimillion-dollar decisions who are not
covered. Why are our personal staffs covered by this legislation and
not the officials of the executive branch who certainly are in a
position to make far more important decisions in terms of impact on the
taxpayer?
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons I think that it is important today to
vote down this rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman].
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and this
bill. I am a bit amused listening to my good friend, the gentleman from
Texas, the secretary of the Republican conference. On the one hand, he
and others argue that the bill is not tough enough, citing uncommon
allies like the New York Times and Common Cause, and then the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. DeLay], if I am paraphrasing him correctly, says that
the provisions of the bill are oppressive, that we work too hard to be
burdened by the requirements of this bill, and he cites this morning
that he was very busy and that he has been busy the last few days, and
we are all very busy. But it strikes me what he is basically saying is
the bill's provisions are too tough. And I think that is the argument
against this bill we are getting from people who do not like it, is
they think the provisions, the burdens, the lobbying requirements, the
restrictions on getting gifts are too tough and that we should perhaps
abide by a lesser standard, a lower standard of rules, and I think that
is the issue in this bill.
If we believe in good, strong, tough restrictions on behalf of
lobbyists of Members of Congress and others as well, then we ought to
vote for this rule and this bill, and I think it is worthwhile
repeating what the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] said are the main
parts of this particular bill:
No. 1, it prohibits registered lobbyists or lobbying firms from
providing meals, entertainment, or gifts to Members of Congress
directly or indirectly. That is new. That is a powerful new
requirement.
No. 2, it bans lobbyists and lobbying firms in most circumstances
from paying for travel and travel-related meals, lodging, and
entertainment for these same people.
No. 3, it generally prohibits lobbyists and lobbying firms from
providing meals and entertainment to Members and staff.
And, No. 4, it significantly tightens and restricts the ability for
organizations, companies, or unions with lobbyists who pay for travel-
related expenditures, the vacations that we have seen on TV, the things
that have gotten us into a great amount of trouble. It says that if it
is done, it is done under very restrictive circumstances, and quite
frankly, I think many of us who take advantage of this are probably a
little bit nuts, because I think it is going to significantly restrict
those kinds of things, all for the good.
All I am saying is this: This is a good, tough set of rules. The
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] did a superb job, and there was
significant input from the other side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Visclosky). The time of the gentleman
from Kansas [Mr. Glickman] has expired.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 additional seconds to the
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman].
Mr. WASHINGTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I think that the leadership on the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] particularly, but
also the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] and other Republicans,
were very constructive in trying to work this out as well as they
possibly could. It is not a perfect bill, but it is a good, productive,
first step.
It starts us down the road toward opening up the governing process to
the sunshine and closing down the public perception that gifts and
meals to legislators are traded for time and favors. While I do not
think that is true, the perception out there in the country is that it
is true, and I think this is a good, tough set of rules to begin the
process to make us more accountable.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GLICKMAN. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr.
Glickman] has expired.
{time} 1240
Mr. WASHINGTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GLICKMAN, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Mr. Speaker, my concern is this. The very last thing
the gentleman said, he said he does not believe that Members of
Congress are for sale for a meal or a trip or any of those things. I
believe that, too. I honestly do. It troubles me.
I have been in legislative service for 22 years now. There are
naysayers out there that think the worst about us, Dan, and you and I
both know better. Some of the most wonderful people I have ever met
have been people that serve in the legislature, Democrats and
Republicans.
Why do we not have the guts to stand up and tell them so, instead of
caving in to every little willy-nilly idea they have?
I am not going to be a part of it, but one of these days they are
going to nail your hands to the floor so much, you are going to have
the courage to stand up and say there is not a Member of Congress for
sale for a $50 meal. If you run from them now, one of these days you
are going to have to stand up to them.
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to the
gentleman from Texas, I understand that. The fact of the matter is 99
percent of us are extraordinarily honest and would never sell our
souls.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Mr. Speaker, the ones that are going to sell their
soul are not going to be stopped by this bill.
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, Virtually every State legislature in the
world has significant restrictions on gifts. The public believes on
occasion we do in fact take favors, and I think this is a good first
step to establish some principles that were honest and true and we do
not do that kind of thing.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to comment on the statement from my friend from Wichita
and simply say I, for one, do not think that this bill is too tough. I
happen to believe very strongly, as was said earlier by the ranking
members of the Committee on the Judiciary and as I said in response to
the statement from the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], it is very
important for us to go through the process to allow the full Committee
on the Judiciary to have this. I am told by the full Committee on the
Judiciary staff on this side that the package we had last night in the
Committee on Rules is not what we are going to be considering if we
pass this rule. We got this morning what is actually going to be
considered by this rule.
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I do not have time to yield. Perhaps the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] could yield time to the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to my friend, the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues in the House, I am probably
one of the few Members who in their previous experience had the
opportunity to register to lobby. I did not have to register to lobby
under the current rules. I am not sure how many of you are familiar
with what you have to do today to register to lobby. I have a copy of
the lobby registration forms here. The problem that you have today is
that there is no requirement for compliance. We already have
registration and disclosure, but there is no requirement to comply.
Now, I thought as someone who is experienced in dealing with this
matter, having seen it from a practical standpoint and having had a
firsthand opportunity to participate in the process, I could possibly
help improve the process.
Let me tell you what you have before you. You have an oppressive
rule, and you have a bill which has holes in it like Swiss cheese.
Let me tell you, you have more loopholes in this particular piece of
legislation than you have in your current law. You have loopholes here
that you could drive a lobbyist's limousine through.
There are 20,000 attorneys in this town, and only 6,000 currently
registered lobbyists. I guarantee you under this proposal there are
loopholes that these people can slide through.
I have only had a brief chance to read through this measure but let
me point out the loopholes. You have a $2,500 threshold. Actually
current law is stricter now, if you just complied with what we have on
the books and disclosed who gave it and who got it. That is what we
should be disclosing under this proposal and let the public have the
right to know.
But we will not even have the opportunity to offer an amendment to
correct this legislation. Actually there is less reporting under this
proposal. Current law requires quarterly reporting. This proposal is
every 6 months.
Look at the groupings provisions. You can group the cash, $5,000, in
here, and no one knows exactly how that works. You have opposition to
this confusing proposal from nonprofit organizations, threatening
organizations, like the American Jewish Committee, American Library
Association, American Lung Association, dozens and dozens of groups who
say this bill is defective in its present form.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard people come to the well and say this will
cure the problem of lobbyist-sponsored trips. I live in sunny Florida.
I go there every weekend, and Members come down there with these groups
and get criticized for it. Do not think for a minute this proposal is
going to stop one of these trips.
Common Cause looked at this bill and said these trips and others like
them would not be banned under H.R. 823. In fact, just the opposite
would occur. Let me quote from Common Cause's letter:
The bill would statutorily authorize corporate and other
special interests paying for Members' participation in golf,
tennis, skiing and recreation trips.
Then what is created by this proposal? We solve problems by creating
a big bureaucracy. Right now you can go and get the information right
here. What are you going to do under this proposal? Create a big
bureaucracy with the Department of Justice. We shift from criminal
penalties to civil penalties that were put in this bill of which we do
not even understand the weakening implications. And you are not
allowing the opportunity for amendments.
Once again we see an oppressive Committee on Rules trying to rush
legislation through on a suspension. Now, do you know what a suspension
is, ladies and gentlemen and the American public? They are going to do
this in a quick special order here and jam it through the House of
Representatives.
I thought I would have an opportunity to improve this legislation. I
thought we would have an opportunity to make sure that the American
public knew what is going on with lobbying and lobby disclosure here,
who gave it, who got it, and stop the nonsense that goes on.
But instead, what are we going to do? We are going to further dismay
the American public. We dismay this process and we do not do the job we
were sent here to accomplish.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Utah [Ms. Shepherd].
(Ms. SHEPHERD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. SHEPHERD. Mr. Speaker, I am simply not among those people who say
that this is a bad institution filled with bad people. Quite the
contrary, it is an honorable institution, and everybody that I have met
here is an honorable person, working extraordinarily hard to do their
jobs, and their jobs are doing the people's business.
But the fact of the matter is, there is a public perception that we
are not serving people as well as we serve lobbyists. The guy who just
lost his job cannot take me to dinner. He cannot afford it. And that is
the reason why a lobbyist should not be able to take me to dinner.
With all due respect to Mr. Mica, he does not understand the bill,
and I do not frankly think he has read it. It has very, very broad,
tight restrictions on who is a lobbyist. It casts a broad net.
Virtually everybody in Washington is going to be defined as a lobbyist,
period.
They will not be able to do the things that they are able to do now.
They will not give us Orioles tickets. they will not give us Kennedy
Center tickets. They will not buy us meals, and everything that they
are allowed to do will be fully disclosed, and the public will know
about it, period.
That is how it should be, because we are people, just like every
other person who lives in this United States of America, and we are not
entitled to special privileges. We are entitled to do our job, to do it
well, and to do it honestly, and to do it in the open, and to make sure
that everybody knows that.
Now, we do work hard. We work extraordinarily hard, harder than I
ever believed I would work in my whole life, and I owned a business for
10 years. Believe me, that is hard to say, because I worked hard in
that business. But that hard work does not entitle me to extraordinary
privileges. Period. It does not.
Therefore, I say that if you do not want to pass this bill, you do
not want to live by the rules it proposes, and you are sandbagging.
Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone here to vote for the rule, to vote for
this bill, and to give this body back the respectability it deserves
with this Congress and with this public.
Mr. Speaker, I am not among those who believe that this is a bad
institution filled with bad people. Quite the contrary. This is the
most important Democratic Institution in the world and it is filled
with some of the most honorable people I have ever met.
But Mr. Speaker, the public's perception of the people who make up
the Congress is extraordinarily cynical. They believe that special
interests have more say in how we do our business than the average
citizen. We need to take serious steps if we are to regain the public's
trust and get to the point where the American people can once again
look to the Congress with pride and confidence.
The Lobbying Disclosure Act will go a long way toward restoring that
trust.
Let's look at what this bill does:
Today a lobbyist buys a Member a dinner at La Colline. Under the
provisions of this legislation that everyday activity will be banned.
Today a lobbyist buys a staffer lunch at Bullfeathers. Under the
provisions of this bill that everyday activity will be banned.
Today a phone company lobbyist gives a telecommunications aide
Orioles tickets. Under this bill that activity will be banned.
Today a lobbyist takes a Member to the Congressional Club for a round
of golf. Under this bill, if a Member wants to play that golf game, he
or she will have to pay their own way.
Today companies fund the Republican retreat at Princeton, NJ, and
nothing is disclosed. Under this bill such funding would for the first
time be disclosed.
Chairman John Bryant and the House leadership deserve praise for
bringing this important legislation to the floor today. It makes
everyone who lobbies register as a lobbyist. It consolidates and closes
loopholes in existing laws related to foreign and domestic lobbying. It
provides the first serious effort to ban gifts from lobbyists and
requires complete disclosure of how they spend their money in their
efforts to influence legislation.
This bill is not perfect. I have argued--and will continue to argue--
for strengthening provisions when this legislation goes to conference.
Specifically, the provisions concerning attendance at so-called
charitable events need to be tightened as do the disclosure
requirements for meals provided by clients.
There are a number of people who do not want to see this legislation
move forward. In spite of their protestations to the contrary, their
real motives will be clear--they like the rules just the way they are.
I urge my colleagues to not be fooled by those who have spent the
better part of a year trying to derail this legislation when they stand
on the House floor today and say they will oppose this bill because it
is not strong enough.
I am not one to make the perfect the enemy of the good. This is an
important step in the right direction. We should pass this bill and I
urge all of you to vote for its passage.
{time} 1250
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Visclosky). The Chair would advise
Members that the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier) has 6 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 11\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller].
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
both the rule and of this legislation. I want to commend our colleague,
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] for shepherding this legislation
through the committee and to our colleagues, the gentlewoman from Utah
(Ms. Shepherd] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Fingerhut] for being a
driving force among the new Members of Congress to get us to bring this
and to put this on the agenda of the House of Representatives.
We all arrive here under different circumstances and for different
reasons and different purposes, as has been pointed out. But we all
arrive here because of the popular vote of our constituents. And when
we are successful in that election and we are sworn into the House of
Representatives, we are, in fact, privileged people, because we are
given an opportunity by the voters of this country to do something that
very few people in the history of the country have been allowed to do.
On any given day, there are only 535 of us that can debate on the floor
of the Senate and the House of Representatives, that can air our
differences and eventually can use this card to vote on behalf of what
we believe in and what we believe is good for our constituents and what
they tell us they would like us to do.
That is a privilege that no other American can have, unless they run
for office and receive the majority vote of their constituents.
It is sacred and it should never, ever, ever be violated.
There is clearly a sense in this country that when we win election
that somehow we win something else. That is, the right to free Redskins
tickets or 49'er tickets, to the Kennedy Center, free meals, free
trips, free golf. I do not believe that that is corrupting individuals
in this institution, but I also believe it does have an impact. And it
does not come with the voting card, and it does not come with the
winning of an election. And it is not essential for us to be doing our
business in a first-class manner.
We do not have to eat to talk to a lobbyist. They will talk to us
without eating. And we may have more time on our schedule, if we do not
eat quite as often with them as we have in the past.
And many people who want to lobby us, we trot out the PTA and the
Children's Defense Fund and the social workers, a lot of them do not
have the money to take us to four-star restaurants or to fancy private
golf clubs, but they want that access just as much as the person we are
willing to spend 5 hours with on a Saturday afternoon.
Most Members of Congress, when they retire, say, ``I want to leave to
spend more time with my family.'' Think of all those Saturday
afternoons we are now saving Members by the passage of this
legislation.
This is a very important piece of legislation, because we cannot live
in this democratic institution with that perception of the public. And
we must end it, and this bill does.
It will make life different for all of us, but it will make this a
better institution. It will make this a better place to do work, and it
will provide additional time for additional voices and individuals to
speak to us about what they think this country should stand for an what
we should be doing.
We should pass this legislation and honor our duty and forget all the
accoutrements and the benefits that no longer can be justified.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I support many of the goals that my friend from Martinez outlined.
The problem was his opening statement in which he thanked our
colleagues for shepherding this through the committee, which was wrong.
This did not go through the committee.
Then he went on to talk about the need to end golf games and this
sort of thing. Well, Common Cause has concluded that this will not end
that process of Members going out on golf outings. Many of the things
that he said are very admirable. I agree with those goals that were
outlined. But tragically, while we Democrats and Republicans alike have
wanted very much to strengthen this effort, the goals to which my
friend and I aspire are not attained with this.
Unfortunately, as I said earlier, the bill that did not go through
the Committee on the Judiciary ended up down here, stamped in after our
Committee on Rules adjourned last night to bring this forward, is not
the same package that we are going to be voting on.
I think that we need to defeat this rule and not kill, not kill
lobbying reform. Bring it down in a way in which we can do the things
that we as Republicans try to incorporate in here.
Reform the legislative service organization. Reform the executive
branch lobbying process. Reform the role of consultants.
Let us really do the kinds of things that my friend really wants to
accomplish.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I think having said all that,
this bill is not a mystery to us. This bill has been around. We
originally were going to take it up, and those who were deeply
interested in golf and free meals got it killed.
Some would suspect it is on suspension so we can try and kill it,
because we know on suspension it takes a two-thirds vote rather than a
simple majority.
So there is a lot of shenanigans going on around this bill by a lot
of Members who do not like this bill because they do not believe in
fact it is real.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, my friend is absolutely right. If we do not
bring this up under suspension, we can pass lobbying reform with a
simple majority. This way it is going to take two-thirds, and most
Members suspect that it probably will be killed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr.
Goss], a member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier], my friend, for handling this rule so well.
The point that I need to make here is that we did get this after we
had adjourned last night. And the worst surprise is, we have been going
through this bill trying to see really what is in it. I agree with the
gentleman from California who has characterized this process as full of
shenanigans. I agree. That is why I am opposed to this rule. Why we
should go back and do the rule and the legislative process the right
way.
My point here is, I have just discovered that on page 42, line 10,
that we have amended the rules of the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct. That is going to be of great interest to every
Member, employee, and staffer in this House, because we have suddenly
taken on a new risk, a new liability that we did not even know was
here.
I did not even know it was here. I am a member of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct. I know the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct has not taken this up. I hope the chairman of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct will come forward and speak
on this.
I am sorry the ranking member is apparently not available to do that.
I do not know what the implications are, but it seems to me that if we
are going to suddenly put the Members at additional jeopardy under the
rules of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, when we have
got a bill that is supposed to be talking about lobbyists, we have done
something that needs further explanation.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2
minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana [Ms. Long].
Ms. LONG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in strong
support of the Lobby Disclosure Act, and commend the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Bryant], the chairman of the subcommittee for his tireless--
and by and large thankless--work on this issue.
The bill would make a number of major changes to current law. They
are significant improvements, in my opinion.
It would--as has been stated--prohibit registered lobbyists--and
lobbying firms--from providing meals, entertainment, travel, or gifts
to Members or their staff.
As with any other law, there will be those that try and find clever
ways to get around or circumvent our intent. But make no mistake about
it--this is a good bill.
The Members of this and the other body are--by and large--true
professionals who are all too often unappreciated for the long hours
and tireless work that they do. I have never worked with a group of
individuals who are more committed to trying to do good, as I have had
the honor of doing since becoming a Member of the House.
But, unfortunately, and the membership surely must acknowledge this--
unfortunately, there is a negative perception among the population that
many elected officials are crooked. That we take lots of gifts and
trips. That we have lavish lifestyles.
They are wrong. It is unfortunate. But nevertheless--it is--and I
think undeniably--the perception.
I do not want that perception to continue. This bill simply takes a
weapon away from the critics of Congress. And it take away things that
I do not believe are important to the majority of Members anyway.
Passing this bill will not discourage people from running for the
House or Senate. It will not impact our lives in any significant
fashion.
It will--however--greatly hinder the negative impression that the
public has of the Congress--not only now--but in the future.
I know my colleagues want to improve our reputation--and those of us
who work hard for our constituents. I ask them to join me in supporting
this rule and the lobbying reform and gifts ban bill so that we can get
on with more important issues confronting our Nation.
{time} 1300
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
(Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I love this institution. I
have only been here a little over a year, but I can tell the Members
that this is the finest democratic institution in the world, and the
people who work here are wonderful people. However, we have a problem.
The problem is that the American people perceive that we have
privileges that they are not entitled to. That is a cloud that hangs
over this institution. It is a cloud that I think we can made disappear
today. We can take that cloud away by passing this rule and passing
this legislation. This is not perfect legislation, but it moves in the
right direction.
I think we have both the opportunity and the duty to the American
people to say to them, ``Yes, we are your Representatives, but we do
not think we are any better than you are. We think we are as good as
you are. We do not think we are any better.''
If all it is going to take is getting rid of the practice of having a
meal purchased by a lobbyist, or ultimately trips and tennis matches of
golf outings purchased by a lobbyist, for me that is an easy decision.
Let us get rid of the goofy meals, let us get rid of the goofy trips,
and let us do the people's business.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the
legislation. My first job in government was with Senator Paul Douglas
of Illinois in the early 1960's. Senator Douglas, who enjoyed a
reputation as one of the more ethical Members to ever serve on Capitol
Hill, had a rule in his office where he would not accept a gift of
value in excess of $2.50. As a member of his staff, we had to assess
everything that came through the door to determine whether or not it
exceeded that amount in value.
This was a royal pain. It resulted in some embarrassment and
ridicule, but the final analysis is this: Paul Douglas enjoyed the
highest reputation. People came to know him as an honest man.
I hope this legislation will help this institution and all the
Members enjoy the reputation nationwide which they deserve as honest
men and women.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Washington].
(Mr. WASHINGTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. WASHINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I was on my way to make a speech when I
was listening to some of the debate on television. I decided to come
over here, not for or against the rule or the bill, but in defense of
Congress. I rise in defense of Congress, because there are not enough
people here who are willing to defend this institution. They will say,
``Everybody here is honest, but we need this public perception.''
The Bible says, ``So thinkest the man, such is he.''
If you think that somebody else is for sale for a golf outing, that
probably means that you are for sale for a golf outing. That does not
mean that that person is for sale for a golf outing. It takes courage
to stand up to constituents and say, ``Your perception is wrong.''
I would say to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Fingerhut], tell them
their perception is wrong, if that is what the gentleman believes in
his heart today, but do not pretend to help Congress by holding us up
to ridicule.
The gentleman, Mr. Miller, said, ``We believe Members of Congress are
good, but we have to decide between doing what is right and doing what
the people tell us to do.'' That is what we got elected to do, to do
what is right, to have the courage to stand up and to tell people that
the people here are honest, because if we do not, then that reminds me
of the guy who was in the fight with a bear and his friends were trying
to help him so much.
If the Members cannot defend this institution any better than this,
if they ever see me in a fight with a bear, throw some honey on me,
please.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Fingerhut].
Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to commend the gentleman from Texas for his
sponsorship of this bill, and I also want to commend the Speaker of
this House for taking the unusual step of coming down here to speak on
this very important piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, we are all familiar with the expression that ``a journey
of a thousand miles begins with a single step.'' Clearly, restoring the
public's faith and confidence in this institution is a journey of a
thousand miles. We take more than a single step here today. In fact, we
take two major steps. First of all, we close the loopholes that have
allowed most of the lobbyists in this town to not register. We bring
them within the ambit of the lobbyist registration laws.
Second, we say that anybody who is a registered lobbyist, whose
business it is to influence Congress, cannot provide a financial
benefit to the Member of Congress that they are trying to lobby. These
are two very important steps forward.
A word, very quickly, to our critics. If there is anything that I
have heard in this body too much, it is, ``We did not go far enough. We
did not go far enough in reducing the deficit. We did not go far enough
in fixing this problem or that problem.''
However, we have to start somewhere. This bill does that, clearly.
We have tried to bring people into this debate. The gentlewoman from
Utah [Ms. Shepherd] and I have all year tried to bring other people in
to help us improve the measure, to help us decide how we can go
further. This is an important rule. It is an important bill. Let us
pass it now.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, we have had a lot of discussion on the floor today about
this bill, and we have tried to center it, I think, on the Congress,
from everything I have heard. What we did not hear is what this bill
fails to do, and that is deal with the special interest power as it
lobbies the administration. There is an awful lot of concern about
that.
Very recently, the Capital Research Center has done a rather
elaborate look at what kind of special interest power is influencing
the administration, and the direct ties of members of the
administration with special interest groups.
If we just look at one department, it gives us concern. These are the
kinds of things not addressed in this bill at all. In one department,
the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary has
direct ties to the Citizens Transition Project, the national Council on
Aging, and the National Unity Task Force. The Secretary has direct ties
to the Community Information Exchange, the National Community
Development Association, and the National Council of State Housing
Agencies.
The Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity has
direct ties to California Women Lawyers, the Lesbian Rights Project of
Equal Rights Advocates, Inc., the National Center for Lesbian Rights,
and the United Way of the Bay Area.
The Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research has
direct ties to urban America, and the Urban Land Institute.
The Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs has direct ties to the
Enterprise Foundation.
The Assistant Secretary for Housing and Federal Housing Commissioner
has direct ties to the Community Development Training Institute, the
National Community Development Association, and the Rhode Island
Coalition for the Homeless.
When we go down through one department, we find all of these direct
ties to special interest groups, and yet this bill does not speak at
all to this lobbying effort that goes on all the time in the
administration. We speak only to the Congress.
It may be worthwhile to speak to Congress, although Common Cause and
a number of other major groups think it is a pretty weak effort there,
but we do not get to the problem that is really infesting this town at
the present time, that we have an administration that is highly suspect
in its dealings anyhow, and now we do not even speak to it in this
lobbying reform law.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would require of the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier] if he has consumed all his remaining time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield my remaining minute to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Bryant], with the understanding that if there are any
great questions sparked by his eloquence, I may be allowed to ask them.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Bryant].
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Visclosky). The gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Bryant] is recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
(Mr. BRYANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] has the
moral and professional obligation to read this bill before he comes to
the floor. This bill applies all the same rules of lobbying the
executive branch that it applies to lobbying the legislative branch. It
has been that way for many, many, many months. I do not think it is
correct of the gentleman to stand here and say otherwise.
We have heard a number of statements made on the other side there
that ought to be responded to. I am certain I will not have time to
respond to all of them.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BRYANT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, if it will
count toward the 1 minute yielded to me by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier].
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, does the administration have
to come before the ethics committee?
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, this bill does not have anything to do with
the ethics committee.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, on page 42 there is a whole line there on
the ethics committee. The gentleman has not read his own bill. I would
say that the administration does not have to come before the ethics
committee.
Mr. BRYANT. In the first place, I do not know what difference that
would make either way.
Mr. WALKER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, that is one of
the enforcement mechanisms.
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, there was a statement made by the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Goss] that he interpreted that there was a reference
to the House rules in here. At the request of the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], who is the leader-elect on your side, we
inserted a provision that said that anything that a lobbyist is
prohibited from doing is a violation of the House rules if a Member
does it.
He asked for that provision. Otherwise there is no reference at all
there.
Mr. WALKER. If the gentleman will yield further, I am just asking
whether that applies to the administration. The gentleman said
everything here applies to the administration. I would ask, does that
apply?
Mr. BRYANT. Of course. Everything that applies to a lobbyist with
regard to lobbying the House applies to lobbying the executive branch.
Mr. WALKER. That provision does not apply to the administration?
Mr. BRYANT. It is clear it does apply. The gentleman should not come
forward and try to obfuscate this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.
{time} 1210
I also heard the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] get up a moment
ago and make reference to criminal penalties. There are no criminal
penalties in this bill at all. Where have you been for the last several
months, I ask the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica]? Why would you
stand up and say there are criminal penalties in this bill? The
gentleman made reference to the Department of Justice. This bill does
not relate to the Department of Justice, it relates to an agency called
the Office of Lobbying Registration.
Another Republican Member complained about some amendments he had not
seen until last night. These are the Republicans' amendments you asked
for. We added them because you asked for them. That is why they are
here. Where is your help, where is whoever it is over there who is
supposed to be reading these amendments? I could go on and on.
What is at stake here today is very simply this: Do you folks want to
join us in making it against the law for lobbyists to buy a free meal
for a Member of Congress or not? Do you want to join with us in making
it against the law for a lobbyist to pay for golf and entertainment for
Members of Congress or not?
Do you want to join with us in making it against the law for
lobbyists to pay for travel with us or not?
That is what is at stake here. We have a rule on the floor today to
let us bring this up on suspension as we intended to before you all
asked for a delay. Now we gave you the delay. It has been 2 days. We
are asking now that we are able to bring it up on suspension today just
as we would have on Tuesday, so we can vote for this bill, make clear
to the American people that these people who work around us here in
Washington, DC, do not have any more opportunity and any more influence
than the folks back home do. That is what is at stake.
I appeal to Members for their vote on this rule. Let us get a clear
vote on this issue and then I appeal to Members to vote for us to pass
this bill, and to help restore some confidence in an institution that
has been much maligned, unfairly maligned, but nevertheless a
perception we have to deal with.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BRYANT. If I have time, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, can he explain to
me, I have carefully read the bill and the definition of lobbyists on
page 14, the provision that exempts those who spend less than 10
percent of their time lobbying and not reporting?
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, if there is time, I am happy to explain.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Visclosky). All time for debate has
expired.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 202, answered ``present,'' not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 89]
YEAS--221
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blackwell
Bonior
Borski
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Byrne
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Glickman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Harman
Hastings
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Hoyer
Hughes
Hutchinson
Inglis
Inslee
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Leach
Lehman
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Mann
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McCurdy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Roukema
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Schenk
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sharp
Shepherd
Skaggs
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swett
Swift
Synar
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Traficant
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NAYS--202
Abercrombie
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentley
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chapman
Clay
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooper
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fish
Ford (MI)
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Huffington
Hunter
Hutto
Hyde
Inhofe
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson, Sam
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
Lambert
Laughlin
Lazio
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lloyd
Machtley
Manton
Manzullo
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Murphy
Myers
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Rangel
Ravenel
Ridge
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Rostenkowski
Roth
Sangmeister
Santorum
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sundquist
Talent
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Torkildsen
Towns
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Washington
Weldon
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--10
Ford (TN)
Gallegly
Gallo
Grandy
Lewis (FL)
Natcher
Pickle
Tauzin
Tucker
Wilson
{time} 1336
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Tucker for, with Mr. Grandy against.
Messrs. LAZIO, HAYES, MANTON, ROTH, and TOWNS, and Mrs. LLOYD changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. BISHOP, HILLIARD, BARCIA of Michigan, CONDIT, GONZALEZ,
ROYCE, ARCHER, MFUME, and STOKES, and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of
Texas changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
Mr. MINETA changed his vote from ``present'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
Senate bill (S. 349) to provide for the disclosure of lobbying
activities to influence the Federal Government, and for other purposes,
as amended, insist on the House amendment thereto, and request a
conference with the Senate thereon.
The Clerk read as follows:
S. 349
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Lobbying Disclosure Act of
1994''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) responsible representative Government requires public
awareness of the efforts of paid lobbyists to influence the
public decision making process in both the legislative and
executive branches of the Federal Government;
(2) existing lobbying disclosure statutes have been
ineffective because of unclear statutory language, weak
administrative and enforcement provisions, and an absence of
clear guidance as to who is required to register and what
they are required to disclose; and
(3) the effective public disclosure of the identity and
extent of the efforts of paid lobbyists to influence Federal
officials in the conduct of Government actions will increase
public confidence in the integrity of Government.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act:
(1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given that
term in section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code.
(2) Client.--The term ``client'' means any person or entity
(including a State or local government) who employs or
retains another person for financial or other compensation to
conduct lobbying activities on behalf of that person or
entity or another person or entity. An organization whose
employees act as lobbyists on its own behalf is both a client
and an employer of such employees. In the case of any person
or entity that employs or retains a lobbyist to conduct
lobbying activities on behalf of another person or entity,
the client is both the person or entity that employs or
retains the lobbyist and the person or entity on whose behalf
the lobbyist conducts lobbying activities. In the case of a
coalition or association that employs or retains other
persons to conduct lobbying activities, the client is--
(A) the coalition or association and not its individual
members when the lobbying activities are conducted on behalf
of its membership and financed by the coalition's or
association's dues and assessments, or
(B) the individual member or members, when the lobbying
activities are, directly or indirectly, financed separately
by one or more individual members and not by the coalition's
or association's dues and assessments.
(3) Covered executive branch official.--The term ``covered
executive branch official'' means--
(A) the President or the President-elect;
(B) the Vice President or the Vice President-elect;
(C) any officer or employee (other than a clerical or
secretarial employee) of the Executive Office of the
President or any individual functioning in the capacity of
such an officer or employee on an unpaid basis;
(D) any officer or employee serving in a position in level
I, II, III, IV, or V of the Executive Schedule, as designated
by statute or executive order;
(E) any officer or employee serving in a Senior Executive
Service position, as defined in section 3132 (a)(2) of title
5, United States Code;
(F) any member of the uniformed services whose pay grade is
at or above O-7 under section 201 of title 37, United States
Code; and
(G) any officer or employee serving in a position of a
confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-
advocating character described in section 7511(b)(2) of title
5, United States Code, including an employee listed in
schedule C of subpart C of part 213 of title 5 of the Code of
Federal Regulations.
(4) Covered legislative branch official.--
(A) In general.--The term ``covered legislative branch
official'' means--
(i) a Member of Congress or a Member-elect of Congress;
(ii) an elected officer of either House of Congress;
(iii) any employee of a Member of Congress or of a
committee of either House of Congress;
(iv) any employee on the leadership staff of the House of
Representatives and any employee on the leadership staff of
the Senate;
(v) any employee of a joint committee of the Congress; and
(vi) any employee of a working group or caucus organized to
provide legislative services or other assistance to Members
of Congress.
(B) Definitions.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)--
(i) the terms ``employee on the leadership staff of the
House of Representatives'' and ``employee on the leadership
staff of the Senate'' have the meanings given these terms in
section 207(e)(4) of title 18, United States Code;
(ii) the term ``employee'' includes any individual
functioning in the capacity of an employee described in
subparagraph (A) on an unpaid basis but the term does not
include a clerical or secretarial employee, and
(iii) the term ``Member of Congress'' means a Senator or a
Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner, to
the Congress.
(5) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Office of Lobbying Registration and Public Disclosure.
(6) Employee.--Except as provided in paragraph (4)(B)(ii),
the term ``employee'' means any individual who is an officer,
employee, partner, director, or proprietor of an
organization, but does not include--
(A) independent contractors; or
(B) volunteers who receive no financial or other
compensation from the organization for their services.
(7) Foreign entity.--The term ``foreign entity'' means a
foreign principal as such term is defined in subsection (b)
of section 1 of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938
(22 U.S.C. 611 (b)).
(8) Grass roots lobbying communications.--The term ``grass
roots lobbying communications'' means--
(A) any communication that attempts to influence any
legislation through an attempt to affect the opinions of the
general public or any segment thereof;
(B) any communication between an organization and any bona
fide member of such organization to directly encourage such
member to make a communication to a covered executive branch
official or a covered legislative branch official with regard
to a matter described in clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of
paragraph (10)(A) of section 3; and
(C) any communication between an organization and any bona
fide member of such organization to directly encourage such
member to urge persons other than members to communicate as
provided in either subparagraph (A) or subparagraph (B).
(9) Lobbying activities.--
(A) Definition.--The term ``lobbying activities'' means
lobbying contacts and efforts in support of such contacts,
including preparation and planning activities, research and
other background work that is intended at the time it is
performed, for use in contacts, and coordination with the
lobbying activities of others. Except as provided in
subparagraph (B), lobbying activities also include--
(i) grass roots lobbying communications, and
(ii) any communication described in clause (iii), (v),
(vii), (viii), or (xvi) of paragraph (10)(B),
to the extent that such communications are made in support of
a lobbying contact.
(B) Religious organizations.--Lobbying activities do not
include grass roots lobbying communications by churches,
their integrated auxiliaries, conventions or associations of
churches, and religious orders that are exempt from filing
Federal income tax returns under paragraph (2)(A)(i) or
(2)(A)(iii) of section 6033(a) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, unless such communications are made by any person or
organization required to be identified under section 4(b)(5)
of this Act.
(10) Lobbying contact.--
(A) Definition.--The term ``lobbying contact'' means any
oral or written communication (including an electronic
communication) to a covered executive branch official or a
covered legislative branch official that is made on behalf of
a client with regard to--
(i) the formulation, modification, or adoption of Federal
legislation (including legislative proposals);
(ii) the formulation, modification, or adoption of a
Federal regulation, Executive order, or any other program,
policy, or position of the United States Government;
(iii) the administration or execution of a Federal program
or policy (including the negotiation, award, or
administration of a Federal contract, grant, loan, permit, or
license), except that this clause does not include
communications that are made to any covered executive branch
official--
(I) who is serving in a Senior Executive Service position
described in paragraph (3)(E), or
(II) who is a member of the uniformed services whose pay
grade is lower than O-9 under section 201 of title 37, United
States Code,
in the agency responsible for taking such administrative or
executive action; or
(iv) the nomination or confirmation of a person for a
position subject to confirmation by the Senate.
(B) Exceptions.--The term ``lobbying contact'' does not
include communications that are--
(i) made by public officials acting in their official
capacity;
(ii) made by representatives of a media organization if the
purpose of the communication is gathering and disseminating
news and information to the public;
(iii) made in a speech, article, publication, or other
material which is widely distributed to the public through
radio, television, cable television, or other medium of mass
communication;
(iv) made on behalf of a government of a foreign country or
a foreign political party and disclosed under the Foreign
Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C. 611 et seq.);
(v) requests for meetings, requests for the status of
matters described in clauses (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) of
subparagraph (A), or other similar requests, if the requests
do not include attempts to influence a covered executive
branch official or a covered legislative branch official;
(vi) made in the course of participation in an advisory
committee subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act;
(vii) testimony given before a committee, subcommittee, or
task force of the Congress, or submitted for inclusion in the
public record of a hearing conducted by such committee,
subcommittee, or task force;
(viii) information provided in writing in response to a
written request for specific information from a covered
executive branch official or a covered legislative branch
official;
(ix) required by subpoena, civil investigative demand, or
otherwise compelled by statute, regulation, or other action
of the Congress or an agency;
(x) made in response to a notice in the Federal Register,
Commerce Business Daily, or other similar publication
soliciting communications from the public and directed to the
agency official specifically designated in the notice to
receive such communications;
(xi) not possible to report without disclosing information,
the unauthorized disclosure of which is prohibited by law;
(xii) made to officials in an agency with regard to--
(I) a judicial proceeding or a criminal or civil law
enforcement inquiry, investigation, or proceeding, or
(II) a filing or proceeding that the Government is
specifically required by statute or regulation to maintain or
conduct on a confidential basis,
if that agency is charged with responsibility for such
proceeding, inquiry, investigation, or filing;
(xiii) made in compliance with written agency procedures
regarding an adjudication conducted by the agency under
section 554 of title 5, United States Code, or substantially
similar provisions;
(xiv) written comments filed in the course of a public
proceeding or other communications that are made on the
record in a public proceeding;
(xv) a petition for agency action made in writing pursuant
to established agency procedures;
(xvi) made on behalf of an individual with regard to that
individual's benefits, employment, or other personal matters
involving only that individual, except that this subclause
does not apply to any communication with respect to the
formulation, modification, or adoption of private legislation
for the relief of that individual;
(xvii) disclosures by an individual to the appropriate
authority on account of which that individual is protected
against adverse personnel actions, or other reprisals, under
the amendments made by the Whistleblower Protection Act of
1989, the Inspector General Act of 1978, or other provision
of law;
(xviii) made by a church, its integrated auxiliary, a
convention or association of churches, or a religious order
that is exempt from filing a Federal income tax return under
paragraph (2)(A)(i) or (2)(A)(iii) of section 6033(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 if the communication
constitutes the free exercise of religion or is for the
purpose of protecting the right to the free exercise of
religion; and
(xix) between--
(I) officials of a self-regulatory organization recognized
by Federal law, and
(II) the Federal regulatory agency with jurisdiction over
such organization,
relating to the regulatory responsibilities of such
organization under such law.
The term ``media organization'', as used in clause (ii),
means an organization engaged in disseminating information to
the general public through a newspaper, magazine, other
publication, radio, television, cable television, or other
medium of mass communication.
(11) Lobbyist.--The term ``lobbyist'' means any individual
who is employed or retained by a client for financial or
other compensation for services that include one or more
lobbying contacts, other than an individual whose lobbying
activities constitute less than 10 percent of the time
engaged in the services provided by such individual to that
client.
(12) Organization.--The term ``organization'' means any
corporation, company, foundation, association, labor
organization, firm, partnership, society, joint stock
company, or group of organizations.
(13) Public official.--The term ``public official'' means
any elected official, appointed official, or an employee of--
(A) a Federal, State, or local unit of government in the
United States other than--
(i) a college or university which is an agency or
instrumentality of the government of any State or of a local
unit of government thereof, or which is owned or operated by
such a government or by any agency or instrumentality of one
or more such governments;
(ii) a government-sponsored enterprise as defined in
section 3(8) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974; or
(iii) a public utility, including any entity that provides
gas, electricity, water, or communications, which is an
agency or instrumentality of the government of any State or
States or of a local unit of government of a State or which
is owned, controlled, or operated by such a government or by
any agency or instrumentality of one or more such
governments;
(B) a Government corporation (as defined in section 9101 of
title 31, United States Code);
(C) an organization of State or local elected or appointed
officials other than officials of an entity described in
clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A);
(D) an Indian tribe (as defined in section 4(e) of the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25
U.S.C. 450b(e)),
(E) a national or State political party or any
organizational unit thereof, or
(F) a national, regional, or local unit of any foreign
government.
(14) The term ``State'' means each of the several States,
the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth territory, or
possession of the United States.
SEC. 4. REGISTRATION OF LOBBYISTS.
(a) Registration.--
(1) General rule.--Not later than 30 days after a lobbyist
first makes a lobbying contact or is employed or retained to
make a lobbying contact, whichever is earlier, such lobbyist
(or, as provided under paragraph (2), the organization
employing such lobbyist), shall register with the Office of
Lobbying Registration and Public Disclosure.
(2) Organization rule.--Any organization that has one or
more employees who are lobbyists shall make the registration
required by paragraph (1) on behalf of such employees.
(3) Exemption.--
(A) General rule.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1) or (2), an
individual or organization whose--
(i) total income for matters related to lobbying activities
on behalf of a particular client (in the case of a lobbyist
making lobbying contacts on behalf of a client other than the
organization employing such lobbyist), or
(ii) total expenses in connection with lobbying activities
(in the case of a lobbyist making lobbying contacts on behalf
of the organization employing such lobbyist),
do not exceed, or are not expected to exceed $2,500 (as
estimated under section 5) in the semiannual period described
in section 5(a) during which the registration would be made
is not required to register under subsection (a) with respect
to such client.
(B) Adjustment.--The $2,500 figure in subparagraph (A)
shall be adjusted--
(i) on January 1, 1997, to reflect changes in the Consumer
Price Index (as determined by the Secretary of Labor) since
the date of the enactment of this Act, and
(ii) on January 1 of each fourth year occurring after
January 1, 1997, to reflect changes in the Consumer Price
Index (as determined by the Secretary of Labor) during the
preceding 4-year period,
rounded to the nearest $100.
(b) Contents of Registration.--Each registration under this
section shall be in such form as the Director shall prescribe
by regulation and shall contain--
(1) the name, address, business telephone number, and
principal place of business of the registrant, and a general
description of its business or activities;
(2) the name, address, and principal place of business of
the registrant's client, and a general description of its
business or activities (if different from paragraph (1));
(3) the name, address, and principal place of business of
any organization, other than the client, that--
(A) contributes or has agreed to contribute more than
$5,000 toward the lobbying activities of the registrant in
the semiannual period described in section 5(a) in which the
registration is made; and
(B) significantly participates or has agreed to participate
significantly in the planning, supervision, or control of
such lobbying activities;
(4) the name, address, principal place of business, amount
of any contribution of more than $5,000 to the lobbying
activities of the registrant, and approximate percentage of
equitable ownership in the client (if any) of any foreign
entity that--
(A) holds at least 20 percent equitable ownership in the
client or any organization identified under paragraph (3);
(B) directly or indirectly, in whole or in major part,
plans, supervises, controls, directs, finances, or subsidizes
the lobbying activities of the registrant; or
(C) is an affiliate of the client or any organization
identified under paragraph (3) and has a direct interest in
the outcome of the lobbying activity;
(5) the name, address, and principal place of business of
any person or organization retained by the registrant (other
than an employee of the registrant) to conduct grass roots
lobbying communications on behalf of the registrant or the
client of the registrant (other than a person or organization
that is separately registered under this Act in connection
with such representation);
(6) a statement of--
(A) the general issue areas in which the registrant expects
to engage in lobbying activities on behalf of the client, and
(B) to the extent practicable, specific issues that have
(as of the date of the registration) already been addressed
or are likely to be addressed in lobbying activities; and
(7) the name of each employee of the registrant who has
acted or whom the registrant expects to act as a lobbyist on
behalf of the client and, if any such employee has served as
a covered executive branch official or a covered legislative
branch official in the 2 years before the date on which such
employee was first required to register as a lobbyist on
behalf of the client, the position in which such employee
served.
(c) Guidelines for Registration.--
(1) Multiple clients.--In the case of a registrant making
lobbying contacts on behalf of more than one client, a
separate registration under this section shall be filed for
each such client.
(2) Multiple lobbyists.--Any organization that has one or
more employees who are lobbyists shall file a single
registration under this section for each client on whose
behalf its employees act as lobbyists covering all lobbying
contacts made by such employees on behalf of such client.
(3) Multiple contacts.--If a registrant makes another
lobbying contact for the same client with a covered executive
branch official or covered legislative branch official, such
contact will not require another registration under paragraph
(1).
(d) Termination of Registration.--A registrant who after
registration does not--
(1) engage in any lobbying activities in a semiannual
reporting period on behalf of the client with respect to
which the registrant registered, and
(2) anticipate any additional lobbying activities for such
client in the 12-month period following such reporting
period,
shall notify the Director of the termination of such
activities and shall not be required to file any additional
reports with respect to such client under this section.
SEC. 5. REPORTS BY REGISTERED LOBBYISTS.
(a) Semiannual Report.--
(1) In general.--No later than 30 days after the end of the
semiannual period beginning on the first day of each January
and the first day of July of each year in which a registrant
is registered under section 4, each registrant shall file a
report with the Office of Lobbying Registration and Public
Disclosure on its lobbying activities during such semiannual
period. A separate report shall be filed for each client of
the registrant.
(2) Exemption.--
(A) Income or expenses of less than $2,500.--Any registrant
whose--
(i) total income for a particular client for matters that
are related to lobbying activities on behalf of that client
(in the case of a registrant described in subsection (b)(3)),
or
(ii) total expenses in connection with lobbying activities
(in the case of a registrant described in subsection (b)(4)),
are less than $2,500 in a semiannual period (as estimated
under paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (b), or paragraph
(3) of subsection (c), as applicable) is deemed to be
inactive during such period and may comply with the reporting
requirements of this section by so notifying the Director in
such form as the Director may prescribe.
(B) Adjustment.--The $2,500 figure in subparagraph (A)
shall be adjusted as provided in section 4(a)(3)(B).
(b) Contents of Report.--Each semiannual report filed under
subsection (a) shall be in such form as the Director shall
prescribe by regulation and shall contain--
(1) the name of the registrant, the name of the client, and
any changes or updates to the information provided in the
initial registration;
(2) for each general issue area in which the registrant
engaged in lobbying activities on behalf of the client during
the semiannual filing period--
(A) a list of the specific issues upon which the registrant
engaged in lobbying activities, including, to the maximum
extent practicable, a list of bill numbers and references to
specific regulatory actions, programs, projects, contracts,
grants, and loans;
(B) a statement of the Houses and committees of Congress
and the Federal agencies contacted by lobbyists employed by
the registrant on behalf of the client during the semiannual
filing period;
(C) a list of the employees of the registrant who acted as
lobbyists on behalf of the client;
(D) a description of the interest in the specific issues,
if any, of any foreign entity identified under section
4(b)(4); and
(E) a list of the specific issues on which any person or
organization required to be identified under section 4(b)(5)
has engaged in grass roots lobbying communications on behalf
of the client;
(3) in the case of a registrant engaged in lobbying
activities on behalf of a client other than the registrant, a
good faith estimate of the total amount of all income from
the client (including any payments to the registrant by any
other person for lobbying activities on behalf of the client)
during the semiannual period, other than income for matters
that are unrelated to lobbying activities;
(4) in the case of a registrant engaged in lobbying
activities on its own behalf, a good faith estimate of the
total expenses that the registrant and its employees incurred
in connection with lobbying activities during the semiannual
filing period; and
(5) a good faith estimate of the total expenses that the
registrant and its employees incurred in connection with
grass roots lobbying communications on behalf of the client
(including any amount paid in connection with such
communications to a person or organization required to be
identified under section 4(b)(5)).
(c) Estimates of Income or Expenses.--For purposes of this
section, estimates of income or expenses shall be made as
follows:
(1) $200,000 or less.--Income or expenses of $200,000 or
less shall be estimated in accordance with the following
categories:
(A) At least $2,500 but not more than $10,000.
(B) More than $10,000 but not more than $20,000.
(C) More than $20,000 but not more than $50,000.
(D) More than $50,000 but not more than $100,000.
(E) More than $100,000 but not more than $200,000.
(2) More than $200,000.--Income or expenses in excess of
$200,000 shall be estimated and rounded to the nearest
$100,000.
(3) Estimates based on tax reporting system.--In the case
of any registrant that reports lobbying expenditures as
required by section 6033 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, regulations prescribed under section 7 of this Act
shall provide that the registrant may make a good faith
estimate of amounts that would be required to be disclosed
under such section of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for
the applicable semiannual period (by category of dollar
value) to meet the requirements of subsection (b)(4), if each
time the registrant makes such an estimate, the registrant
informs the Director that the registrant is making such an
estimate.
(4) Construction.--In estimating total income or expenses
under this section, a registrant is not required to include--
(A) the value of contributed services for which no payment
is made; or
(B) the expenses for services provided by an independent
contractor of the registrant who is separately registered
under this Act.
(d) Contacts.--
(1) Contacts considered contacts with committees.--For
purposes of subsection (b)(2), any contact with a member of a
committee of Congress, an employee of a committee of
Congress, or an employee of a member of a committee of
Congress regarding a matter within the jurisdiction of such
committee shall be considered a contact with the committee.
(2) Contacts considered contacts with House of Congress.--
For purposes of subsection (b)(2), any contact with a Member
of Congress or an employee of a Member of Congress regarding
a matter which is not within the jurisdiction of a committee
of Congress of which that Member is a member shall be
considered a contact with the House of Congress of that
Member.
(3) Contacts considered contacts with Federal agencies.--
For purposes of subsection (b)(2), any contact with a covered
executive branch official shall be considered a contact with
the Federal agency that employs that official.
(e) Extension for Filing.--The Director may grant an
extension of time of not more than 30 days for the filing of
any report under this section, upon the request of the
registrant, for good cause shown.
SEC. 6. PROHIBITION ON GIFTS, MEALS, TRAVEL, ENTERTAINMENT,
REIMBURSEMENTS, AND LOANS; ITEMIZATION OF
CERTAIN EXPENDITURES
(a) In General.--
(1) Registrants and lobbyists.--In accordance with this
section, each registrant (including a lobbyist employed by,
or a lobbyist who is a member of, a registrant) or any client
of a registrant shall be--
(A) prohibited from providing, directly or indirectly,
gifts, meals, travel, entertainment, reimbursements, and
loans described in subsection (b), and
(B) required to make an itemized disclosure of expenditures
described in subsection (c) and provided, directly or
indirectly,
to a covered legislative branch official, to an entity that
is maintained or controlled by a covered legislative branch
official, or to any other person or entity on behalf of a
covered legislative branch official (collectively referred to
in this subsection as a ``covered person or entity'').
(2) Foreign lobbyists.--For purposes of this section, a
registrant or any client of a registrant shall include a
foreign principal (as defined in section 1(b) of the Foreign
Agents Registration Act) and an agent of a foreign principal
(as defined in section 1(c) of such Act).
(b) Prohibition.--A registrant (including a lobbyist) or
any client of a registrant may not provide, directly or
indirectly (with funds of a registrant or a client), to or on
behalf of or for a covered person or entity:
(1) Travel, entertainment, food, and lodging.--Payment for
local or long-distance transportation, entertainment, food,
or lodging, whether provided in kind, by purchase of a
ticket, by payment in advance or by reimbursement, or
otherwise.
(2) Reimbursement.--Reimbursement of an expense.
(3) Loan.--A loan.
(4) Gifts.--Any other item of value.
(c) Disclosure.--With respect to expenditures described in
this subsection, the prohibitions prescribed by subsection
(b) with respect to an expenditure will not apply to a
registrant or any client of a registrant if the registrant
discloses the expenditure of the registrant or the client, in
the registrant's semiannual report under section 5(a) or in a
separate report on itemized expenditures subject to the same
filing requirements, as follows:
(1) In general.--With respect to each expenditure described
in paragraph (2), the registrant shall disclose--
(A) the name and position of the covered legislative branch
official or other covered person or entity to whom or which
or on behalf of whom or which the expenditure was made;
(B) the type of the expenditure;
(C) the date on which the expenditure was made; and
(D) the amount of the expenditure.
(2) Expenditures subject to disclosure.--The following
expenditures are subject to disclosure under paragraph (1):
(A) Necessary travel-related expenditures made by a
registrant described in section 5(b)(4) or a client of a
registrant described in section 5(b)(3) for a covered
legislative branch official or a person on behalf of such an
official in connection with speaking engagements, fact
finding trips, substantial participation in an event
sponsored by an entity described in section 170(c) or 527(e)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and similar events if
the expenditure covers the costs of a trip for a period of
not more than--
(i) 4 consecutive days in the case of domestic travel and 7
consecutive days (excluding travel days) in the case of
international travel, and
(ii) 24 hours before or after such person's actual
participation in the event in the case of domestic travel or
48 hours before or after such person's actual participation
in the event in the case of international travel.
Necessary travel-related expenditures include reimbursements
for necessary transportation whether or not such
transportation occurs within the periods described in clause
(i) or (ii), but does not include expenditures for travel,
lodging, or entertainment collateral to the event or meals
taken other than in a group setting to which all other
attendees are invited.
(B) Honorary degrees and associated meals and entertainment
provided to a covered person or entity.
(C) Food, refreshment, or entertainment provided a covered
person or entity while attending a meeting or event with
persons who are not United States citizens while on official
travel to a foreign area.
(3) Conferences.--With respect to each financial
contribution or expenditure relating to a conference,
retreat, or similar event for or on behalf of covered
legislative branch officials which is sponsored by or
affiliated with an official congressional organization, the
registrant shall disclose--
(A) the nature of the conference, retreat, or similar
event;
(B) the date or dates on which the conference, retreat, or
other event occurred;
(C) the identity of the organization that sponsored or is
affiliated with the event; and
(D) a single aggregate figure for the contributions or
expenditures made by the registrant or client of the
registrant in connection with the conference, retreat, or
similar event.
(4) Events.--With respect to each financial contribution or
expenditure that relates to a widely attended event that is
hosted or cohosted with, or in honor of, 1 or more covered
legislative branch officials, the registrant shall disclose--
(A) the name and position of each such covered legislative
branch official that hosted, cohosted, or was honored at such
event
(B) the nature of the event;
(C) the date on which the event occurred; and
(D) a single aggregate figure for the contributions or
expenditures made by the registrant in connection with the
event.
(5) Charitable contributions.--With respect to each
charitable contribution (as defined in section 170(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986) made in lieu of an honorarium
on the basis of a designation, recommendation, or other
specification made by a covered legislative branch official,
the registrant shall disclose--
(A) the name and position of each such covered legislative
branch official;
(B) the name of any covered person or entity to whom or
which the contribution was made;
(C) the date on which the contribution was made; and
(D) the value of the contribution.
(6) Contributions to legal defense fund.--With respect to
each contribution or other payment made to a legal defense
fund established for the benefit of a covered legislative
branch official, the registrant shall disclose--
(A) the name and position of each such covered legislative
branch official;
(B) the name of any other person or entity to whom or which
the contribution was made;
(C) the date on which the contribution was made; and
(D) the value of the contribution.
(7) Notification.--Not less than 3 weeks after an
expenditure required to be reported under this subsection is
made, the registrant or any client of a registrant who made
or for whom was made such expenditure shall provide, in a
standard format determined by the Office of Lobbying
Registration and Public Disclosure, to any covered person or
entity, whose name the registrant or client intends for the
registrant to include in either the registrant's semiannual
report under section 5(a) or a separate report on itemized
expenditures under this subsection, a complete list of the
information the registrant intends to disclose relative to
that covered person or entity. The registrant shall not list
in its report referred to in this paragraph any information
relative to a covered person or entity who--
(A) was not the subject of the expenditure referred to in
the preceding sentence, or
(B) reimburses the person making such expenditure the full
amount of such expenditure within 30 days of the receipt of
notification under this paragraph.
(d) Exceptions.--The following are not subject to
subsection (b) or (c):
(1) Anything for which market value is paid by the
recipient.
(2) A contribution, as defined in the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) that is lawfully
made under that Act.
(3) An item of little intrinsic value such as a greeting
card, baseball cap, or a T-shirt or a personalized item such
as a plaque, certificate, or trophy that is intended solely
for recognition of a covered legislative branch official.
(4) Food and attendance provided to a covered person or
entity at an event sponsored by an organization described in
section 170(c) or 527(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
(5)(A) An item described in subsection (b) (hereafter in
this paragraph referred to as an ``item'') given under
circumstances which make it clear that the item is given for
a nonbusiness purpose and is motivated by a family
relationship or personal friendship and not by the position
of the recipient. In determining if the giving of an item is
motivated by a family relationship or personal friendship, at
least the following factors shall be considered:
(i) The history of the relationship between the individual
giving the item and the individual receiving the item,
including whether or not items have previously been exchanged
by such individuals.
(ii) Whether the item was purchased by the individual who
gave the item.
(iii) Whether the individual who gave the item also at the
same time gave the same or similar item to other covered
persons or entities.
(B) The giving of an item shall not be considered to be
motivated by a family relationship or personal friendship if
the family member or friend seeks--
(i) to deduct the value of such item as a business expense
on the family member's or friend's Federal income tax return,
or
(ii) reimbursement either from a registrant or from a
client.
(6) Items which are not used and which are promptly
returned to the donor.
(7) Except with respect to items described in subsection
(c)--
(A) attendance, food, and refreshments at widely attended
gatherings, including conventions, conferences, symposiums,
retreats, dinners, receptions, viewings, or similar events if
such attendance, food, and refreshments are unsolicited by
the recipient and provided by the sponsor of the event,
(B) meals or entertainment that are unsolicited by the
recipient and not paid for either directly or indirectly
(including with funds of a registrant or client) by a
lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal (as defined in
section 1(c) of the Foreign Agents Registration Act) and not
paid for either directly or indirectly by a registrant
described in section 5(b)(3), if an employee (other than a
lobbyist) of--
(i) a registrant described in section 5(b)(4), or
(ii) a client of a registrant described in section 5(b)(3),
acting in a representational capacity, substantially
participates in the meal or entertainment, and
(C) modest items of food or refreshment such as soft
drinks, coffee, or doughnuts offered other than as part of a
meal.
(8) Rewards and prizes given to competitors in contests or
events, including random drawings open to the public.
(9) Loans from financial institutions on terms generally
available to the public.
(10) Opportunities and benefits, including favorable rates
and commercial discounts, available to the public or to a
class consisting of all Government employees whether or not
restricted on the basis of geographical considerations.
(11) Pension and other benefits resulting from continued
participation in an employee welfare and benefits plan
maintained by a former employer.
(12) Anything which is paid for by the Government or
secured by the Government under Government contract.
(13) Any gift accepted under specific statutory authority
except section 901 of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (2 U.S.C.
31-2).
(14) Reduced membership or other fees for participation in
organizational activities offered to all Government employees
by professional organizations if the only restrictions on
membership relate to professional qualifications.
(15) Opportunities and benefits offered to members of a
group or class in which membership is unrelated to
congressional employment.
(16) Opportunities and benefits offered to members of an
organization, such as credit unions, in which membership is
related to congressional employment if similar benefits are
broadly available to large segments of the public through
organizations of similar size.
(17) Gifts resulting from the covered legislative branch
official's outside business or employment activities when it
is clear that such benefits have not been offered or enhanced
because of the covered legislative branch official's official
status.
(18) Gifts resulting from the business or employment
activities of a covered legislative branch official's spouse
when it is clear that such benefits have not been offered or
enhanced because of the covered legislative branch official's
official position.
(19) Informational materials that are sent to a covered
legislative branch official's office in the form of books,
articles, periodicals, other written materials, audio tapes,
videotapes, or other forms of communication.
(20) Home State products, food, or other items of minimal
value used primarily for promotional purposes.
(e) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``market value'' when applied to a gift means the retail cost
a person would incur to purchase the gift. The market value
of a gift of a ticket entitling the holder to food,
refreshments, or entertainment is the retail cost of similar
food, refreshments, or entertainment.
(f) Clients.--
(1) Notice to clients.--A registrant described in section
5(b)(3) shall by written notice inform any client of the
registrant of the requirements of this section applicable to
the client. Such notice shall be provided at the time the
registrant registers on behalf of such client under section 4
and at the beginning of each semiannual reporting period
under section 5(a).
(2) Notice by clients.--If a client of a registrant makes
an expenditure which such registrant will be required to
report under subsection (c), the client shall promptly notify
the registrant of such expenditure. Failure to provide such
notice shall be considered to be a violation of this Act.
(g) House Rules.--Clause (4) of Rule XLIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives is amended by adding at the end
the following: ``A Member, officer, or employee of the House
of Representatives shall not accept a gift given by a
lobbyist or registrant subject to the Lobbying Disclosure Act
of 1994 in knowing violation of that Act.''.
SEC. 7. ESTABLISHMENT AND DUTIES OF OFFICE OF LOBBYING
REGISTRATION AND PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) Office and director.--There is established as an
independent agency in the executive branch an Office of
Lobbying Registration and Public Disclosure, which shall be
headed by a Director. The Director shall be appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
The Director shall be an individual who, by demonstrated
ability, background, training, and experience, is especially
qualified to carry out the functions of the position. The
term of service of the Director shall be 5 years.
(2) Compensation.--Section 5316 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
``Director of the Office of Lobbying Registration and
Public Disclosure.''.
(3) Employees and services.--The Director may--
(A) appoint officers and employees, including attorneys, in
accordance with chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53
of title 5, United States Code; and
(B) contract for financial and administrative services
(including those related to budget and accounting, financial
reporting, personnel, and procurement) with the General
Services Administration or such other Federal agency as the
Director determines appropriate, for which payment shall be
made in advance or by reimbursement from funds of the Office
in such amounts as may be agreed upon by the Director and the
head of the agency providing such services.
Contract authority under subparagraph (B) shall be effective
for any fiscal year only to the extent that appropriations
are available for that purpose.
(b) Duties.--The Director of the Office of Lobbying
Registration and Public Disclosure shall--
(1) after notice and a reasonable opportunity for public
comment, and consultation with the Secretary of the Senate,
the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and the
Administrative Conference of the United States, prescribe
such regulations, forms, and penalty schedules as are
necessary to carry out this Act;
(2) provide guidance and assistance on the registration and
reporting requirements of this Act, including the issuance of
published decisions and advisory opinions;
(3) review the registrations and reports filed under this
Act and make such verifications or inquiries as are necessary
to ensure the completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of the
registrations and reports;
(4) develop filing, coding, and cross-indexing systems to
carry out the purposes of this Act, including computerized
systems designed to minimize the burden of filing and
maximize public access to materials filed under this Act;
(5) ensure that the computer systems developed pursuant to
paragraph (4)--
(A) allow the materials filed under this Act to be accessed
by client name, lobbyist name, and registrant name;
(B) are compatible with computer systems developed and
maintained by the Federal Election Commission, and that
information filed in the two systems can be readily cross-
referenced; and
(C) are compatible with computer systems developed and
maintained by the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of
the House of Representatives;
(6) make copies of each registration and report filed under
this Act available to the public, upon the payment of
reasonable fees, not to exceed the cost of such copies, as
determined by the Director, in electronic and hard copy
formats as soon as practicable after the date on which such
registration or report is received;
(7) preserve the originals or accurate reproduction of--
(A) registrations filed under this Act, and
(B) of reports filed under this Act,
for a period of not less than 3 years from the date on which
the registration or report is received;
(8) maintain a computer record of--
(A) the information contained in registrations, and
(B) the information contained in reports filed under this
Act for not less than 5 years after the date on which such
reports are received;
(9) compile and summarize, with respect to each semiannual
period, the information contained in registrations and
reports filed with respect to such period in a manner which
clearly presents the extent and nature of expenditures on
lobbying activities during such period;
(10) make information compiled and summarized under
paragraph (9) available to the public in electronic and hard
copy formats as soon as practicable after the close of each
semiannual filing period;
(11) provide, by computer telecommunication or other
transmittal in a form accessible by computer, to the
Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of
Representatives copies of all registrations and reports
received under sections 4 and 5 and all compilations, cross-
indexes, and summaries of such registrations and reports, as
soon as practicable (but not later than 3 working days) after
such material is received or created;
(12) make available to the public a list of all persons
whom the Director determines, under section 9(c) or 10(c), to
have violated this Act and submit such list to the Congress
on a semiannual basis;
(13) upon request, indicate if an individual who may have
been the subject of a lobbying contact is or has been within
3 years before the date of the request a covered executive
branch official or a covered legislative branch official; and
(14) transmit to the President and the Congress a report,
not later than March 31 of each year, describing the
activities of the Office and the implementation of this Act,
including--
(A) a financial statement for the preceding fiscal year;
(B) a summary of the registrations and reports filed with
the Office with respect to the preceding calendar year;
(C) a summary of the registrations and reports filed on
behalf of foreign entities with respect to the preceding
calendar year; and
(D) recommendations for such legislative or other action as
the Director considers appropriate.
SEC. 8. INITIAL PROCEDURE FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS.
(a) Allegation of a Violation.--Whenever the Office of
Lobbying Registration and Public Disclosure has reason to
believe that a person may be in violation of the requirements
of this Act, the Director shall notify the person in writing
of the nature of the alleged violation and provide an
opportunity for the person to respond in writing to the
allegation within 30 days after the notification is sent or
such longer period as the Director may determine appropriate
in the circumstances.
(b) Initial Determination.--If the person responds within
the period described in the notification under subsection
(a), the Director shall--
(1) issue a written determination that the person has not
violated this Act if the person provides adequate information
or explanation to make such determination; or
(2) make a formal request for information under subsection
(c) or a determination under section 9, if the information or
explanation provided indicates that such person may have
violated this Act.
A determination under paragraph (1) may be published by the
Director with the names redacted if the Director determines
the determination without the names provides useful guidance.
(c) Formal Request for Information.--If a person fails to
respond in writing within the period described in the
notification under subsection (a) or the response is not
adequate to determine whether such person has violated this
Act, the Director may make a formal request for specific
additional written information (subject to applicable
privileges) that is reasonably necessary for the Director to
make such determination. Each such request shall be
structured to minimize any burden imposed, consistent with
the need to determine whether the person is in compliance
with this Act, and shall--
(1) state the nature of the conduct constituting the
alleged violation which is the basis for the inquiry and the
provision of law applicable thereto;
(2) describe the class or classes of material to be
produced pursuant to the request with such definiteness and
certainty as to permit such material to be readily
identified; and
(3) prescribe a return date or dates which provide a
reasonable period of time within which the person may
assemble and make available for inspection and copying or
reproduction the material so requested.
(d) Nondisclosure of Information.--Information provided to
the Director under this section and sections 9 and 10 shall
not be made available to the public without the consent of
the person providing the information, except to the extent
such information may be included in--
(1) any new or amended registration or report filed in
connection with an inquiry under this section; or
(2) a written decision issued by the Director under section
9 or 10 after appropriate redaction by the Director to
protect the interests of innocent parties.
SEC. 9. DETERMINATIONS OF VIOLATIONS.
(a) Notification and Hearing.--If the information provided
to the Director under section 8 indicates that a person may
have violated this Act, the Director shall--
(1) notify the person in writing of this finding and, if
appropriate, a proposed penalty assessment and provide such
person with an opportunity to respond in writing within 30
days after the notice is sent; and
(2) if requested in writing by that person within that 30-
day period, afford the person an opportunity for a hearing on
the record under the provisions of section 554 of title 5,
United States Code.
(b) Determination.--Upon the receipt of a written response
under subsection (a)(1) when no hearing under subsection
(a)(2) is requested, upon the completion of a hearing
requested under subsection (a)(2), or upon the expiration of
30 days in a case in which no such written response is
received, the Director shall review the information received
under this section (including evidence presented at any such
hearing) and section 8 and make a final determination whether
there was a violation and a final determination of the
penalty, if any. If no written response was received under
this section within the 30-day period provided, the
determination and penalty assessment shall constitute a final
order not subject to appeal.
(c) Written Decision.--
(1) Determination of Violation.--If the Director makes a
final determination under subsection (b) that there was a
violation, the Director shall issue a public written
decision--
(A) directing the person to correct the violation; and
(B) assessing a civil monetary penalty in an amount
determined as follows:
(i) In the case of a minor violation, the amount shall be
no more than $10,000, depending on the nature and extent of
the violation.
(ii) In the case of a significant violation, the amount
shall be more than $10,000, but no more than $200,000,
depending on the nature and extent of the violation and the
extent to which the person may have profited from the
violation.
(2) Determination of no violation or insufficient
Evidence.--If the Director determines that no violation
occurred or there was not sufficient evidence that a
violation occurred, the Director shall issue a written notice
of such determination to the person charged. Such notice may
be published by the Director with names redacted if the
Director determines it provides useful guidance.
(d) Civil Injunctive Relief.--If a person fails to comply
with a directive to correct a violation under subsection (c),
the Director shall refer the case to the Attorney General to
seek civil injunctive relief in the appropriate court of the
United States to compel such person to comply with such
directive.
(e) Penalty Assessments.--
(1) General rule.--No penalty shall be assessed under this
section unless the Director finds that the person subject to
the penalty knew or should have known that such person was in
violation of this Act. In determining the amount of a penalty
to be assessed, the Director shall take into account the
totality of the circumstances, including the extent and
gravity of the violation and such other matters as justice
may require.
(2) Regulations.--Regulations prescribed by the Director
under section 7 shall define minor and significant
violations. Significant violations shall be defined to
include a failure to register and any other violation that is
extensive or repeated if the person who commits such
violation knew or should have known that the action
constituting the violation was a violation of this Act.
(f) Limitation.--No proceeding shall be initiated under
this section relating to a registration or report filed or
required to be filed under this Act unless the Director
notifies the person who is to be the subject to the
proceeding of the alleged violation within 3 years after the
date on which such registration or report was filed or was
required to be filed.
SEC. 10. OTHER VIOLATIONS.
(a) Late Registration or Filing; Failure To Provide
Information.--If a person registers or files a report after a
registration or filing is required under this Act, or fails
to provide information requested by the Director under
section 8(c), the Director shall--
(1) notify the person in writing of the violation and a
proposed penalty assessment and provide such person with an
opportunity to respond in writing within 30 days after the
notice is sent; and
(2) if requested by that person within that 30-day period,
afford the person a hearing in accordance with section
9(a)(2).
(b) Determination.--Upon the receipt of a written response
under subsection (a)(1) when no hearing under subsection
(a)(2) is requested, upon the completion of a hearing
requested under subsection (a)(2), or upon the expiration of
30 days in a case in which no such written response is
received, the Director shall review the information received
under subsection (a) (including evidence presented at any
such hearing) and, unless the Director determines, on the
basis of such information, that the late filing or failure to
provide information was justified, the Director shall make a
final determination of a violation and a final determination
of the penalty, if any. If no written response or request for
a hearing was received under subsection (a) within the 30-day
period provided, the determination and penalty assessment
shall constitute a final order not subject to appeal.
(c) Written Decision.--
(1) Determination of violation.--If the Director makes a
final determination under subsection (b) that there was a
violation, the Director shall issue a public written
decision--
(A) in the case of a late registration or filing, assessing
a civil monetary penalty of $200 for each week by which the
filing was late, with the total penalty not to exceed
$10,000; or
(B) in the case of a failure to provide information--
(i) directing the person to provide the information within
a reasonable period of time; and
(ii) except where the Director determines that the
violation was the result of a good faith dispute over the
validity or appropriate scope of a request for information,
assessing a civil monetary penalty in an amount not to exceed
$10,000.
(2) Determination of no violation or insufficient
Evidence.--If the Director determines that no violation
occurred or there was not sufficient evidence that a
violation occurred, the Director shall issue a written notice
of such determination to the person charged. Such notice may
be published by the Director with names redacted if the
Director determines it provides useful guidance.
(d) Civil Injunctive Relief.--In the case of a person
failing to comply with a directive issued under subsection
(c)(2)(A), the Director shall refer such matter to the
Attorney General, who shall seek civil injunctive relief in
the appropriate court of the United States to compel such
person to comply with such directive unless the Attorney
General finds no reasonable likelihood that the Government
would prevail.
SEC. 11. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) Final Decision.--A written decision issued by the
Director under section 9 or 10 shall become final 60 days
after the date on which the Director provides notice of the
decision, unless such decision is appealed under subsection
(b) of this section.
(b) Appeal.--Any person adversely affected by a written
decision issued by the Director under section 9 or 10 may
appeal such decision, except as provided under section 9(b)
or 10(b), to the appropriate United States court of appeals.
Such review may be obtained by filing a written notice of
appeal in such court no later than 60 days after the date on
which the Director provides notice of the Director's decision
and by simultaneously sending a copy of such notice of appeal
to the Director. The Director shall file in such court the
record upon which the decision was issued, as provided under
section 2112 of title 28, United States Code. The findings of
fact of the Director shall be conclusive, unless found to be
unsupported by substantial evidence, as provided under
section 706(2)(E) of title 5, United States Code. Any penalty
assessed or other action taken in the decision shall be
stayed during the pendency of the appeal.
(c) Recovery of Penalty.--Any penalty assessed in a written
decision which has become final under this Act may be
recovered in a civil action brought by the Attorney General
in an appropriate United States district court. In any such
action, no matter that was raised or that could have been
raised before the Director or pursuant to judicial review
under subsection (b) may be raised as a defense, and the
determination of liability and the determination of amounts
of penalties and assessments shall not be subject to review.
SEC. 12. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.
(a) Constitutional Rights.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to prohibit or interfere with--
(1) the right to petition the government for the redress of
grievances,
(2) the right to express a personal opinion, or
(3) the right of association,
protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
(b) Prohibition of Activities.--Nothing in this Act shall
be construed to prohibit, or to authorize the Director or any
court to prohibit lobbying activities or lobbying contacts by
any person, regardless of whether such person is in
compliance with the requirements of this Act.
(c) Audit and Investigations.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to grant general audit or investigative authority
to the Director, or to authorize the Director to review the
files of a registrant, except in accordance with the
requirements of section 8.
SEC. 13. AMENDMENTS TO THE FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION ACT.
The Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C. 611
et seq.), is amended--
(1) in section 1--
(A) by striking out subsection (j);
(B) in subsection (o), by striking out ``the dissemination
of political propaganda and any other activity which the
person engaging therein believes will, or which he intends
to, prevail upon, indoctrinate, convert, induce, persuade, or
in any other way influence'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``any activity which the person engaging in believes will, or
which he intends to, in any way influence'';
(C) in subsection (p) by striking out the semicolon and
inserting in lieu thereof a period; and
(D) by striking out subsection (q);
(2) in section 3(g) (22 U.S.C. 613(g)), by striking out
``established agency proceedings, whether formal or
informal.'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``judicial
proceedings, criminal or civil law enforcement inquiries,
investigations or proceedings, or agency proceedings required
by statute or regulation to be conducted on the record.'';
(3) in section 3 (22 U.S.C. 613), by adding at the end the
following:
``(h) Any agent of a person described in section 1(b)(2) or
an entity described in section 1(b)(3) of this Act if the
agent is required to register and does register under the
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1994 in connection with the
agent's representation of such person or entity.''.
(4) in section 4(a) (22 U.S.C. 614(a))--
(A) by striking out ``political propaganda'' and inserting
in lieu thereof ``informational materials''; and
(B) by striking out ``and a statement, duly signed by or on
behalf of such an agent, setting forth full information as to
the places, times, and extent of such transmittal'';
(5) in section 4(b) (22 U.S.C. 614(b))--
(A) in the matter preceding clause (i) by striking out
``political propaganda'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``informational materials''; and
(B) by striking out ``(i) in the form of prints, or'' and
all that follows through the end of the subsection and
inserting in lieu thereof ``without placing in such
informational materials a conspicuous statement that the
materials are distributed by the agent on behalf of the
foreign principal, and that additional information is on file
with the Department of Justice, Washington, District of
Columbia. The Attorney General may by rule define what
constitutes a conspicuous statement for the purposes of this
subsection.'';
(6) in section 4(c) (22 U.S.C. 614(c)), by striking out
``political propaganda'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``informational materials'';
(7) in section 6 (22 U.S.C. 616)--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking out ``and all statements
concerning the distribution of political propaganda'';
(B) in subsection (b), by striking out ``, and one copy of
every item of political propaganda''; and
(C) in subsection (c), by striking out ``copies of
political propaganda,'';
(8) in section 8 (22 U.S.C. 618)--
(A) in subsection (a)(2), by striking out ``or in any
statement under section 4(a) hereof concerning the
distribution of political propaganda''; and
(B) by striking out subsection (d); and
(9) in section 11 (22 U.S.C. 621), by striking out ``,
including the nature, sources, and content of political
propaganda disseminated or distributed''.
SEC. 14. AMENDMENTS TO THE BYRD AMENDMENT.
(a) Revised Certification Requirements.--Section 1352(b) of
title 31, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking out subparagraphs (A),
(B), and (C) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
``(A) the name of any registrant under the Lobbying
Disclosure Act of 1994 who has made lobbying contacts on
behalf of the person with respect to that Federal contract,
grant, loan, or cooperative agreement; and
``(B) a certification that the person making the
declaration has not made, and will not make, any payment
prohibited by subsection (a).'';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking out all that follows
``loan shall contain'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the
name of any registrant under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of
1994 who has made lobbying contacts on behalf of the person
in connection with that loan insurance or guarantee.''; and
(3) by striking out paragraph (6) and redesignating
paragraph (7) as paragraph (6).
(b) Removal of Obsolete Reporting Requirement.--Section
1352 of title 31, United States Code, is further amended--
(1) by striking subsection (d); and
(2) by redesignating subsections (e), (f), (g), and (h) as
subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g), respectively.
SEC. 15. REPEAL OF CERTAIN LOBBYING PROVISIONS.
(a) Repeal of the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act.--The
Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act (2 U.S.C. 261 et seq.) is
repealed.
(b) Repeal of Provisions Relating to Housing Lobbyist
Activities.--
(1) Section 13 of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3537b) is repealed.
(2) Section 536(d) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C.
1490p(d)) is repealed.
SEC. 16. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO OTHER STATUTES.
(a) Amendment to Competitiveness Policy Council Act.--
Section 5205(e) of the Competitiveness Policy Council Act (15
U.S.C. 4804(e)) is amended by inserting ``or a lobbyist for a
foreign entity (as the terms `lobbyist' and `foreign entity'
are defined in section 3 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of
1994)'' after ``an agent for a foreign principal''.
(b) Amendments to Title 18, United States Code.--Section
219(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended (1) by
inserting ``or a lobbyist required to register under the
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1994 in connection with the
representation of a foreign entity, as defined in section
3(7) of that Act'' after ``an agent of a foreign principal
required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration
Act of 1938'', and (2) by striking out ``, as amended,''.
Section 201(c)(1) of such title is amended by inserting ``or
rule or regulation issued pursuant to section 7353(b) by the
supervising ethics office as defined in section 7353(d)(1)(A)
through (E) of title 5'' after ``as provided by law''.
(c) Amendment to Foreign Service Act of 1980.--Section
602(c) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4002(c))
is amended by inserting ``or a lobbyist for a foreign entity
(as defined in section 3(7) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of
1994)'' after ``an agent of a foreign principal (as defined
by section 1(b) of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of
1938)''.
SEC. 17. IDENTIFICATION OF FOREIGN CLIENT.
(a) Oral Lobbying Contact.--Any person who makes an oral
lobbying contact with a covered legislative branch official
or a covered executive branch official on behalf of a foreign
client shall, on the request of the official, identify the
client on whose behalf the lobbying contact was made, state
that such client is considered a foreign client under this
section, and state whether such person is registered on
behalf of that client under section 4. Such person shall,
within one week of such lobbying contact, send to the covered
legislative branch official or the covered executive branch
official written confirmation of the information provided.
(b) Written Lobbying Contact.--Any person who makes a
written lobbying contact (including an electronic
communication) with a covered legislative branch official or
a covered executive branch official on behalf of a foreign
client shall identify the client on whose behalf the lobbying
contact was made, state that such client is considered a
foreign client under this section, and state whether such
person is registered on behalf of that client under section
4.
(c) Definition.--For purposes of subsections (a) and (b),
the term ``foreign client'' means a foreign entity as defined
in section 3(7) or any organization or combination of persons
under United States or foreign law if more than 50 percent of
its members are foreign entities, if more than 50 percent of
the equitable ownership of the organization or combination is
held by foreign entities, or if more than 50 percent of its
financial support is provided by foreign entities.
SEC. 18. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal
year such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act.
SEC. 19. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, or the application thereof,
is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Act
and the application of such provision to other persons and
circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
SEC. 20. EFFECTIVE DATES AND INTERIM RULE.
(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, the provisions of this Act shall take effect 1 year
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Establishment of Office.--The provisions of sections 7
and 18 and the amendments made by section 16 shall take
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Repeals and Amendments.--The repeals and amendments
made under sections 13, 14, and 15 shall take effect as
provided under subsection (a), except that such repeals and
amendments--
(1) shall not affect any proceeding or suit commenced
before the effective date under subsection (a), and in all
such proceedings or suits, proceedings shall be had, appeals
taken, and judgments rendered in the same manner and with the
same effect as if this Act had not been enacted; and
(2) shall not affect the requirements of Federal agencies
to compile, publish, and retain information filed or received
before the effective date of such repeals and amendments.
(d) Regulations.--Proposed regulations required to
implement this Act shall be published for public comment no
later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act. No later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, final regulations required to implement this Act
shall be published.
(e) Phase-in-Period.--No penalty shall be assessed by the
Director under section 9(e) for a violation of this Act,
other than for a violation of section 6, which occurs during
the first semiannual reporting period under section 5 after
the effective date prescribed by subsection (a).
(f) Interim Reporting Rule.--
(1) Rule.--For 3 years after the date of the enactment of
this Act, any registrant engaged in lobbying activities on
its own behalf that is denied a deduction for expenditures
associated with such lobbying activities under section 162(e)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, may make a good faith
estimate (by category of dollar value) of the amount of the
deduction denied for the applicable semiannual period to meet
the requirements of section 5(b)(4) of this Act. Each time a
registrant elects to estimate lobbying expenditures pursuant
to this paragraph, the registrant shall inform the Director
that it is making such an estimate.
(2) Study.--Within 120 days of the filing of reports by
registrants under section 5 in the second semiannual
reporting period, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall review reporting by registrants under paragraph
(1) in such periods and report to the Congress--
(A) the differences between the definition of lobbying
activities in section 3 and the definition of lobbying
expenditures in such section 162(e) as each are implemented
by regulations;
(B) the impact any such differences may have on the amounts
reported by the registrants who elect to estimate lobbying
expenditures pursuant to paragraph (1); and
(C) any changes to this Act or to such section 162(e) which
the Comptroller General may recommend to harmonize the two
definitions.
(g) Transitional Filing Requirement.--
(1) Simultaneous filing.--Subject to the provisions of
paragraph (2), each registrant shall transmit simultaneously
to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of
Representatives an identical copy of each registration and
report required to be filed under this Act.
(2) Sunset provision.--The simultaneous filing requirement
under paragraph (1) shall be effective until such time as the
Director, in consultation with the Secretary of the Senate
and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, determines
that the Office of Lobbying Registration and Public
Disclosure is able to provide computer telecommunication or
other transmittal of registrations and reports as required
under section 7(b)(11).
(3) Implementation.--The Director, the Secretary of the
Senate, and the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall
take such actions as necessary to ensure that the Office of
Lobbying Registration and Public Disclosure is able to
provide computer telecommunication or other transmittal of
registrations and reports as required under section 7(b)(11)
on the effective date of this Act, or as soon thereafter as
reasonably practicable.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Bryant] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].
(Mr. BRYANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, we have before us today a bill
that is the product of hours and hours of work on the part of many
Members of the House, originally on both sides. Whether or not that
continues to be the case remains to be seen today.
But it arises out of the fact that today in the United States we have
a set of lobbying statutes that do not work, do not require the
disclosure of necessary information so that the public can know what is
going on, does not tell those who do lobby what they have to do and
what they do not have to do, and are for all practical purposes
useless.
Instead we have brought to the House today historic legislation that
would require that lobbyists register, that they disclose what they
spend in the pursuit of their lobbying objectives, that they make clear
exactly what they are doing, and the upshot of it is that the American
people will now know what is going on and who is spending what and who
is doing what in pursuit of the objectives of the many organizations,
most of them good ones, that lobby this Congress in hopes of passing
legislation or changing legislation or defeating legislation.
In addition to that, we have added to this bill legislation that
would change the rules with regard to what a lobbyist is able to spend
money on a Member of the House of Representatives.
{time} 1340
It simply says that a lobbyist no longer will be permitted to buy
lunch or dinner for a Member of Congress, will no longer be able to pay
for golf outings or entertainment for a Member of Congress, or theater
tickets, says they will no longer be able to buy gifts for a Member of
Congress. It is unfortunate that we even need to deal with this because
for 99 percent of the Members of this House this legislation will have
no impact because 99 percent of the Members of this House never come in
contact with any of that anyway.
This place is full of great people. My greatest surprise in coming
here 11\1/2\ years ago was to find how high the quality of people here
on both sides of the aisle was and is, and I am sure it will continue
to be. People come here to do a good job and to serve the public
interest, and they try hard at it, but for whatever reason the
perception in the public today is different, and this legislation is
designed to deal with that perception.
We have faced criticisms from those who do not want to do anything
and criticisms from those who want to do things that will actually
impede our ability to do our jobs. I submit to my colleagues that no
legislation can solve everybody's objections, but this legislation has
come as close as it possibly could.
What am I talking about? I am talking about the letter many of my
colleagues have received from Common Cause saying that as of yesterday
they decided to oppose the legislation. One year ago Common Cause came
before our subcommittee and said to us, ``We want you to disclose all
of the expenditures that lobbyists make on Members of Congress,'' and
what did we say?
We said, ``OK. We're going to disclose all of those except the ones
that we prohibit.''
And so we have prohibited residual expenditures and we required a
disclosure of the rest.
Now, 1 year later, for some reason they decided that they are going
to move the goal and decide that they want--I guess they want
disclosure instead of prohibitions, or they want prohibitions where we
have disclosure. It is not possible to keep up with them.
The fact of the matter is we have prohibited the expenditures about
which most people complain. We have stopped the entertainment, we have
stopped the gifts that can be given today, and we have come forth with
a very, very strong bill.
We have heard from the nonprofits. Most of these nonprofits represent
interests that I agree with, the Sierra Club, many of the nonprofit
hospitals. But the fact of the matter is they should be treated the way
everybody else is treated. It is not fair for us to require that
General Motors disclose its contacts with the executive branch or the
Environmental Protection Agency when at the same time the Sierra Club,
lobbying on the other side of the issue, does into have to disclose its
contacts with the executive branch. I would probably support the Sierra
Club's position, but I believe they ought to be governed by the same
rules that their adversaries are governed by, and that is what the
nonprofits have written our colleagues about: They do not want to be
covered.
I ask my colleagues this question:
``Nonprofit hospitals; do you think that they should not have to
disclose their lobbying contacts with the Department of Health and
Human Services while others, who are in the private business of
providing health care should have to disclose theirs?''
I do not think that is fair, and this bill does not permit that, but
that is what the nonprofits that wrote us letters want us to do.
We have a strong bill. I urge the Members to support it.
Mr. MFUME. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BRYANT. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. MFUME. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Bryant], the sponsor of the legislation, for yielding to me.
Could the gentleman answer a question for me or at least attempt to?
It is my understanding that the nonprofits now, through the files that
they have to disclose with IRS, are engaged in much more disclosure
that the for-profit organizations, and I think what nonprofits are
asking for, everything from the Heritage Foundation to the NAACP, is
the ability to use the definitions and the formula that they already
use to disclose their activities in IRS to comply with the intent of
this bill.
Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I say to the gentleman, Mr. Mfume, let me
answer you in the quickest way possible. The answer to that question is
simply this:
They do not want to have to reveal their lobbying contacts with the
executive branch, and they have cloaked that desire in rhetoric
relating to the IRS regulations. We have been extremely generous with
them in dealing with the way in which they have to keep up with their
expenses, but this is a question of whether or not they can get by with
contacting the executive branch and not having to disclose it, and
we're not going to let them do that. It has nothing to do with the IRS.
Mr. MFUME. I ask the gentleman, ``Aren't those already disclosed in
the IRS forms?''
Mr. BRYANT. The answer is ``no.''
Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEKAS. Members of the House, many moons ago, it seems like a
decade ago, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] and I joined in a
bipartisan effort to bring together the varying registration laws that
were on the books, both for foreign commercial enterprises and
governmental enterprises and for the same side of the domestic issue in
registration, and then we joined, we on a bipartisan basis in a
bicameral, bipartisan grouping, to try to bring some sense into the
lobbying registration issue in our country, and I must say, when we
proceeded on this pathway we felt proud of ourselves in crafting a
pretty good product to present to the Congress of the United States and
to the people. Even though we even left some cracks open, we believe,
even in foreign registration and in domestic registration, nevertheless
it was a good product.
For instance, one hybrid situation arises even today. Suppose a trade
association has as part of its clientele two foreign governments that
are involved in a multi, multifaceted trade association. Should they
not register under our proposition in the FARA, in the Foreign Agents
Registration Act, or under the domestic commercial registration? I
believe that registration under the domestic would be enough, but the
presence of two foreign governments in a hundred trade association kind
of grouping might require FARA. We have got to clear all of that up.
But the point is it is a long way forward in doing what the American
people have always wanted us to do, is get a handle on lobbying
registration. Alas, somewhere down the line, probably because of action
in the other Chamber, a mix was added to this issue when they wandered
into the ethics side of reform measures, and that is what brings us to
a confusing point where we find ourselves now. We are mixing the
registration of lobbyists with gift ban for Members of Congress. It may
be germane; we never really got a ruling on that, but apparently we are
beyond that now.
But I find myself very reluctant now to have the enthusiastic support
I originally had for our lobbying registration efforts. I still have
that, and it still will compel me to vote for the bill at the end, but
I have to be candid with both the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] and
others, that it really is, I believe, a blow to our lobbying
registration efforts to have mixed into it the ethics question of the
ban.
{time} 1350
Madam Speaker, I will support the bill because I want to honor my
commitment, and I think we are doing justice to the Congress in
pursuing lobbying registration, collection, and reform. So I am in a
very uncomfortable position, but that is not new. I will honor the
commitment I made to pursue the passage of this legislation.
Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his cooperation
in this process, and I assure him that as we deal with this matter in
conference, if we get to conference today, we will take into
consideration all the concerns the gentleman has.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEKAS. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Texas very quickly.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Madam Speaker, my concern is not with the lobbying
registration portion of the bill but the prohibition of gifts to
Members.
Would it not be better to have a requirement that a gift of any kind
of character be reported both by the donor and the donee?
Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, if I may take back my time, I favored that
from the beginning. I felt that if we were going to mix apples with
oranges here, at least the oranges should be in the nature of full
disclosure, not a ban. That was my personal preference.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield just briefly?
Mr. GEKAS. I yield briefly.
Mr. WASHINGTON. If that were done, then the public would be able to
compare what gifts we have received and the votes we have made to see
if there is any correlation rather than the inference that we leave by
passing this bill that there is some connection between the two.
Mr. GEKAS. That is right.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, a number of questions have come to my
attention regarding the application of this legislation to specific
organizations which engage in lobbying activities. For example, this
bill will generally require a lobbyist for a foreign commercial entity
to register with the new Office of Lobbying Registration and Public
Disclosure. The same requirement applies to a lobbyist for a trade
association whose membership includes one or more foreign corporations.
It is my view that such a trade association, which is registered to
lobby with the Office of Lobbying Registration, would not also register
under FARA simply because a minority of its members were owned or
controlled by the government of the country in which they are based.
Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
(Mr. CLINGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CLINGER. Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of the
legislation.
I support the provision putting in section 201 of title 18 the
supervising ethics office rules as specifying what officials can, and
cannot, receive. Especially since the 1970's, as the rules in each
branch of Government have changed, officials have had to take the rules
of their branch with the utmost seriousness.
The history and procedures for this provision warrant some
discussion. While each branch's internal ethics offices have roots
going back to the Constitution, it was not until the post-Watergate era
that we saw the creation in the late 1970's of the Office of Government
Ethics, the congressional ethics committees, and the Judicial
Conference's Judicial Ethics Committee.
From the post-Watergate creation of these offices, it was always
intended that such offices give interpretations that would establish
the law to be followed regarding what can be received. Section 201(c)
of title 18, by excepting what is received that is provided by law, had
always made room for such a mechanism of authoritative guidance. No one
familiar with the laws creating these offices imagined that an officer
in any branch, who understood from the interpretations of his ethics
office that he was allowed to receive something, would then discover a
second, different view was held by the authorities who press charges
under section 201(c).
In the face of some dispute of this principle--to the peril of
officials in all three branches--Congress in 1989, by enacting section
7353 of title 5, sought to codify that principle of the rules and
interpretations of each branch providing authoritative guidance. A
floor discussion between two principal authors of the 1989 Ethics Act,
Representative Fazio and Representative McCollum, had expressed again
this principle. This current provision represents the ultimate
codification step for this long-standing principle.
The complexity and changes of ethnic rules and interpretations, and
the resulting need for an appropriate procedure under section 201(c),
can be shown by an example. Take the case of an official in any of the
three branches with a law degree who in 1988 accepted private
reimbursement for a trip for himself and his spouse to a domestic or
foreign bar conference, arranged by a local bar group as a recognition
of his work.
Was he right in how he resolved the question of whether he could
accept the trip, one of those many questions that arise all the time in
this context? The whole idea of having an ethics office in each branch
is so that, in such situations, where there is a need for guidance, the
official can depend on what his ethics office's interpretations said in
1988 could, or could not, be accepted under the contemporary rules. It
should not depend on some second, alternative, external judgment under
section 201(c) by those not involved in that branch's ethics
interpretations. Yet a perfectly ethical legislator, agency lawyer, or
even judge could find himself the target of charges as a result of
following his own branch's rules, and without procedures to protect
him, could even find himself before a jury for resolving what is, after
all, a question of legal interpretation of rules of a kind that Federal
officials have to make every day.
This amendment of section 201(c), in light of that history and
purpose, intends for the protection of the ethical Federal official to
impose certain requirements. By directly amending the description of
the elements of an offense under this statute, it requires that any
charge must explicitly allege, as such an element of the offense, that
each item of challenged reimbursement or receipt was not authorized by
the Federal ethics rules of that branch effective at the time the item
was received. If the official disputes this, a court, on a motion to
dismiss, would review such allegations as a matter of law item by item,
requiring a listing of the items at issue, possibly with current input
from the ethics office of that branch for guidance.
This in an example stated, the charges against the agency lawyer,
legislator, or judge going to the bar conference would be dismissed
unless they explicitly alleged that the ethics rules in that branch in
1988 forbid a reimbursed visit to such a bar conference, and unless the
allegation that the rules so forbid was shown to be true as a matter of
law upon the requisite itemization and testing by motion.
Only in this way can officials who acted consistent with the
interpretations of their supervising ethics offices, including the
congressional ethics committees, at the applicable time have that
recognized in all pending and future cases, whether the issue arose
under the rules 10 years ago, now, or 10 years hence. This will bring
to fruition elaborate 20-years evolution of the elaborate ethics
apparatus--the Office of Government Ethics, the congressional ethics
committees, and the Judicial Conference's ethics and conduct
committees--in each branch of our Government.
Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to what I believe
to be a half-hearted and not altogether honest attempt at lobbying
reform. It is only half a loaf. Even if it were a completely good
lobbying bill, it does not go far enough, and it never will.
Yes, it bans meals, dinners, and gifts from lobbyists, but it does
not ban meals, gifts, and dinners from corporate representatives back
home. Common Cause and The New York Times have editorialized against
it. They do not think it goes far enough.
So even if we support this bill and it passes, we are still going to
catch hell from the newspapers and from the tabloids that want to raise
heck with us. If we want to go out and have a dinner or a golf game
with a hometown corporate leader, the press is still going to condemn
us even if this passes.
This bill does not cover the LSO's, the legislative service
organizations. We have read lots and lots about abuses by those
organizations and the improper contacts they have had with various
representatives around the world. There are big abuses. This bill does
not do anything about that. The bill does not affect the nonprofit
entities and compel folks like Ralph Nader's Public Citizen to disclose
their contributors. Just about 2 weeks ago a man from public citizen
testified that they do not disclose their contributors, even though
more than one person bragged that he's raised $100,000 for them in a
day. The bill does not touch executive branch lobbyists or White House
consultants.
For real reform, what I believe we need to do is go back to the
original prompter of this legislation. Senator Paul Wellstone did not
have as bad an idea--full disclosure of all gifts, all dinners, and all
games by anyone, not relative, over $20 in value, and he put the burden
on the lobbyist to make the disclosure.
Mr. FAZIO. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. No, I will not yield because I do not have enough
time.
Mr. FAZIO. I will get the gentleman some time.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Speaker, if we are worried about disclosure, we
should not accept the gift, we should not go to the dinner, we should
not go to the golf game. Disclosure is the best reform, and this is a
half-hearted attempt at reform.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Kennelly). The time of the gentleman
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has expired.
Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio].
Mr. FAZIO. Madam Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Louisiana
[Mr. Livingston] to engage in a dialog with me. The gentleman is a
friend of mine, and we have had many, many meetings and conversations
about this bill, and I want to try to clarify something.
Anybody who lobbies for anybody, spending 10 percent or more of their
time, is covered by this bill, so if people are lobbying the executive
branch, for example, they would be covered by this bill if it is more
than 10 percent of their time. But I want to ask the gentleman, does he
support the position of those who oppose this bill? I ask that because
in all our conversations I do not remember the gentleman bringing me
the arguments of The New York Times or the Common Cause organization. I
ask the gentleman, where does the gentleman stand on this provision
from their standpoint?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield so I can
reply, first of all, the 10 percent does not mean anything. Who is a
lobbyist? What is a lobbyist?
Is the gentleman telling me that a corporate executive who devotes
all of his time to the affairs of the company and takes you out to a
golf game or a dinner, but does not spend 10 percent of his time is not
a lobbyist? I suggest that he is.
Mr. FAZIO. Madam Speaker, anyone who spends 10 percent of their time
lobbying the executive or legislative branch, regardless of what they
do with the rest of their time, is covered as a lobbyist.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I would suggest that that phrase is
riddled with loopholes. I wish I had known that Common Cause was going
to come out against this bill. I agree with them.
Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
(Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation,
although I recognize, as the chairman of the subcommittee has already
said, that there are improvements to be made along the way in
conference.
Madam Speaker, I rise in qualified support of this lobbying reform
bill. I say qualified, for it is clear that this bill does not do
enough to close the loopholes of our ethics laws.
These loopholes are exactly what is feeding the public perception of
a Congress for sale. With all we have heard and seen of public outrage
on this issue, I expected we would do better on this bill.
Nevetheless, under H.R. 823 we are taking first steps to improve the
situation: We are improving the registration of lobbyists, and
increasing reporting requirements for some meals and gifts. That's
admirable.
On the big issues, however, I am afraid we have missed the boat.
There are loopholes in this legislation. We must address them in
conference with the other body, or this bill will have been a wasted
exercise. Worse, it will fuel the public anger, and perception that
Government access and power are for sale in the Nation's Capital. In a
world where working middle-class families see every day that there is
no free lunch, we're changing the rules, and saying ``there's no free
lunch--except for Congressmen.''
Most glaringly, H.R. 823 prohibits lobbyists from paying for travel,
meals, and entertainment for Members of Congress--but turns around and
allows the employers of lobbyists to pick up the tab. With the lobbyist
in the room. That is, in the words of a wise old man, a ``difference
that makes no difference.''
On this issue the other body has adopted a much stronger piece of
legislation, definitively closing loopholes and legal gimmicks, and
dispelling the notion that any Member of Congress is for sale.
We should follow the lead of the other body, and adopt these real
reform provisions in conference. I support H.R. 823 today because it's
this bill or no bill, and I think we would do a disservice to stop the
process.
But if any ethics reform is to earn my final support, it must contain
comprehensive lobbying and disclosure provisions, and move to restore
credibility to this institution. We can, and we must, do better. but on
this vote we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee
for yielding me the time and I congratulate the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Bryant] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] for an
extraordinary difficult job to be performed in this bill.
Why do I say that? Because we are dealing with perception in this
bill, in my opinion, more than reality.
Members of this Congress and members of the legislative body that I
served with in the past, the Senate of Maryland, are not subject to
being influenced in their votes by the buying of meals or the playing
of a golf game. The fact of the matter is, however, that we have had
gridlock and we have not moved forward.
My opinion is that it is largely a matter of philosophy. There are
significant differences between the executive and the legislative
branches. But our public has said the reason for it is that we have the
special interests.
The reason is that we have lobbyists. The reason is that we have some
relationship with them that they do not feel is good.
Now, there are some who want the perfect who will say, ``Let's not
take the good.'' There are some who editorialize and write in that way.
The common cause is moving forward, not having the perfect be the enemy
of the good.
I have had some involvement with this legislation. I believe it is a
step forward. It is a step to try to say to the American public, ``We
want you to know what is happening, No. 1, and No. 2, we are going to
stop letting some of the things happen that you feel are undermining
the doing of your business.''
Why? Because in democracy we must have the confidence of our people.
Whatever the reality may be, if we have lost the confidence of our
people, we will not be successful as a democracy.
So I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation and move it
forward. It is, difficult piece of legislation, because all of us feel,
first of all, that we are somehow personally being perceived as not
operating honestly. I think we are.
Are there some who fall short of that? There are. There are human
beings in this body. There are some who fall short in our society. But
the overall majority are doing the business as we see fit.
But let us try in this small way to correct the perception, to make
sure we have full lobbying disclosure and make sure the public knows we
are not taking the gifts that they believe are affecting our actions.
I congratulate again the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] for the effort they have made
to move this legislation forward. It is important that we pass it.
It is on suspension, so it will be difficult. We will have to join
together and vote in significant numbers to do that. I suggest to those
who fear this legislation that if this legislation does not move
forward, it will not be what I believe to be a reasonable effort and a
reasonable compromise that passes, it will ultimately be a more
Draconian, less fair proposition that will ultimately pass.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 349, the Lobbying Disclosure
Act and urge my colleagues to join me in moving ahead with this
important reform measure.
The bill before us today continues congressional reform and makes
significant changes in current lobbying registration law. The Bryant
bill demands greater accountability than ever before of those who lobby
the executive branch and the Congress.
S. 349 requires far greater registration by lobbyists and disclosure
of their activities. Unlike current law, S. 349 requires all
professional lobbyists to register if they lobby executive branch
officials, legislative branch officials, and congressional employees
regarding any changes in Federal policy, not just legislation. The new
requirements would also require those who do direct and grass roots
lobbying to register.
Lobbyists are also required to file more detailed reports of their
activities, including estimates of lobbying expenses, identification of
their clients, and issues on which they lobby.
There are provisions of this bill that I do not like. However,
Chairman Bryant has crafted a reasonable and responsible response to
sometimes unreasonable and unrealistic demands. The balanced
legislation that he has structured will continue to allow Members to
represent and communicate with their constituents and their
representatives while ensuring that ethical standards are upheld and
are easily understood by all involved.
There are those in this House who would like to delay and not move
this legislation forward today. In my opinion, that would be a mistake.
To think that we are able to do less than the Bryant bill is to ignore
the realities. To go beyond the reasonable and effective structure of
the Bryant bill is to overreact, and indeed to insult the basic decency
and honesty of public officials and their employees.
Clearly, however, it is time to move on. Each day that we delay this
legislation and allow ourselves to be distracted by these discussions,
we put off the real work of this Congress. It is time to move ahead
past this issue and focus our energy, our intelligence, and our
commitment on the issues of the day which will greatly effect the
everyday lives of our constituents--health care reform, meaningful and
effective crime legislation, and welfare reform.
In the last election we heard a clear message from the American
public to change the way we do business. Those who heard that call is
merely a call to publicly and regularly lash ourselves are as mistaken
as those who think we should do nothing. This legislation is a step
forward. As we address this issue, let us also remember that it is time
to move forward on the agenda of this Congress and the American people.
I for one am happy to have this bill off the to do list and urge my
colleagues to join me in support.
{time} 1400
Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. DeLay].
Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me why we pass
legislation around here. The distinguished chairman of the Democratic
Caucus says we have got to pass this legislation, let me see now,
because of perception in the country. Rather than standing up and
defending the institution, we have got to pass a piece of legislation
because of the perception of the country.
The other reason is to pass this legislation because it could get
worse, Members. So set yourselves up in this little way, because you
could be set up even worse if we get our hands on this once again.
Look, I think we have enough restrictions and regulations and rules
right now that regulate the way that we go. But if we have got to do
something that I support, full disclosure, who are you tell me I am
dishonest because I go out with a lobbyist? And many of you have said
it. How dare you say that I am bought and paid for because I have
dinner with a lobbyist?
It is my constituents who have the right to decide that, not you.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. On that point, some years ago on a white
steed, Jerry Brown was going to improve government in California,
former Governor Jerry Brown. He passed a bill that would limit to like
$15 a month money that could be spent by lobbyists.
Fifteen years ago. Everybody knows how much the legislative process
improved since then. My friend the gentleman from California [Mr.
Fazio] would attest how great it is in California right now.
For Lord's sake, this is paying lip service to improving government
in the name of doing something, and you are doing nothing at all.
Mr. DeLAY. I hear the gentleman's words. The gentleman is so right.
If you do not want to do these things, do not do them. But at least
be honest about it and say we will have full disclosure. You will
decide how to operate yourself, how you will conduct yourself in
working your job, and then disclose everything to the members of your
constituency back home and let them decide whether they can link it up
or note.
This is ridiculous. This is outrageous. This is no fix. What you have
done, as I said earlier on the rule, is set up the Kay Bailey
Hutchinson syndrome. You have set up new criteria by which you can be
charged, whether you are innocent or not, and they will bring you and
drag you through all the processes that they can drag you through, and
you have got to prove you are innocent.
You know, any time we are charged, we are guilty until we can prove
our innocence. And what you are doing with this bill is setting up new
criteria, new restrictions, new rules, by which we can be caught in a
very innocent moment and be charged and drug through the mud.
The only way to fix this is through full disclosure. I urge a no vote
on the bill.
Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Brooks] the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. BROOKS. Madam Speaker, it is with some regret that I rise to
oppose the legislation now being considered by the House. I realize the
good intentions and the motivations that lie beyond trying to craft a
legislative solution to the perceived problem surrounding certain
lobbying activities and gifts to Members of Congress.
I know John Bryant, chairman of the great Subcommittee on
Administrative Law and Governmental Relations is one, in my judgment,
of the brightest and most dedicated Members we have in this body. He is
from Texas, and I am very proud of him. He is an outstanding and able
Member.
But I think in this instance, in a vast majority of the situations,
the problem is a perceived problem and not an actual problem. And the
legislation does raise some disturbing questions about the rights of
every American to redress their grievances before the Government and to
inform and educate decision makers who, after all, are just their
elected representatives. Who else are they going to talk to?
Teachers, doctors, restaurant owners, pipefitters, oil workers,
refineries, chemical plants, every segment of our society, every
segment of our economy, all of those great groups are entitled to
pursue their rights and make their views known to their
representatives.
We do not have to do what they say, but they are entitled to be able
to come and make a pitch. And I think there is no way that any set of
lawmakers, decision makers, can operate with perfect knowledge in a
vacuum without the benefit of information received from the
multifaceted life that we live without the benefit of those who know
best and who know firsthand.
I personally do not take warmly to the idea that seems to lie beneath
the surface of this pending legislation, this general effort, that I
would ever be influenced to lift a finger on behalf of somebody who
bought me a $10.95 dinner. I would rather eat at home with my wonderful
wife. She is a wonderful cook. It is much more pleasant to be home. And
I do, 98 percent of the time. In the fog and panic surrounding the
debate on this issue, common sense has been left at the door in favor
of unfounded suspicions. It is time to bring common sense through the
door and back into the Chamber here.
I want to make one final point. I had originally planned to process a
bill through the full committee in regular order. However, given that
this initiative is a top priority of the bipartisan leadership of the
House, I agreed to having the bill come directly to the Floor for
consideration before the Easter district work period. I do not,
however, view today's approach as setting a precedent that will be
applicable to Committee on the Judiciary considerations of future
legislative proposals in this field, or in any other.
In plain language, I think the bill is not necessary.
Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
Mr. HOKE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I agree there is a lot of fog and panic, and we need
to bring some common sense to this debate. I would like to bring a
different perspective, the perspective of the private sector, where I
just came from not more than 15 months ago.
But I have to tell you that it does, before I share those
perspectives, it does strike me as being a little bit disingenuous that
we are arguing over a $10.95 meal, when in fact the average Member of
Congress takes $250,000 every election cycle in PAC money. What is the
difference when there is special interest money funding congressional
campaigns year after year after year to the tune of right now an
average of $250,000, that we are speaking about this as a different way
to purchase influence or access.
In any event, let me tell you how we dealt with this in my own
company, because I built a company from nothing, and we were in the
retail business of selling car phones. Naturally we had a lot of
suppliers.
We wanted to guard against the possibility that some employee might
be overpaying for something because of influence purchased as the
result of gifts or entertainment.
What we did was we went to a zero tolerance type of approach, where
we said you may not accept any gifts, any meals, any entertainment, any
golf, whatsoever. We just cut it off completely.
I frankly think that is what we ought to do. We should not have a
convoluted system where we have certain exceptions for people that use
less than 10 percent of their time. We should just make it very clear,
very simple, very easy.
This is another ridiculous bill that has all kinds of exceptions. It
is difficult to follow. I am going to vote for it, reluctantly. I think
we ought to have zero tolerance.
I would like to make a couple other observations. The gentleman from
Texas talks about the problem here is the perception, not the reality.
Come on, guys, what is politics? If in politics perception is not
reality, where is perception and reality? Heavenly days, that is what
politics is all about. Of course perception is reality. That is what
this is all about.
The other thing I would like to say is this does not prevent people
from going out to dinner or playing golf. We just have to pay for it.
Just like everybody else, we just have to pay for it. It is not a big
deal.
Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Schenk].
(Ms. SCHENK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
{time} 1410
Ms. SCHENK. Madam Speaker, it is time for this House to finally take
the first steps towards reforming the way that we do business in this
body. This legislation, which is strongly supported by the freshman
Democratic class in this House, represents a first step.
Yes, many of us would like to go further, perhaps even an outright
ban on any gifts or perks. But this is where we stand today.
I would just like to say to my good friend, my colleague for whom I
have enormous respect, the gentleman from Redlands, CA, that I served
in Sacramento under what we call the two hamburgers and a coke rule.
And it did work. It worked for the people of California.
What it did was it banned lobbyists from having big private dinners
in smoky back rooms of restaurants where they had unfair access to
legislators and executive branch officials. It leveled the playing
field.
No, it did not eliminate the crooks. No, it did not eliminate those
who want to do something under the table. No law will ever eliminate
those kinds of people.
What it does, it levels the playing field. The American people have
demanded this reform in the last election, in town meetings, every one
of us who went through the campaign. I think that it just defies our
God-given common sense to say it does not go far enough so let us not
vote for it at all.
If we defeat this bill, we break faith with the American people. I
ask my colleagues to support it.
Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this misguided
approach. If indeed, as the gentleman from Texas told us in his initial
remarks, this is an issue that only affects 1 percent of the Members,
we are going to basically put 99 percent of the Members by his own
words under this micro-managed cockamamie plan that he has got to
somehow make 435 of us defendants and having to hire lawyers to
determine who and when we can go out to lunch with.
Nothing could be more ludicrous. This is like treatment Members of
Congress like some kindergarten kids that we have got to somehow micro-
manage and pass laws to correct. It is just absolutely ludicrous. I
find it personally demeaning. I think every Member here should find it
personally demeaning to think that we have to operate under some kind
of rules like this and then somehow to have to look at that chart every
time we determine whether we are going to go out of the house or not or
leave the office.
I am really disappointed, frankly. I have a great deal of respect for
my friend from Texas, who I serve with on the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, but in this case, I think he has entirely missed the boat. If
he wants to make some things that are reportable and allow the press to
do what they do best, and that is to report all of these things and let
the Member make his own explanations, that is fine. But do not try to
tell me that I cannot do this or I cannot do that.
I am a duly-elected Member of this House of Representatives, by
570,000 people. I resent the fact that I have to follow these stupid
rules to tell me how to live my life.
Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I understand the sentiments behind the
gentleman's words, but the point is that we are only relating this to
people who are registered lobbyists, who in effect are the lawyers in
the courtroom. They should not be able to take the judge to lunch. That
is what this is about.
Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, my only problem with the lobbyist part of
it is these gift bans and the so-called bans that we are going to have,
which are going to make everybody in this House hire a lawyer just to
make sure that they do not get stuck like Kay Bailey Hutchison got
stuck.
Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Browder].
(Mr. BROWDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BROWDER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this reform
and the work of the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Fingerhut].
(Mr. FINGERHUT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FINGERHUT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me, and I thank the gentleman from Texas for his work.
Mr. PENNY. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FINGERHUT. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. PENNY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
legislation. I simply want to say that I am delighted that this is a
tougher and tighter bill than many of us may have expected. It deserves
our strong support. I compliment all of those who worked so hard to
bring this measure to the floor, including the chairman and the
gentleman in the well.
Mr. FINGERHUT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
I simply want to take one moment to say that with all this debate we
sometimes forget what this bill is about.
There are a couple simple questions before the House. First, should
everyone who lobbies, who actually engages in the business of
professional lobbying register and disclose to the American public all
those moneys that they spend to influence the course of legislation?
The answer is yes.
Second, should those people who register as lobbyists and are engaged
in this business be prohibited from providing direct financial benefit
to Members of Congress? The answer is also yes.
We have heard a lot of opposition, some of it very principled indeed.
Members who simply disagree with this approach. Others have been using
the argument that we do not go far enough, but Common Cause, the New
York Times oppose this legislation so we should, too.
Let me say this: The role of the New York Times, the role of Common
Cause is to push us. It is to criticize. It is to say what the outer
limits of things are.
I started in politics as the chairman of Common Cause in the State of
Ohio and am a proud member of Common Cause, but I understand what they
are supposed to be doing. They are supposed to point out exceptions,
some of the exceptions which we have agreed to at the request of the
minority. Our job is to say this is time to move forward, that this is
legislation that takes a significant step forward. Our job is to tell
the American people that this is important, that we can make a
difference in the way that this body runs, if we support it. We need to
support it today.
We are bringing it up under Suspension of the Rules. Two-thirds of
this body need to stand up and tell the American people it is
important. I believe we will do that. I believe we should do that and
send the message out to the American people that we have heard what
they are concerned about. We are responding. We are going to make the
decisions in this body in the best interests of the people, not because
of the special interests.
Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I just would like to ask the gentleman from
Texas a question so I understand about this bill.
As I look at it, it looks like a painting by Picasso. I mean, touched
with genius but a little oddly shaped.
Is it true, let us say RJR Nabisco Holdings pays for my way over to
Majorca to address a group of their executives over there and take 7
days in the trip and talk to people about the emotional disturbances
involved in selecting French pastries or something and come back to
this country. As along as they disclose it, that is perfectly all
right. But their lobbyists cannot buy me lunch at Bull Feathers. Is
that true?
Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, the answer is, the gentleman must perform
his speaking duties within 48 hours of arriving and leave within 48
hours of speaking, and they must disclose every 6 months all that they
spent on the gentleman on that trip.
If the gentlemen can withstand that public scrutiny, he can take the
trip. But if he cannot, he should not take the trip.
Presently, that is not the case.
Mr. HYDE. But they have to pay for that trip.
Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Mica].
Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, let me speak again to some of the loopholes
of this bill. Probably the biggest flaw in this legislation is the
definition of lobbyists and the 10 percent requirement under this bill
we have heard bantered around today. That is the loophole that will
allow the 20,000 attorneys in this town to still conduct business as
usual.
Ten percent is a loophole that we are creating and an opportunity for
people to become involved in this process without reporting.
Let me say that this bill, and I want to correct my statement
earlier, this bill creates civil penalties instead of the current
criminal penalties. The civil penalties are enforced by the Department
of Justice. Which is stronger, criminal or civil penalties?
I did not say this would allow the continued trips to Florida and
other glorious spots. Common Cause stated that. I am not an attorney.
Common Cause and their legal people have read this bill and said that
it does not prohibit such trips.
{time} 1440
This bill has loopholes that the lobbiest does not even have under
the current law, exemptions for the $2,500, the $5,000 organization
exemptions, the 10-percent exemptions.
I would ask the gentleman, why not, if someone is paid money or
receives money from clients to influence legislation or the executive
branch, anyone, then it should be reported: If someone is a paid as a
lobbyist, then simply report it.
Again, this bill has loopholes big enough to drive a lobbyist's
limousine through. What is sad about this, too, is that it creates a
farce on the American people. It does not address the problems of
foreign lobby registration or the revolving door, the things that
people are fed up with.
Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
(Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EMERSON. Madam Speaker, with all deference to the sponsors of
this bill, and as one who has been involved with serious reform efforts
here in the Congress, I have to say that I think this legislation is an
affront to this body. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] is correct.
If we are going to clean things up, realistically, let us have full
public disclosure. Let us just disclose it all. That would help restore
confidence in this institution.
I might say, full public disclosure is also the answer to campaign
finance reform. However, this legislation is not enforceable. Someone
once said that unenforceable laws bring derision on the system. I
suggest that this proposal is not realistically enforceable, and will
bring greater derision on the Congress than it currently suffers.
The other gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks], in his appeal to common
sense, stated the case very well. We may think we are addressing the
problem here, but we are only addressing perceptions. If we would
address reality, the perceptions would correct themselves.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Kennelly). The time of the gentleman
from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] has expired.
Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I will start quickly. There are not five people on
this floor or listening over C-Span that even know what this bill is
about. The bill being passed out on the floor right here is not the
bill the Members are voting on. Nobody can come to this floor and say
they even know what they are voting on, and I will bet there are not
five people that know that there is going to be an independent branch
agency set up in the executive government that does not even exist now,
called, or excuse me, the Department of Justice, that is being passed
out on the floor, does not exist any longer. It is now the Office of
Lobbying Registration and Public Disclosure, who is going to set up
rules, regulations, cross-indexing, filing. This has not even had a
hearing in this House.
If the Members want to vote for something because they are panicked
about the public, what the hell are they going in front of their
constituents for to tell them that they deserve to give you a vote? If
you want to pass lobbying registration, then do it, but do not come
down on the floor because you are scared of your own constituents. Vote
on a bill that you have read before you cast a vote, if you really mean
to be a Member of the House of Representatives.
Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Madam Speaker, I regret having to respond so firmly to the gentleman
from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie], but if he is talking about people who
have not read the bill, I suggest the gentleman speak for himself.
The provision to which he has referred has been in this bill since
November. It has been well-read, well-stated, and there have been
hearings upon it. I regret that he was not part of the process.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Utah [Ms.
Shepherd].
Ms. SHEPHERD. Madam Speaker, I first want to commend the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Bryant] and the Democratic leadership for having the
courage to come forward with this bill. Precisely what they were
concerned would happen is happening, which is that people who do not
want it to pass at all are trying to pick it apart and say it is not
good enough.
Madam Speaker, let me say what the people want. It does not matter if
we are talking about the Salt Lake Tribune, where 75 percent of the
people think that it is a conflict of interest for members of any
legislative body to have lobbyists spend money on them, or whether we
are talking about any poll, hundreds of polls taken across this country
by the people of this country. They think that spending money to talk
to us is a conflict of interest.
Madam Speaker, it has been said here that this is half a loaf. That
is wrong. It is not half a loaf. It is impossible to say that it is a
full loaf, but I can tell the Members, it is every slice but the heel,
and I invite each of the Members who think this bill is not strong
enough to join with me in coming years and we will whittle away at it
and we will make it stronger every year, because that is our
responsibility to the people of this country.
Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Burton].
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Madam Speaker, let me say that I am for full reporting. I believe
there should be instilled in the public, confidence in this body. If we
have lunch with somebody and we want to report it, I think that is
fine. I think if somebody plays golf with someone, that should be
reported. That is fine.
However, here we are, and we are going to impose penalties on people
that have lunch with somebody or play golf with somebody, and a much
greater issue, as far as influence is concerned, are the contributions
that we get for our campaigns.
Many people will vote for this legislation today and talk with self-
righteous indignation if we vote against it, and they will go out and
take a $5,000 contribution from a PAC and say that does not have as
much influence as if they have lunch with somebody. That makes no
sense. There is no logic to it.
Madam Speaker, I think that the best way to address this problem, if
we want to instill public confidence, is to have the full
reportability. That is fine. For us to say somebody who takes $25 for a
lunch with somebody or plays golf with somebody, you have committed a
crime, while at the same time you are taking $5,000 from their PAC,
that does not make sense.
Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself my remaining time to close
debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] is
recognized for 3 minutes.
(Mr. BRYANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I hope I can complete this without using
the full 3 minutes, because I think much of what needs to be said has
been said.
Madam Speaker, I would simply say this to the comments by the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] just a moment ago, and the others
preceding him, that the fact of the matter is that campaign money goes
into a campaign, and the money we are talking about here in one way or
another ends up in our pockets, or relieves us of an expenditure. I
think that is the difference.
I would say one additional thing, we are also well underway here with
a dramatic revision of the campaign laws, so it is not as though we are
not paying attention to that.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BRYANT. I yield briefly to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, briefly I would say that
anybody in this body who believes that a lunch would have more
influence than a $5,000 contribution from a PAC I do not think is
living in the real world.
Mr. BRYANT. Let me ask the gentleman a question. Maybe a rhetorical
question will do some good.
Does the gentleman think the rules ought to permit him to go and play
golf and have a lobbyist, whose job it is to convince him to vote for
his client and maybe against the people that are sitting here with us
today, that the lobbyist ought to be able to pay for the gentleman's
greens fees?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman will continue to yield, if he
gives me a $1,000 or $5,000 contribution, or gives that to you, if I
were going to be corrupt, which I am not, but if I were going to be
corrupt, that would have a much greater influence on me than a round of
golf.
Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, we are going to deal with contributions
later, but we are dealing with the free golf games today.
My question is this, does the gentleman think that the rules of this
place ought to permit him to have a lobbyist, whose job it is to
influence him, pay for his greens fees?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. He is not influencing me if I play a round of
golf with him, for crying out loud.
Mr. BRYANT. Very well.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let my constituents judge by having me report
all that. I am for complete reportability, but my constituents can
judge better than that.
Mr. BRYANT. I thank the gentleman. In responding to my remarks, he
has placed this issue in clear relief. The plain fact is this. We have
a bill on the floor today which is going to say that henceforth, a
lobbyist whose only job is to come and influence us cannot pay for our
greens fees. We ought to pay for them ourselves. He cannot buy us
meals. We ought to pay for them ourselves. He cannot provide
entertainment. If we want entertainment, we should pay for it
ourselves.
That is what is at issue here today. I regret having to deal with
this. I will stick by my guns from a moment ago. I think it is a fact
that 99 percent of the Members of this House are not influenced by
those expenditures, but the perception that we are, to a large extent,
has been fostered by the comments like those we have heard today from
the other side of the aisle, as well as a few on our side of the aisle.
Unfortunately, we have to deal with it.
{time} 1430
The fact of the matter is that we have got a bill on the floor today
that deals with it in a way that makes sense. I do not know about these
loopholes. I heard the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] talking a
while ago about loopholes, and he keeps talking about loopholes. I do
not see any loopholes. There are no loopholes in this bill. That is the
fact. Members cannot make those expenditures anymore.
Mr. ROSE. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BRYANT. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. ROSE. Madam Speaker, just one question. May I see a copy of the
bill?
Mr. BRYANT. It is right next to the gentleman.
Mr. ROSE. I have a Xerox copy. Has the bill been printed?
Mr. BRYANT. I have to refer to the staff.
Mr. ROSE. The staff says that it has not been printed.
Mr. BRYANT. Very well. What is the difference?
Mr. ROSE. I do not have any questions. The bill has not been printed
and nobody has a copy.
Mr. BRYANT. The bill is sitting on the podium right in front of the
gentleman, if he wants to read it, and furthermore, I would say the
bill has been out since the subcommittee reported it out last November.
So if any Member has not read it, it is not the fault of the
subcommittee.
Madam Speaker, I urge Members to vote for the bill and do a good deed
for this body and this institution.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 823, the Lobbying
Disclosure Act of 1993. As chairman of the Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance, I want to express my
appreciation to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] and his staff for
their willingness to work out appropriate language regarding two
matters in the bill that affect matters within the jurisdiction of the
subcommittee.
First, I would like to comment very briefly on one of the exceptions
to the definition of ``lobbying contact'' in the pending bill. H.R. 823
provides an exception for communications ``between officials of a self-
regulatory organization recognized by Federal law, and the Federal
regulatory agency with jurisdiction over such organization, relating to
the regulatory responsibilities of such organization under such law.''
This exception is included in the bill in recognition of the fact
that certain Federal statutes, such as the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, delegate substantial Federal regulatory responsibilities to
private self-regulatory organizations, such as the national securities
exchanges and the National Association of Securities Dealers. These
organizations exercise these responsibilities in close coordination
with and under the supervision of Federal agencies--the Securities and
Exchange Commission in the case of securities self-regulatory
organizations. Because they share responsibilities under Federal
statutes, the communications between these agencies and these self-
regulatory organizations are more like communications between two
levels of Government than communications between a regulator and a
regulated entity.Thus, an exemption parallel to the exemption for
communications among Government officials is appropriate.
In a March 9, 1994, letter to Congress, a copy of which I will insert
into the Record following the conclusion of my statement, SEC Chairman
Arthur Levitt expressed concerns about the impact of the bill on the
SEC's ability to work with the various securities self-regulatory
organizations on regulatory and enforcement matters. I am pleased that
we have been able to work out language which would provide for a narrow
exception to the disclosure provisions of the bill. This will allow the
self-regulatory organizations to carry out their important
responsibilities to assist the Commission in the enforcement of the
Federal securities laws, including insider trading, market
manipulation, and surveillance and regulation of our Nation's
securities markets. The self-regulatory organizations would remain
subject to the provisions of H.R. 823 will respect to their
communications with Congress and all parts of the executive branch
other than the Federal agency with jurisdiction over such
organizations.
I also want to note that the bill deletes a provision which appeared
in earlier drafts of H.R. 823 which would have repealed section 12(i)
of the Public Utilities Holding Company Act of 1935 [PUHCA]. The
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance had not had an
opportunity to fully review the implications of such an amendment to
PUHCA and determine its impact on the protections afforded to
investors, consumers and the public under PUHCA. I therefore appreciate
the willingness of the gentleman from Texas to defer action on this
matter and allow our subcommittee to undertake such a review and
determine whether repeal of the PUHCA lobbying disclosure provision is
needed.
Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] and his
staff for their willingness to accommodate the concerns that Chairman
Dingell and I had with respect to these matters, and I urge my
colleagues to support this important legislation.
U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission,
Washington, DC, March 9, 1994.
Hon. John Bryant,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental
Relations, Committee on the Judiciary, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bryant: I am writing to comment on the
application of the Lobbying Disclosure Act, H.R. 823, to the
unique relationship between the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'') and the self-regulatory organizations
(``SROs'') that, under SEC supervision, handle much of the
day-to-day regulation of the securities industry.
Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, there are four
types of self-regulatory organizations: national securities
exchanges, such as the New York Stock Exchange and American
Stock Exchange; a national securities association, the
National Association of Securities Dealers (``NASD'');
securities clearing agencies, such as the National Securities
Clearing Corporation; and, for some purposes, the Municipal
Securities Rulemaking Board (``MSRB'').
As their name implies, the self-regulatory organizations
other than the MSRB are responsible under the Exchange Act
for developing and enforcing SRO rules their members. (The
MSRB develops rules for the municipal securities industry but
has no enforcement role.) The Exchange Act requires that all
SRO rules, rule changes and policies be filed with the SEC
and, with certain exceptions, proposed SRO rules may not take
effect until the SEC approves them. In fiscal year 1993, the
SROs filed over 450 proposed rules with the SEC.
In addition, the SEC has an active program of SRO
inspection, to confirm that the SROs are fulfilling their
responsibilities under the Exchange Act. In fiscal year 1993,
the SEC conducted 40 SRO inspections. The SEC also conducts
examinations of firms already examined by the SROs to assure
the quality of SRO broker-dealer examinations. In fiscal year
1993 the SEC conducted more than 400 such oversight
examinations.
The Exchange Act also requires an SRO other than the MSRB
to ``enforce compliance'' by its members and associated
persons with the Exchange Act itself. The SROs have broad
powers, under the Exchange Act, to discipline their members
and persons associated with them, including the power to
censure, to fine, and to bar from membership or association.
Since the Exchange Act requires every broker-dealer to be a
member of the NASD, or to effect transactions only on a
national securities exchange of which it is a member, the
SROs' power to bar a firm from membership, or a person from
association, is essentially the power to exclude a firm or
person from a substantial part of the securities industry.
In fiscal year 1993, the SROs reported more than 1,000
disciplinary actions to the SEC. A firm or person subject to
an SRO sanction may, under the Exchange Act, appeal the
sanction to the SEC: in fiscal year 1993 there were 71 such
appeals. In cases in which the SRO's preliminary
investigation suggests that an SRO sanction may be
inadequate--such as suspected insider trading--the SROs refer
enforcement matters to the Commission. There were over 150
such enforcement referrals in fiscal year 1993.
These figures give some sense of the breadth and frequency
of contact between the SEC and the SROs. This communication
is essentially governmental; the SEC and the SROs communicate
about how best to exercise the responsibility they share
under the Exchange Act for policing and overseeing the
securities industry. Thus, for the same reasons that
communications between federal and state or local officials
are exempt under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, we believe that
communications between the SEC and the SROs should be exempt.
To paraphrase the Senate Report, it would not be
``appropriate to require public officials at one level of
government,'' the SROs, ``to register as lobbyists when they
express their views to public officials at another level of
government,'' the SEC.
Specifically, we would like to see an addition to the list
of exclusions from ``lobbying contact'' for communications
``between officials of a securities self-regulatory
organization and of the Securities and Exchange Commission.''
The SROs would thus remain subject to the Lobbying Disclosure
Act with respect to their communications with Congress and
all parts of the Executive Branch other than the SEC. The
SROs would not be required to report, however, all the
communications they have, many of which are required by law,
with the SEC.
If this approach is not acceptable to the Committee, we
would like to discuss alternatives with you. If you have any
questions about this, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely yours,
Arthur Levitt,
Chairman.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member intends to support the
Lobbying Disclosure Act as it is a small step forward in providing
increased disclosure of lobbying efforts. This measure represents the
latest effort in a longstanding, if intermittent, attempt by Congress
to rewrite Federal lobby disclosure laws. This Member certainly
supports the provisions providing for the registration of all those who
lobby Members of Congress, congressional staff, and executive branch
officials. The measure also requires lobbyists to file semiannual
reports on what legislation, regulatory actions, grants, and projects
they are lobbying. These semiannual reports must also disclose the
lobbyists' income from clients or the total expenses their organization
has incurred for lobbying, including grassroots activity.
However, this Member must also express reservations regarding the
provisions which ban lobbyists from providing meals, entertainment,
travel, or gifts to Members of Congress or their staffs. This
reservation is expressed because this seems a disingenuous attempt at
such a ban because the measure is structured to allow a lobbyist's
employer, or the organization or company that retains a lobbyist, to
pay for such items and activities. The so-called ban is simply an
illusion because as a practical matter, organizations and clients--not
their lobbyists--pay for these items and activities.
Additionally, while this Member is supportive of the disclosure
requirements for lobbyists, the Member has concerns regarding the
measure's coverage of only professional lobbyists or paid lobbyists.
Full public disclosure must, in this Member's opinion, be extended to
all lobbyists--including nonprofit groups that rely on grassroots.
Again, while this Member has a number of reservations regarding this
measure, this Member supports the Lobbying Disclosure Act as an overall
positive move toward greater disclosure of lobbying activities. It is
simply a matter of the public having a right to know about these
activities.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my
opposition to S. 349, the Lobbying Disclosure Act. While I recognize
and support strong efforts to bring more openness and accountability to
our legislative process, I do not believe that this legislation
sensibly accomplishes this goal. In fact, in some respects S. 349
paints Members as apologists for carrying out the important work which
our constituents sent us to this body to perform.
The business of the Congress is ordering the priorities of the
millions of people and interests in the country. We accomplish this by
listening to the concerns and voices of constituents and others at a
variety of times and settings, including over meals or during
conferences.
Yet certain provisions in this bill imply that accepting an
invitation to a lunch or a dinner is improper, and by accepting such an
invitation my decision on a particular issue or piece of legislation
will be influenced. This is simply not true, and I believe that most--
if not all--of my colleagues would agree to this proposition. And in
fact, language in this bill allows Members to accept meals from clients
of lobbyists or interest groups, thereby really providing only the
appearance of a change in current policy in this area.
Such incidental provisions will have little effect on day-to-day
business in Washington. the Congress needs to address the more
important and fundamental issues that underlie lobby reform and the
public's disenchantment with this institution. The question is not
whether Congress is selling votes for baubles and trinkets. They are
not and I resent this view. The real question here is how do we expand
the ability of more individuals and groups to have a voice in the
governing process. This will come through more open, bipartisan
cooperation in tackling such issues as crime, health care, and welfare
reform.
We in this body need to stop pointing fingers and playing to public
hysteria and stereotypes of Congress and get on with the vital
legislative business of the Nation. I do not believe that I and my
colleagues need to legislate our integrity. Tangible results are what
count, not politicking, and the American people know that.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on S. 349.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Speaker, I am in opposition to the rule to H.R. 823, the
Lobbying Reform and Disclosure Act.
Given the complexity of current congressional lobbying and gift
disclosure rules, proper consideration of H.R. 823 is essential. This
has not been the procedure. In fact, H.R. 823 was not even considered
by the full House Judiciary or Administration committees before being
sent, after the House had adjourned for the evening, to the Rules
Committee for its ``stamp'' of approval. Members of the House Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct should also review H.R. 823 but have
not had the opportunity to review the bill we are now considering.
This bill should not be considered under ``suspension of the rules,''
which bypasses the normal legislative review process and limits the
opportunity to engage in full debate on this important issue. Although
H.R. 823 contains improvements in congressional lobbying rules, there
are detailed, substantive issues which should be addressed to
strengthen the bill.
H.R. 823, as Common Cause points out in its March 23 letter, ``fails
to end the practices whereby special interests seeking to influence
Congress finance recreational travel and provide undisclosed food and
entertainment for Members of Congress and their staffs.'' According to
Common Cause, House Members took, during one Congress, 4,000 trips at
private expense. Two-thirds of the trips were paid for by corporations
and trade groups, and many were to resorts and vacation spots. H.R. 823
should be strengthened to prohibit these types of trips.
I am also concerned that H.R. 823 does not adequately address
contributions of foreign governments and lobbyists representing foreign
interests to certain foundations and legislative service organizations
[LSOs] in the Congress. LSOs and their affiliated organizations should
be covered under any new lobbying reform law. These organizations are
not included in H.R. 823.
Just as there are organizations that should be covered under H.R.
823, there are individuals who should be included but are not. The role
of ``consultants'' in the executive branch, for example, should be
included in the legislation. Certain people represent presidential
administrations in the media and function as advisors, however, they
are not full-time administration officials. As the minority leader of
the House recently detailed in a letter to the Speaker of the House, a
provision should be added to H.R. 823 which would disclose the work or
possible conflicts of interests of volunteers, national party-paid
consultants or special Government employees working within the
executive branch by triggering disclosure requirements when an
individual in entitled to enter Government offices beyond that access
given to the general public. The contents of lobbying reports should be
expanded to include significant ``consulting'' of executive branch
activities that influence governmental policy and decisions.
The time to pass lobbying reform legislation is long overdue and I
reluctantly rise in support of the bill. However, there is an
opportunity to make H.R. 823 a more effective, responsive bill by
allowing for consideration of amendments that would address the
mentioned weaknesses, and more. For this reason, I urge my colleagues
to vote against the proposed rule on H.R. 823 and to vote to provide a
vehicle for passage of comprehensive, effective legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Kennelly). The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] that the House
suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 349, as amended, insist
on the House amendment thereto, and request a conference with the
Senate thereon.
The question was taken.
Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 315,
nays 110, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 90]
YEAS--315
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Archer
Bacchus (FL)
Bachus (AL)
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Becerra
Beilenson
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blackwell
Blute
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Buyer
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cantwell
Carr
Castle
Chapman
Clayton
Clinger
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Conyers
Coppersmith
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cunningham
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doolittle
Dornan
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Glickman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Harman
Herger
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hoyer
Huffington
Hughes
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Inslee
Istook
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
Kingston
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Klug
Kolbe
Kreidler
Kyl
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Lazio
Leach
Lehman
Levin
Levy
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Long
Lowey
Machtley
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Manzullo
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Meyers
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Morella
Murphy
Myers
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Ridge
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Santorum
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Saxton
Schenk
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sharp
Shaw
Shays
Shepherd
Skaggs
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swett
Synar
Talent
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Unsoeld
Upton
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walsh
Waxman
Weldon
Wheat
Williams
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--110
Abercrombie
Allard
Applegate
Armey
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Barton
Bateman
Bentley
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Brewster
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Bunning
Burton
Callahan
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Cooper
Crane
DeLay
Dingell
Dooley
Dreier
Edwards (TX)
Emerson
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Fish
Ford (MI)
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodling
Grams
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Hilliard
Hobson
Houghton
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
King
Knollenberg
Kopetski
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Livingston
Lloyd
McCandless
McCollum
McMillan
Meek
Mfume
Mica
Michel
Moorhead
Moran
Murtha
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Pickett
Porter
Quillen
Rangel
Ravenel
Roberts
Rose
Rostenkowski
Rush
Schaefer
Scott
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (OR)
Stokes
Stump
Sundquist
Swift
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thompson
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Walker
Washington
Waters
Watt
Whitten
Wilson
NOT VOTING--9
Cardin
Ford (TN)
Gallegly
Gallo
Grandy
Lewis (FL)
Natcher
Pickle
Solomon
{time} 1457
Mr. WHITTEN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. BLACKWELL, YOUNG of Alaska, PETE GEREN of Texas, BISHOP,
INHOFE, ZELIFF, ARCHER, PAYNE of Virginia, HOEKSTRA, TORKILDSEN,
BOUCHER, PASTOR, PAYNE of New Jersey and Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Ms. ROYBAL-
ALLARD, and Mrs. VUCANOVICH changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the Senate bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the provisions of House
Resolution 397, the House insists on its amendment and requests a
conference with the Senate thereon.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
appointment of conferees to S. 349
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Kennelly). Without objection, the Chair
appoints the following conferees to S. 349 and the House amendment:
Messrs. Bryant, Glickman, Frank of Massachusetts, Fish, and Gekas.
There was no objection.
____________________