[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.

                          ____________________