[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 139 (Thursday, September 29, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 29, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 349, LOBBYING 
                         DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1994

  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 550 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 550

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (S. 349) to provide for the disclosure of lobbying 
     activities to influence the Federal Government, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration are waived except for the 
     provisions of clause 2 of rule XXVIII (the three-day 
     availability requirement for conference reports). The 
     conference report shall be considered as read.

                              {time}  1200

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Meek of Florida). The gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Frost] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], pending which I 
yield myself such time as I may consume. All time yielded during the 
debate on this resolution is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, with the exception of House rule 28, clause 
2(a) which requires a 3-day layover for conference reports, House 
Resolution 550 waives all points of order against the conference report 
to accompany S. 349, the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1994. The Committee 
on Rules has recommended this rule in order to allow Members adequate 
time to study the provisions of this landmark bill while assuring that 
the conference report can be expeditiously considered prior to the 
adjournment of the 103d Congress.
  The committee believes the waivers provided for in this rule will 
actually allow the House to consider legislation which is stronger than 
it was when it was passed by the House in March. This is because the 
conference report contains new provisions relating to gifts which are 
more restrictive than those passed by either the House or the Senate. 
The conference report bans lobbyists from offering, and Members from 
accepting, meals, entertainment, travel was well as contributions to 
charities, legal defense funds, or congressional retreats.
  The imposition of these restrictions sends a clear message to the 
electorate: that Members of this body represent the will of the people 
and not the will of monied special interests. It may be considered 
naive in some circles to believe that the men and women who serve in 
this body are decent and honorable and cannot be influenced by a meal 
or a golf game. But, I believe every Member of this body understands 
that to reject this legislation would call our intentions as 
legislators and representatives of the people into question. I call 
upon each and every Member of this House to send the message that we 
are responsive to our constituents, that we do understand their 
concerns about the integrity of this institution, and that we care 
enough about our Government and our country to impose these new, strict 
rules on ourselves.
  Madam Speaker, this conference report is not just about meals and 
golf games. It seeks to completely revamp the rules governing the 
activities of those individuals who are hired to influence the outcome 
of the legislative process in Washington. This law will cover all 
professional lobbyists and requires them to reveal how much they are 
being paid to lobby whom and on what issues. The new rules imposed on 
lobbyists will be enforced by a new independent agency in the executive 
branch and the rules of the House and Senate will be amended to cover 
the requirements and restrictions of this legislation. Enforcement in 
Congress will be undertaken by the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
  Madam Speaker, the American people sent the Congress a clear signal 2 
years ago that business as usual was not acceptable. While it may seem 
to some that these new rules are a long time in coming, I should point 
out that this bill has been carefully crafted to protect first 
amendment rights while assuring that no one person or interest will 
have an undue influence on the Congress. This legislation represents a 
landmark in the evolution of the Congress as the body closest to the 
people: It provides the assurance that we, all of us, believe in the 
people, by the people and for the people.
  I urge adoption of this resolution in order that the House may 
consider and pass this conference report.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, today is the 259th legislative day of the 
so-called reform Congress with approximately six exciting, action-
packed legislative days remaining before we adjourn sine die. If this 
rule is adopted, we will complete the final sad chapter on the reform 
Congress that was not.
  This rule and the bill it makes in order, S. 349, are indicative of 
the Democrat leadership's penchant for undermining any attempts to 
change the status quo in this institution.
  Take, for example, the work of our much heralded Joint Committee on 
the Organization of Congress. Unlike the legislation before us, the 
joint committee was created to reform the internal operations of 
Congress and alleviate an institutional crisis that breeds gridlock and 
undermines the ability of Members to effectively legislate.
  Elements of this crisis include:
  Closed rules that, as a Washington Post editorial pointed out this 
week, are used by the Democrat leadership to distort debate and gag 
Democrats and Republicans alike from offering popular amendments;
  A lack of long-term planning by House and Senate leaders which has 
created erratic legislative schedules that place terrible pressures on 
family life and district work schedules;
  A lack of confidence in the Federal budget process under which 
timetables are rarely followed, caps are evaded, budget cuts not what 
they appear, and programs are not evaluated to determine if they are 
accomplishing their intended purpose; and
  An overstaffed and archaic committee system which has created abuses 
of power, fractured attention, interest group dominance and 
jurisdictional gridlock.
  Madam Speaker, the leadership's sorry track record on reform issues 
is now on display today with this so-called lobbying reform and gift 
ban bill. The procedures that created this bad bill are exactly what 
reform would correct.
  There was no committee deliberation in the House that would have 
alerted the American people back home that the Democrat version of 
lobby reform meant taking away their right to communicate with their 
Member of Congress. The problem with this bill is that when the 
American people call for lobby reform, they want to reform the way 
inside Washington, DC works. They do not want to reduce their ability 
to communicate from home to Washington. If anything, we need more 
influence from the grass roots to shake up the closed door influence 
peddling of inside Washington.
  The legislation is disingenuous in other ways, Madam Speaker. For 
example, a group of lobbyists cannot buy a $10 lunch for a Member of 
Congress while discussing legislation because it would be perceived as 
an undue influence. Yet that same group of lobbyists can form Political 
Action Committees and have the same conversation while handing that 
Member up to $10,000 in campaign contributions. That is something that 
the Democrats do not want to change.
  In addition, lobbyists who violate the rules will face stiff fines 
and other penalties while Members of Congress who violate those same 
rules will face at most a slap on the wrist from the Ethics Committee.
  It is ironic, Madam Speaker, that we are being asked to consider a 
bill that imposes an array of onerous new rules on the American people 
under a procedure that violates all but one of the rules under which we 
are required to operate. And we wonder why the American people are so 
cynical toward the Congress.
  Madam Speaker, bad bills and bad rules seem to go hand in hand in 
this institution, and this bill and rule are no exception.
  Madam Speaker, I include for the Record the Washington Post editorial 
referred to earlier as well as the rollcall votes in the Committee on 
Rules on S. 349.
  The material referred to follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Sept. 27, 1994]

                       Closed Rules in the House

       Senate Republicans have been denounced by indignant 
     Democrats in recent days for using the filibuster rule to 
     obstruct and thwart majority rule. The indignation is 
     deserved, but the Democrats should cast their net more 
     broadly. In the House, it's they who have been bending the 
     rules for years to fend off what would otherwise be majority 
     votes.
       Twenty years ago, most legislation went to the House floor 
     under an open rule. Almost any amendment was in order so long 
     as it was germane. Today, in order to maintain control, the 
     Democratic leadership has had to tile in the oppose director 
     most major bills are considered under restrictive rules that 
     either bar amendments entirely or list in advance and limit 
     those than can be offered.
       In the 95th Congress, Jimmy carter's first, the Rules 
     Committee, which is a creature of the leadership, granted 211 
     rules, 85 percent of them open. In Ronald Reagan's first 
     Congress, the 97th, the figure was still 75 percent. By the 
     102d Congress, the last of the Bush Administration, it was 34 
     percent.
       Nor is that the only example of a cracking down. 
     Republicans complain that the Democrats have made it harder 
     to offer floor amendments to appropriations bills saying no 
     funds may be used for disputed purposes. They note that key 
     committees (including Rules) are filled with more Democrats 
     than the overall House party ratios would allow. They say the 
     minority is denied a fair share of staff on some committees 
     and is sometimes denied what would otherwise be committee 
     victories by rubbery rules with regard to proxy voting and 
     the existence of quorums. They object to the erratic 
     enforcement of a rule meant to ensure that members have a 
     chance to read legislation--particularly the work of House-
     Senate conference committees--before they have to vote on it. 
     They are surely right about this practice. Members are 
     sometimes forced to vote on bills they haven't read and into 
     which provisions have been inserted that might not be able to 
     stand the light of day; the crime bill was a recent example.
       The Democratic leadership and its defenders don't so much 
     deny that these things are done as say that the Republicans 
     do them too--which is not exactly to address the charges. At 
     any rate, they cheerfully acquiesce in these practices when 
     it suits their interests. The Democrats also claim that they 
     aren't thwarting majority rule in the same way filibusters do 
     in that no rule for floor debate in the House can be adopted 
     except by majority vote, and sometimes rules are defeated. 
     But not even the stoutest Democrat denies that a principal 
     purpose of the restrictive rules is protective. They're 
     typically used to bar amendments that would likely pass if 
     offered and could sink the underlying bill is passed.
       Republicans like to say the Democrats, who have controlled 
     the House since 1955, are acting out of arrogance. But in 
     fact they're acting out of weakness. They have less control 
     of the House than the nominal lineup of 256 Democrats and one 
     independent to 178 Republicans would suggest. On many issues, 
     enough conservative Democrats are prepared to vote with the 
     Republicans to give them the majority unless the votes can be 
     avoided. Avoidance has thus become the game. But in the House 
     no more than in the Senate is that a defensible way to 
     govern.
                                  ____


Rollcall Votes in the Rules Committee on the Rule for S. 349, Lobbying 
                             Disclosure Act

       1. Dreier Motion on 3-day Layover Rule--Motion to exempt 
     for the waiver of points of order the provisions of clause 2 
     of rule XXVIII, the three-day layover requirement for 
     conference reports. Adopted: 5-4. Yeas: Beilenson, Solomon, 
     Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Bonior, Hall, 
     Slaughter. Not Voting: Derrick, Frost, Wheat, Gordon.


  AN AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. DREIER TO THE RULE FOR S. 349, LOBBYING 
                         DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1994

       At line 4, insert the following before the period: ``except 
     for the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXVIII (the three-day 
     availability requirement for conference reports)''.
       Explanation: This amendment to the rule would exempt from 
     the blanket waiver of points of order the provisions of 
     clause 2 of rule 28 which prohibit the consideration of a 
     conference report until the third day on which it is 
     available to Members.

  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to our revered Republican leader, 
the gentleman from Peoria, IL [Mr. Michel].
  (Mr. MICHEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MICHEL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Some say 
it is easy for Bob to oppose the rule; he is retiring. Yes, I am. 
Perhaps that fact allows me some freedom to say some things that ought 
to be said. But those who know me well realize I would speak my mind 
under any given set of circumstances.
  For the past several Congresses I have been consistently and 
forcefully urging real reform of this House, first our ethic laws, then 
our campaign laws and congressional rules. We succeeded in 1989 in 
achieving significant reforms in House ethics. We eliminated honoraria, 
limited the gifts to Members and staff and called for full and complete 
disclosure, and that is always the key.
  Back in March of this year we passed a lobbying bill that focused on 
the lobbyists banning gifts to Members and staff. We in effect put a 
``scarlet L'' on their foreheads to clearly identify them, and there is 
nothing wrong with that. But in this measure before us today it is no 
longer just lobbyists we have banned, it is instead just about every 
other American. In our lust for public approval, we have lost sight of 
our true goal, which is to reform ourselves, not to create a whole new 
class of officially designated ``usual suspects.''

                              {time}  1210

  Given the fear and loathing with which Congress is held by the 
public, it is no surprise some of us have succumbed to panic and 
embraced this bill. But creating a new set of rules is no substitute 
for true reform.
  And what about real reform, as the gentleman from California was 
talking about a few moments ago? Where is campaign reform? It is not in 
this bill. Where is the ban on campaign contributions from political 
action committee lobbyists? It is not in this bill.
  Would you believe this bill approves a lobbyist giving you a $5,000 
contribution at one instance, but it prohibits that very same lobbyist 
from taking you to McDonald's for a Big Mac? How ridiculous can we be?
  And there will be others who will demonstrate with several anecdotes 
today of how this bill is just absolutely ridiculous.
  Is there any wonder why, I guess, there is so much public cynicism 
out there.
  We were elected to wrestle with the legislative issues of the day. 
Here we are today demeaning ourselves by saying, ``Oh, please stop me 
before I accept another cup of coffee and a Danish. Lock me in the 
closet, bolt the door, lest I succumb to the blandishments of those 
unscrupulous demons who can buy my soul with a round of golf.'' This is 
not self-reform. It is self-flagellation, a practice which may have a 
fascinating attraction to some, but I consider it degrading and 
debasing, and what is more important, not really reform.
  I think Members will recognize that I have deeply respected this 
institution over my tenure here, dedicated really my life's energies to 
it, but, my friends, you do not redeem yourselves by passing this 
conference report. It actually confirms everything negative, every 
suspicion people have about this House.
  Contrary to popular myth, the trouble with this institution is not 
endemic moral corruption, but refusal to implement real reforms such as 
those I spoke of earlier. No amount of bills like the one before us 
today is going to cure us of that failure. Our faults, dear colleagues, 
lie not in our perks but in our posturing.
  I would urge Members to vote against this rule or at least to 
recommit the conference report.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 6 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Madam Speaker and Members, we today embark on the last step in an 
attempt to pass legislation which will restore public confidence that 
we are operating in a way that legislation that passes this institution 
is passed free of daily influence from lobbyists who, in the view of 
the public, should not be--in Washington, DC, or anywhere else--buying 
our meals, paying for golf, paying for tickets to the theater or the 
ball game, or flying us across the country to participate in some type 
of charitable or noncharitable golfing event.
  I think that the speech just made by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Michel] was one that certainly was heartfelt, and I think it reflected 
a very high opinion of this institution which I completely share, but 
the bottom line of it is it was a speech in favor of continued free 
meals, continued free tickets to the ball game and to the theater, and 
continued free trips clear across the country to play golf at the 
expense of the very people who are paid to come here and influence us 
and try to obtain a specific outcome in a legislative activity.
  What is before us at this moment is the rule. Members, when we passed 
the bill in March, many of you voted against it--and there were not 
very many, I might point out--many who voted against the rule said they 
did so because the bill was not tough enough. I think there are many of 
us that understood that what they really wanted to say was they did not 
want the bill to pass because they did not want to give up their 
freebies. They said the bill was not tough enough. Well, now it is. 
Many of those who voted against it cited the opposition to the bill of 
Common Cause and the New York Times. They now support this measure, as 
does Public Citizen, the Washington Post, and others who have 
editorialized in favor of the strong legislation.
  We are here today requesting the rule to pass that would give us a 
waiver of points of order against the conference committee report for 
one reason: because several tough new gift provisions that are included 
in the report go beyond the scope of the conference. The vote on this 
rule is a vote on the provision to make this entire bill tougher. If 
you are in favor of making it tougher, as many of you said you were 
when the bill passed last March, this rule allows us to make it 
tougher. We have done exactly what many opponents to the bill said they 
wanted.

  For example, while the Senate-passed lobbying bill covered gifts from 
lobbyists, and the House-passed bill covered gifts from lobbyists and 
others such as clients, the conference report which we want to bring to 
the floor pursuant to this rule contains rules covering all gifts given 
to Members or staff.
  Second, both the Senate- and House-passed lobbying bills required 
only disclosure of charitable contributions given in lieu of honoraria, 
of contributions to congressionally affiliated retreats and 
contributions to legal defense funds, but the conference report which 
will be brought to the floor today pursuant to this rule bans lobbyists 
from making these types of gifts.
  Third, both the Senate- and House-passed bills allowed privately 
funded travel and lodging for recreational events such as charity golf 
tournaments, if the travel-related expenditures were disclosed. The 
conference report bans privately funded travel and lodging for 
substantially recreational events or for other charity events. The bill 
also requires staff to get approval from their supervising Members 
before traveling, and requires disclosure of travel expenses by Members 
and staff within 30 days after returning from a trip.
  The conference report makes the legislation stronger, and what we are 
asking for when we ask you to vote for this rule is to give us 
permission to make this bill stronger.
  Many of these new provisions are based on a separate gift reform bill 
that passed the Senate by a vote of 95 to 4 on May 11, and as Members 
know, the conference report was filed on Monday, and was laid over for 
3 days. Everybody has had an opportunity to take a look at it.
  We have been at this for over 18 months. Everybody has had an 
opportunity to have input into this legislation, both in the 
subcommittee and in the ad hoc committee that was appointed by the 
Republican leader and the Speaker.
  They have had as much time to learn about this legislation as they 
possibly could.
  I was astonished to learn last night for the first time in the entire 
18-month history of this bill that the Republican whip stood on the 
House floor and attacked this bill and said that somehow or another it 
was going to limit the ability of grassroots organizations, in 
particular religious organizations, to lobby. Nothing could be further 
from the truth. That is a ruse to protect the desire of many Members of 
this Congress, and I am afraid to say some of them who may very well be 
engaged in this debate, to keep on playing free golf and keep on eating 
free meals and keep on getting free tickets to the baseball games and 
the football games. That is a ruse.

  I will read to you a letter from the Baptist Joint Committee which we 
just received. We asked them to clarify their position on the 
conference report because they supported the bill, as well as the U.S. 
Catholic Conference and the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism. 
I am hesitant to take the time to read the entire thing. I want to read 
this paragraph. It says:

       I am, therefore, puzzled by Mr. Gingrich's letter 
     questioning this legislation on the basis of the effect that 
     it would have on religious organizations. I think he is 
     plainly wrong. We very much appreciate your willingness to 
     accommodate religious liberty concerns in this legislation 
     and appreciate the cooperation of your staff.--J. Brent 
     Walker, General Counsel.

  Let me just say if you are going to be against this bill, stand on 
the floor and say you are against it because you want to keep on 
getting free meals and free dinners and you want to keep playing free 
golf. Do not hide behind the skirts of legitimate public-interest 
organizations and churches. They are happy with the bill. This does not 
hurt them.
  It is the same language we have had in the bill for 18 months. If you 
were concerned about it, where have you been the last 18 months?
  Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BRYANT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. The Christian Coalition, amongst others, does oppose it.
  But let me ask the gentleman, in which bill was the grassroots gag 
that the gentleman now brings to the floor in this particular 
legislation?
  Mr. BRYANT. There is no grassroots gag. I would urge you to hew to 
the truth as you talk about this bill, because it is virtually the same 
language that passed the House back in March. We have not changed it. 
If you were concerned about it, I say to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], where have you been the last 18 months?
  Mr. WALKER. The point is under which the bills was the grassroots gag 
originally brought in that allows a Government bureaucrat to determine 
how it applies to religion?
  Mr. BRYANT. There is no grassroots gag, and I am not going to give 
you time to allow you to say that. There is no grassroots gag. If you 
want to keep playing free golf, admit it.
  Mr. WALKER. I do not play golf. Maybe the gentleman does.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], my Committee on Rules companion.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Texas was 
very sanctimonious and self-righteous just a few minutes ago. I know he 
is an honorable man, but one of the things that concerns me is he is 
putting a penalty in here if you have a Big Mac with somebody. I know 
nobody is going to buy his influence. But he got $10,000 this year from 
the United Steelworkers, $10,000 in PAC contributions; $10,000 in PAC 
contributions. He got $5,000 from the United Auto Workers PAC. Now, a 
Big Mac will not buy any influence from anybody. I am sure $15,000 will 
not buy influence from anybody. But there is some kind of a 
contradiction. Why is it that we can get $15,000 or $20,000 or from a 
political action committee, like the gentleman from Texas has, but we 
cannot have lunch with someone? That makes no sense. This is an 
absolutely insane piece of legislation.

                              {time}  1220

  Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Rules 
Committee actually did the right thing--and resisted the pressure by 
those who have labored over the intricacies of this bill for 18 months 
to rush blindly forward and pass it without reading it thoroughly. The 
Rules Committee protected Members' rights by voting to uphold House 
rules that allow Members who are not familiar with the minutiae of this 
conference report, the normal 3 days to review the details. The caption 
in the House newspaper, Roll Call, labeling this process ``Bungling by 
the Rules Committee,'' says more about the bias of Roll Call as a tool 
of the power structure around here. I hope my colleagues availed 
themselves of that time and are prepared today to discuss and vote on 
this bill with full knowledge of what it contains.
  As the debate unfolds, I expect some will say this bill contains good 
policy changes while others are just as sincere in their concern that 
this bill, with all its exceptions and vague definitions will establish 
rules that Members and ordinary citizens will have trouble adhering to.
  I think it is appropriate that Members of Congress not accept 
expensive meals, gifts or travel from lobbyists. But this bill 
establishes new definitions for the rest of the world--the 
nonlobbyists--definitions that we can expect to be much more confusing 
in practice than they are in the legislative language.
  The world is now defined in three categories: lobbyists, 
nonlobbyists, and family or personal relations. In many cases, the 
specifics of how this bill will apply to these three groups are left to 
the Ethics Committee to work out--a challenging mission, to say the 
least, for our Ethics Committee. For example, under this bill, a 
nonlobbyist still can buy a Member lunch in Washington as long as it 
costs less than $20, but that same nonlobbyist can spend more for a 
Member's lunch in the Member's home State. How much more? That is left 
to the Ethics Committee to decide. To add more confusion, a lobbyist 
can buy a Member lunch or football tickets, if that lobbyist has a 
personal relationship with that Member. How do we define personal 
relationship? Again, it is left up to the Ethics Committee to provide 
clarification and guidance on these changes--another enormous task of 
the committee. I say this not because the Ethics Committee is unwilling 
or unable to perform these functions, but because Members should 
understand that all the answers are not in this bill--in fact, in my 
view this bill raises almost as many questions as it answers and I 
expect Members will be fumbling around for many months trying to sort 
out all the distinctions.
  Legislating morality is always difficult--but that is our task in 
considering this bill. The one thing we need to remember is that we are 
here to serve our constituents--not ourselves.
  But I am puzzled why the Ethics Committee was not fully consulted in 
development of this legislation. I do not believe this matter is ripe 
for consideration and I believe the Ethics Committee should have had 
input in crafting this bill. I will vote ``no'' on this rule and urge 
other to do so because it is so vague and so ambiguous that it demands 
further work.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Speaker, I would urge my colleages on the other side to be a 
little more restrained in terms of the language that they use during 
this debate. No one is interested in asking that words be taken down, 
but I would urge my colleagues to debate this on the merits and to 
enjoin the issue on the merits.
  Madam Speaker, this is a serious matter that deserves a serious 
discussion. There are strong feelings on both sides on this issue. Let 
us deal with the merits and let us not deal with individuals as this 
debate proceeds.
  Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I would hope the same thing would apply to the people 
on the other side of the aisle who have suggested anybody who opposes 
this is in favor of being corrupt. That kind of thing also should not 
be done.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Fingerhut].
  Mr. FINGERHUT. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  I also would agree with the comments on both sides that we ought to 
discuss this issue on the merits.
  Let me first begin by thanking the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] 
for his hard work on this issue. He has indeed struggled over the last 
18 months to bring together as many groups that have an interest in 
this issue, as many objections as have been heard; religious 
organizations, civic organizations, et cetera, to seek to reach a good 
and effective compromise.
  Let me try in just my brief time to walk us through what it is that 
we are doing here today in this legislation.
  It is absolutely clear that over the course of the last decade or so 
that practice of professional lobbying has grown to be an industry of 
some significance here in this Capital. It has gone beyond just having 
professionals come to our offices to make the case on particular pieces 
of legislation. It has grown to include the practice of developing so-
called grassroots lobbying networks, phone banks,  sophisticated 
targeting of Members, the practice of encouraging phone calls, et 
cetera. All of this has become part of a very sophisticated public 
relations industry, all of which is intended to influence the course of 
legislation here in Washington.

  The current state of the law, however, is that only a very small 
percentage of those individuals who are engaged in that activity must 
register their activities with the Government so that the public can 
have that information, and only a very small part of those moneys that 
are spent by those interest groups to try to influence the legislation 
in this body is in fact known to the public.
  So what this bill does is it does two things that are really very 
significant but also, I think, very straightforward, despite all of the 
debate we are going to hear.
  The first thing is that it says that everyone one who is engaged as a 
profession in the business of trying to influence the course of 
legislation in the Congress or in the executive branch ought to 
register with the Government so that the public and the media can have 
access to that information.
  Second, they ought to report for the public information, for the 
media information, that which they are spending to influence the course 
of activities of legislation in the Congress and of legislation in the 
Federal Government.
  And, yes, that includes if they are using sophisticated network of 
phone banks and whatever else it is to try to generate so-called 
grassroots activities, they need to tell us how much money is being 
spent by that interest group so that the newspapers, the reporters, 
whoever it is in our districts can report to the public that that money 
is being spent, by whom it is being spent, and for what purpose. So the 
public can factor into their decisionmaking about our activities and 
about the activities of the legislative process that which they now 
know about the present situation.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Redlands, CA [Mr. Lewis].
  (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank my colleague very much for yielding.
  Somehow it has become fashionable to attack lobbyists--individuals 
who are professionals paid to represent many diverse interests of 
people in America here in the Halls of Congress, in the people's House. 
There are lobbyists on every side of every issue: lobbyists who 
represent unions, lobbyists who represent small business, lobbyists who 
represent local governments. Somehow this bill depicts them as being 
corrupt.
  I am reminded of the picture seen by the public not long ago of a 
former judge, who was later a Member of Congress, stuffing dollar bills 
in his back pocket. Our debate today operates on the pretext that one 
solves problems by saying one cannot have lunch or play golf with 
someone who represent an interest. We believe in some way we are 
improving ourselves. At the same time, we take thousands of dollars 
from these lobbyists, and like that judge, put them in our campaign 
coffers, and say we are pure.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this is the most cynical piece of legislation I 
have ever seen. I have talked to my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle and I have said to them, ``You know this is a piece of garbage.'' 
They look at me and say, ``We know it, but the Senate will take care of 
it.''
  This bill is for pure political purposes and reflects the worst of 
legislating in this body. It is unbelievable that this is a major 
cornerstone of the other side of the aisle's token effort to improving 
our Government.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Indiana [Ms. Long].
  (Ms. LONG asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. LONG. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of both the rule 
and the bill.
  Madam Speaker, Americans voted for change during the last election. 
As another election approaches, Americans are still dissatisfied with 
the pace and progress of that change.
  Congress, especially, should take heed of the country's impatience. 
Correctly or not, the public perceives we are more concerned with our 
perks and privileges than we are with the public's business. And for 
too long, we have delayed acting on meaningful congressional reforms to 
correct that impression.
  That is why the Congress needs to pass this thoughtful effort to 
reform gift rules--rules which currently still allow lobbyists to buy 
gifts, purchase an unlimited number of meals, and underwrite travel and 
entertainment for lawmakers.
  That is also why it is unfortunate that some Members are opposing the 
rule today. Make no mistake about it, some Members do not want to vote 
on this legislation and that is why they do not support this rule.
  While some Members do not want any bill to pass, there are others--
such as myself--who would like to go even further. The conference 
report strikes a reasonable balance which combines important features 
of both the House and Senate bills. It is a measure which has the best 
chance of passing the Congress.
  Two years ago, millions of voters were energized by the promise of 
economic and political change. Now it is time for Congress to delivery 
on that promise of change by enacting real reform. The House should do 
the right thing today and vote for the rule and for the lobbying reform 
and gift ban bill.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

                              {time}  1230

  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, we stand here today faced with a critical 
opportunity. An opportunity to help restore the credibility of this 
institution. To reduce the power of special interests. To renew the 
faith of the American people in our ability to govern in their 
interest.
  Each of us know how angry people are with government. We have been 
home. We have heard the cynicism and distrust. And this bill shows that 
we recognize the problem and are moving toward a strong solution.
  This bill bans gifts to Members. It bans meals, entertainment, and 
travel. It includes tough enforcement provisions. It requires full 
disclosure of who is lobbying whom and expands the list of those who 
have to register as lobbyists.
  This bill is important in and of itself. But it carries a greater 
message than lobby reform. It says no more business as usual. That is 
what people are asking for and this is the people's House.
  ``Public confidence in the integrity of the Government is 
indispensable to democracy.'' Those words of Adlai Stevenson are a 
sharp reminder of what we must do today.
  Pass the rule, and pass this bill.

                          ____________________