[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]

 
      CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 349, LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1994

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Metairie, LA [Mr. Livingston].
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Speaker, lacking any visible, significant 
reform in Congress, I rise in opposition to this complex, unworkable 
piece of bad legislation and against this heavy-handed rule which 
denies the right to any Member to offer constructive, well-intentioned 
and thoughtful amendments in order to make legitimate improvement to 
this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I am one who believes that, contrary to the hysteria 
created by the modern media, the vast majority of Republicans and 
Democrats, conservatives and liberals, in this House of Representatives 
and in the other body across the way are at the very core decent, law-
abiding, well-meaning, well-intentioned people who are repulsed by 
corrupt practices. But if this rule denies us the opportunity to 
improve this bill, and if this bill in turn passes, the most honest 
among us will risk being pilloried in the press and perhaps dragged 
through the mud by way of political indictment for some innocuous and 
incidental infraction.
  Madam Speaker, this bill stifles honest exchange of views and 
opinions between good people, and, as such, the rule and the bill 
should be defeated.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah [Ms. Shepherd].
  Ms. SHEPHERD. Madam Speaker, I am a newcomer to this body. I just 
came barely 2 years ago, and I have been working on this bill since I 
got here. I worked on it because when I was in my campaign I learned a 
startling thing. I learned that the general public, the ordinary Joe 
and Jane who live in every house in America, believe that they do not 
have the same access to their Members of this body as lobbyists have. 
That is what they believe, and they believe it thoroughly. They do not 
believe that they can get to us as easily, or as quickly, or as 
effectively as lobbyists can.
  That is what this bill is about; that is all this bill is about. This 
bill stops the fancy recreational trips. This bill stops the fancy, 
expensive meals. This bill stops the unlimited access that lobbyists 
have to us because they are willing to pay for everything, and they do 
pay for everything.
  The objections that this bill is not a campaign finance reform bill 
are really nonsense. This House already passed a campaign finance 
reform bill, and I hope that the conference report will come back to us 
very soon and we will be able to pass that as well.
  The objection that the Members of this House do not understand this 
bill is utter nonsense. I have been working on this bill for 2 years. 
The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] has been killing himself for over 
8 months. He has held caucuses, he has gone to bipartisan caucuses, he 
has gone to Democrat caucuses, he has gone to Republican caucuses. 
Frankly not enough people have come to hearings, but he has done it 
again, and again, and again, and I submit to my colleagues and I beg 
them to be part of the solution to this problem, not part of the 
problem.
  Madam Speaker, this is a good bill. This is a good bill, and it is 
not being submitted because any one of us think that any one of our 
colleagues are guilty of any wrongdoing. This bill is not being 
submitted because any Member of this House believes that lobbyists are 
guilty of wrongdoing. To characterize it in that way is to change the 
subject in order to defeat the bill.
  This bill is being proposed because Americans do not believe that 
they have access to this body in the same way, and they do not. When 
somebody comes to Washington who is an ordinary citizen and walks in my 
office, they cannot take me to play golf. They cannot afford it, my 
colleagues. They do not make enough money. They cannot take me on to 
the ski lifts and buy my ski passes. They cannot afford it.
  I urge this body to come to grips with this problem and pass this 
bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, as I listened to the gentlewoman from Utah [Ms. 
Shepherd] describe all of the hoops that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Bryant] has gone through, she failed to mention the only thing that he 
ignored was the legislative process. There was never a full committee 
markup on this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
Cape Girardeau, MO [Mr. Emerson].
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Madam Speaker, one of the problems here in Congress is 
that we are very often trying to fix problems by addressing perceptions 
rather than realities. If we would have a thorough debate and address 
the realities, I believe the perceptions would take care of themselves.
  The measure before us is such an example.
  There is a big difference between honest lobbying and influence 
peddling. Elements of the media and some special interest groups, whose 
very purpose it is to denigrate Congress, have conjured in such a way 
to try to obscure the differences between legitimate lobbying and 
influence peddling in the public's perceptions.
  I submit that the realistic answer to regulating what the measure 
before us attempts to regulate is to simply have full public 
disclosure. Let us reveal our lobbying contacts and have stiff 
penalties for willful violation. In a time of budget austerity, do we 
really want to create a new bureaucracy at taxpayer expense as we do in 
the measure before us that will in effect become the meal police, 
surveilling whether or not a Member of Congress accepted at $19.75 meal 
and thus remained as clean as a hound's tooth, or accepted a meal that 
cost $20.25 and became a criminal? If we are going to regulate, let us 
at least do so in a commonsense way that will make it possible to live 
within the letter and the spirit of the law, rather than erect another 
scheme that will have the ultimate effect of further eroding the 
public's perception of the institution.
  I am very often asked questions at home about special interests and 
lobbyists. The fact is they are a part of the system, and the public 
interest would be much more highly served if this issue was explained 
and if we used full disclosure as the appropriate remedy for perceived 
infractions than to take the route that we are taking. I am hard put, 
as I tell my constituents, to find someone who does not belong to a 
special interest group that does in fact have lobbyists. Senior 
citizens may say, ``not us,'' but then I must ask if they have ever 
heard of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and 
Medicare or the AARP. Farmers may say, ``not us,'' but then I must ask 
if they have ever heard of the Farm Bureau or the Cattlemen's 
Association or the Cotton Producers or the Rice Millers or the Corn 
Producers, and on and on. Teachers? I think the answers are obvious. 
Business? How about the Chamber of Commerce, the NAM, and the very 
effective champion of small business, the National Federation of 
Independent Business? Labor unions; how many are there? Yes, even 
religious groups have lobbyists; so, make no mistake about that.
  I am concerned that the measure is antihuman nature, antireal world. 
I think it is an effort to cut off Congress from different elements of 
our society and force us to legislate in a vacuum--pursuing to an 
illogical extension and conclusion the idea that if someone knows 
something about the subject about which they are speaking they 
obviously have biases. The Traditional Values Coalition sent a message 
to me this morning arguing that the bill ``creates a chilling effect on 
individuals who simply want to petition their elected officials on 
issues being considered by Congress.'' They say that citizens already 
discouraged by the political process and the workings of government 
will be made to further feel that Congress is unresponsive and out of 
touch. They argue that the measure before us is unconstitutional 
because it adds impediments to the constitutionally protected right to 
redress grievances.

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, across America they say that there is no 
such thing as a free lunch.
  Now that will be as true inside the beltway as it is outside the 
beltway, thanks to passage of the Lobbyist Disclosure Act.
  Let me be clear: No meal or no turkey sandwich ever persuaded a 
member of Congress to vote one way or another.
  But I am tired of seeing Members of Congress look like turkeys on the 
evening news for enjoying free meals, free gifts, and free vacations, 
all courtesy of powerful lobbying interests.
  Those privileges reinforce the perception held by too many Americans 
that they have no influence with their elected Representative.
  This bill will also shed sunshine on who is wooing whom, how much 
lobbyists are being paid, what issues are being pressed, and how much 
is being spent to advance those causes by requiring full disclosure and 
full registration by all lobbyists.
  Mr. Speaker, the loss of a few lunches or trips is a small price to 
pay for restoring the people's trust.
  Coupled with a meaningful campaign finance reform bill, which I hope 
will pass this session.
  The Lobbyist Disclosure Act, which I hope will likewise pass this 
session, will put the people back into the People's House.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
classmate, the gentleman from Findlay, OH [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 exercise in 
self-flagellation. We are pretty good at these kinds of things. We have 
managed to deny ourselves for 2 years in a row a worthwhile cost-of-
living allowance that most Americans get. So now we are going to 
somehow try to fool the American public with this phony reform package.
  Let me just read to the Members a partial list of major legislation 
that this Congress has failed to pass: health care, Superfund, GATT, A 
to Z spending cuts, clean air, immigration reform, welfare reform, 
telecommunications legislation, campaign finance reform, middle-class 
tax cuts, a debate and a vote on Haiti, capital gains cut, 
congressional reform, a balanced budget, and a line-item veto, and on 
and on and on. And we stand before the American public and say we are 
going to flog ourselves in public and somehow they are going to forgive 
us and reelect us. What absolute nonsense.
  I want to give the Members an example of what this bill does, what it 
really does. We had a discussion with the sponsor of the bill when he 
was briefing us. I asked him about the congressional baseball game that 
is traditionally played here. For 40 years we played that game. I 
played it for 14 years. We get out at 7 o'clock in the morning and 
practice for about 3 weeks, and then we have this game, and we sell 
tickets. And guess what? Some lobbyists buy tickets to that game, and 
then we give the proceeds to charity. There was $30,000 this year given 
to the Washington Literacy Council that we raised because we were able 
to do so in the congressional baseball game.
  We have a great time. A lot of staffers come out, and people enjoy 
it. I did not enjoy it so much this year as in other years, but it is a 
lot of fun. We raise the money for charity.
  I asked the sponsor of the bill, under the legislation currently 
pending, if we could do that. The answer was that we could not do that. 
We cannot sell tickets to lobbyists; we cannot have the Rawlings Co. 
provide the equipment for the baseball game.
  I asked, what if Marty Sabo, the manager of the Democratic team, and 
Dan Schaefer, the manager of the Republican team, had a joint fund-
raiser for the baseball game; could they in fact do that and the money 
would go, of course, to their campaigns? And the gentleman from Texas 
said, ``Well, as long as the money wouldn't go to charity.''
  I ask the Members, have we lost our minds? Are we in a situation 
where we could have a congressional baseball game as a fund-raiser for 
our campaigns in the political sense and we cannot raise $30,000 for a 
worthwhile charity?
  Madam Speaker, I suggest to the Members that this is a fraud, and I 
suggest that we vote against the rule.
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield so I may ask a 
question about the baseball game?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Meek of Florida). The time of the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] has expired.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Bryant] so he may propound a question.
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, this bill does not affect the 
congressional baseball game, topside or bottom.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BRYANT. The gentleman did not yield to me, so I am not going to 
yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. OXLEY. I did not have any time. Has the gentleman changed his 
mind since we had that discussion.
  Mr. BRYANT. You have misquoted me pretty grossly, Mr. Oxley. You are 
one of the Members for whom I have a great deal of respect and admire 
very much in this institution,----
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. A point of order, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, I demand that the words be taken down.

                              {time}  1310

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Meek of Florida). The Clerk will report 
the gentleman's words.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       You have misquoted me pretty grossly, Mr. Oxley. You are 
     one of the Members for whom I have a great deal of respect 
     and admire very much in this institution, but I find it very 
     hard to understand why you would simply not come forward and 
     say, as those of you who are speaking on that side, or 
     thinking--We want to play free golf, we want free meals. You 
     are not concerned about charity, you are not concerned about 
     congressional baseball, you are just concerned about more 
     freebies, and this bill says no to the freebies-seeking 
     Members of Congress, who I regret to say are a small minority 
     of this House, yet you create a bad impression for the rest 
     of us. This bill says no.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. For what purpose does the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bryant] rise?
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that any reference 
to any individual Member and to the motivations of any individual 
Member be withdrawn.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do not 
intend to object, but I am concerned that this has become a pattern, 
and it seems to me it would be helpful if the Chair would police any 
kind of personal references so we do not have to go through this 
process in order to protect Members from having personal motivations 
questioned.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois, under 
my reservation of objection.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam Speaker, the gentleman, of course, is referring to 
speeches on both sides of the aisle; is that correct?
  Mr. WALKER. Absolutely. All I am asking is that the Chair begin the 
process of enforcing the rules of the House with regard to personal 
motives. It seems to me that we could then move outside this.
  I would hope, also, that in the withdrawal of the words, that that 
would be an apology for the words that were done here earlier.
  Mr. ROGERS. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Madam Speaker, this gentleman is prepared to object, 
unless the gentleman who issued those offending words apologizes 
personally to this Member who was offended. There is a reason for the 
rule. The reason for the rule is that this body expects gentlemanly 
conduct. When a Member violates that rule by using personally 
attacking, offensive words, the House expects the Member to apologize, 
so unless the Member apologizes for those words, I am going to object 
to their being withdrawn.
  Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would 
certainly be happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant]. I 
would certainly be happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas, if we 
could have something here that would avoid an objection. As I say, I do 
not intend to object.
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield to me?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] that if he heard my words correctly, the 
first words I spoke to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] were that I 
have the highest regard for him. I went forward to say, however, that 
it was my view that the reasons being offered for opposition to this 
bill were not the real reasons.
  The ruling of the Chair apparently was, there was no ruling. The 
ruling, obviously, that I do not want to receive is that somehow that 
was a personal reference. I did not intend any personal reference to 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] at all. I have a very high regard 
for him. I did intend a reference, however, to the opponents of this 
legislation; or rather, the outcome.
  Madam Speaker, to the extent that I would, in any respect, suggest 
that any type of a personal prejudice or personal suggestion of 
motivation of the gentleman from Ohio for that, of course, I would 
quickly apologize. He is my friend and I have a high regard for him.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, I would disagree with the gentleman in 
the fact that he used direct reference and repeated the words that 
said, ``You don't want to just play baseball, you want to do these 
things,'' so he was directly talking to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Oxley], because of the statements that he made before.
  Madam Speaker, I think it is just like when the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and I got into it the other day; that, you know, 
we apologized to each other and we separated happy. I think that when 
you directly attack someone personally, which, in the words, you did, 
then I think at a minimum you could apologize to the gentleman from 
Ohio and there would be no objection, because whether you meant to or 
not, you attacked him.
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
all I can say is what I have just said a moment ago. It was my intent 
to use the general ``you,'' not to speak to him specifically. He knows 
my relationship with him. I have prefaced my remarks by stating what 
high regard I had for him. I was making clear my feeling about the 
purposes of the opponents of this legislation, not the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Oxley] personally. I have already said exactly what the 
gentleman wanted me to say with regard to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If the gentleman will yield further, then the 
gentleman should say it, ``I'm sorry,'' and we will press on with it.
  Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, 
the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] had asked me to yield. I will 
yield to him, and then I will come to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Bateman].
  Mr. ROGERS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have 
yet to hear the personal apology to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Oxley].
  No. 2, if the reference was to, when you say ``you,'' if it was not 
to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], but to the rest of us, then I 
am personally offended for the same reason.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, under my 
reservation of objection.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Madam Speaker, I would repeat the point. The offhanded, 
backhanded apology to one Member, if that indeed is what it was, is 
certainly aggravated, if anything, by the fact that the gentleman has 
generalized the aspersion on everyone else who happens to oppose his 
point of view. That is totally unacceptable.
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
if I may respond to the gentleman, let me just say that what was 
requested was an apology to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley]. I do 
not feel like my words call for an apology, but I would quickly give 
it, because of my high regard for him.
  Madam Speaker, if I might just finish, the gentleman that just spoke 
a moment ago took offense to the fact that I said that I was speaking 
with a general ``you'' referring to the opponents of the bill in 
general. I do not wish to ascribe a motivation to those who are----
  Mr. BATEMAN. If the gentleman will yield further, but you have done 
so.
  Mr. BRYANT. If in fact you feel that way, I would quickly apologize 
to you, as well, but I want to emphasize that under no circumstances 
would I ever ascribe an unworthy motivation to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Oxley], and I did not do so. I do not think that I sounded as 
though I did so. However, in the event that the Parliamentarian 
disagrees, I wish to withdraw those.
  Madam Speaker, I have offered the apology to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Oxley] which the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] asked for.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, it 
is absolutely amazing and mind-boggling to me that you do not think you 
gave offense, but if you did, to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], 
you will apologize. That is hardly an apology.
  Then to go on to suggest that everyone who does not share your view 
on what I regard as one of the shoddiest pieces of legislation that has 
come before this House is guilty of improper motives, and that is 
exactly what you attributed to everyone who opposes your point of view, 
you owe an apology to more than the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], 
and an unequivocal one.
  Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I 
would ask if the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] wishes me to yield 
to him.
  Mr. BRYANT. If the gentleman will yield, I have said about as much as 
can be said. I think the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] would have to 
be the one to judge whether or not he feels like it is adequate, but I 
have been as clear as I can possibly be. I do not intend to ascribe 
motivations to anyone, nor do I intend to in any way personalize my 
comments with regard to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley]. I did not 
intend it at the time, and in the event anyone thinks I did, I 
certainly would apologize to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
  Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I 
think that the question on our side is does the gentleman apologize to 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
  Mr. BRYANT. If the gentleman will yield, yes.
  Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the words are withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time 
remains on both sides for this stimulating debate?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That time was not extracted from anyone's 
time. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] has 10\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] has 10 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge].

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. MINGE. Madam Speaker, this acrimonious debate this afternoon in 
my opinion is a thinly disguised attempt to return us to gridlock in 
the House of Representatives. What I see happening here this afternoon 
is a bill that we have worked on for months and months being challenged 
for reasons that are being attributed to the chief architect of the 
bill that are not accurate. I feel this criticism is not well-taken. We 
have engaged in an extensive debate, and an extensive effort to craft 
legislation to give the American people reason to believe that this 
institution is not governed by the whims of lobbyists.
  We must continue to hold the course, or I know what will happen next 
week. We will be told that the House of Representatives was unable to 
pass lobby reform. It will simply be added to the list that was recited 
earlier, of pieces of legislation which have been attacked and attacked 
for one reason on the floor of the House before the vote and then after 
the vote for a very different reason.
  I think at this point in time, it is important that we recognize that 
there are thousands of employees in the executive branch of Government 
who have held themselves to a very high standard, there are hundreds in 
the legislative branch of Government who have held themselves to a high 
standard, and it is time that we memorialize this standard in the form 
of legislation so that we all know what the standard is so that the 
American people know what the standard is, and so that we can lay to 
rest the concern and the suspicion that lobbyists buy legislation in 
this institution, which is not the case, should not be the case, and 
will not be the case.

  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, if I may, with the forbearance of the other 
side, I have one speaker who needs to leave the floor shortly and would 
like to recognize for 1 minute, please.
  Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I have been involved in reform issues in 
this House for a long time. I simply would make one statement: However 
Members feel on the bill. I would beg you not to vote against the rule 
that allows the bill to be debated. If Members have legitimate 
objections to the bill, do not hide behind the fact that we have to 
pass a rule to debate the bill. If Members think that there is 
something wrong with this proposal, then have guts enough to debate it 
fully. But allow it to come to the floor by voting for this rule. It 
would be an absolute hit on the reputation of this House, unfair, but 
it would be a hit none the same if we use the fact that the rule has to 
be passed in order to prevent the bill from even being considered by 
this House. This House deserves better than that from all of us.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam, Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a 
real quick question? Is this a closed rule or an open rule?
  Mr. OBEY. This is a totally legitimate rule meant to bring a bill to 
the House which the public is demanding and it is about time we pass 
it.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Is it a closed rule?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Meek of Florida). The gentleman's time 
has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I would observe that this legislation never went 
through a full committee process and it was passed under suspension of 
the rules, not allowing a free flow of debate.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my dear friend, the 
gentleman from Long Beach, CA [Mr. Horn] the former president of Long 
Beach State University.
  Mr. HORN. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from California is absolutely 
correct. If there was a way to amend this bill, we could clean it up. I 
will vote for the bill, but I feel just as the gentleman from Virginia 
earlier felt, that we have got some shoddiness. I am for the ban on the 
$20 lunch, but I am going to vote against the rule, because I would 
like to see happen to this bill what happened to the first crime bill. 
The first crime bill was a mess. When we turned that rule down, they 
had to go back to conference, they had to clean it up so enough of us 
on the Republican side could vote for it, and we can take pride in what 
was accomplished.
  What is not being accomplished here is we are worrying about a $20 
lunch when we permit $10,000 in PAC money to come to every member that 
wants to take PAC money. It is getting so that easily the Congressman 
can afford to take the lobbyist to lunch. We need to face up to PAC's. 
Maybe that conference would do it.
  People are upset about the Congress and the House in particular, but 
it is the $10,000 in PAC money that causes them to be upset. So let us 
vote ``no'' on the rule, let us send back and get a positive product 
out of conference, and maybe we can also get a rule out of conference 
that says when a Member speaks, he will disclose with his speech the 
PAC money related to those remarks. I think that would be a real 
advancement in terms of full disclosure, and let the people know. Let 
us get some decent reform and banning PAC's is it.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 10 seconds to my good 
friend, the gentleman from Indianapolis, IN [Mr. Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Madam Speaker, I just want to make 2 points. On page 10 of the 
conference committee report, it says that the name, address, and 
principal place of business of any person or entity other than the 
client who paid the registrant to lobby on behalf of the client has to 
be reported. That means that people who give $10 to many of these 
organizations like the Christian Coalition and others are going to have 
their names on a Government list. I do not think the people of this 
country really want that kind of Government interference in their 
lives.
  In addition to that, I just want to say, and I am not impugning 
anybody's integrity or questioning their motives, but the fact of the 
matter is many, many, many people who have gone to the well of this 
House today and spoken in favor of eliminating a Big Mac sandwich being 
purchased by a lobbyist so that they can talk about a bill before the 
Congress are taking thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars 
from those same lobbyists through PAC's. I am not questioning their 
integrity, but I am pointing out that there is a bigger question, a 
bigger question of possible influence-buying by PAC's giving money to 
Congressmen in the amount of $10,000.
  I think there is a much bigger question among the public about 
getting $10,000 from a labor PAC instead of a $1 or a $1.50 Big Mac at 
the corner restaurant.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dornan], our fighter from Garden Grove.
  Mr. DORNAN. Madam Speaker, after that little scene a few minutes ago, 
I have to weigh my words carefully because I want to talk about one of 
the Members on the other side. At a press conference this Member had at 
the National Press Club, he talked about religious conservatives, the 
religious right. Into this group he put not only every fringe, fever-
swamped group of America, but also mainstream groups such as those 
promoting term limits. I know his motivations were nothing but pure. I 
know Victor was only talking about snake charmers and people who march 
at skinhead rallies. But others aren't. I went up to the Vice President 
of the United States in the back of this Chamber and pointed out to Al 
Gore that Mother Teresa was part of the religious right and so was Pope 
John II, and so were most observant Jews, Christians, and Moslems. We 
have all used this term ``the devil is in the details'' and here 
literally is the demonic detail in this bill relating to all religious 
groups in this country. If they see a moral issue before the country, 
they must hire a lobbyist who must divulge lots of things about the 
religious group involved in our political discourse. Shame, shame.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Coppersmith].
  (Mr. COPPERSMITH asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. COPPERSMITH. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Lobbying 
Disclosure Act conference report. We have to change the way Congress 
does business, and one step we can take today is eliminating the 
freebie culture that helps people in Washington hold themselves to a 
different standard than the American people.
  It is time to have the same rules in Washington as we already have in 
Arizona. We have in my State what Common Cause calls the toughest 
lobbyist registration law in the country. We need that kind of 
disclosure here in Congress, and we need it now.
  This bill ends the free gifts and perks and travel that must be 
intended to influence Members of Congress. It does not affect 
grassroots religious organizations. The U.S. Catholic Conference, the 
Baptist Joint Committee, and the Religious Action Center of Reform 
Judaism all say the bill protects the free exercise of rights of 
religious groups. But the bill does end a culture of entitlement that 
afflicts many Washington insiders who somehow believe that they never 
should pick up a check at a restaurant or pay greens fees at a golf 
course. Most importantly, it shines a long overdue light of disclosure 
on the lobbying industry.
  If we are serious about restoring the people's trust in the 
Government, first we must put the people's House in order, and this 
vote is one step toward that goal.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  (Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, a couple of years ago I was 
walking across the street from the Longworth Building to the Capitol to 
handle a bill, and along the way I was offered a free cruise on a 
foreign cruise ship by representatives of the foreign cruise ship 
lobby. One of the reasons this really sticks out in my mind is I was on 
the way to handle a bill that would take away the loopholes that allow 
them to have foreign-made, foreign crews, and foreign-owned ships and 
still operate out of our ports and avoid all of the responsibilities 
that their American competitors have to live by and still get all of 
the breaks.
  That really gripped me, and this body passed that bill. But strangely 
it keeps dying in the other body.
  I was so upset that I asked for a list of Members who had had free 
cruises, and they did not want to supply it, and only after a threat of 
actually subpoenaing the records did they release a partial list. We 
know how it works in the other body. It only takes one Member to keep 
something from becoming law.
  I come from a shipbuilding district. I come from a district of 
seafarers. I am trying to do good things for my constituents, trying to 
see to it that those people who benefit from our society at least pay 
the dues of our society and not get tax breaks like the foreigners do, 
and not get away from all of the regulations like foreigners do.
  I cannot give away free cruises. The welders and pipefitters at 
Ingals and Trinity cannot give away free cruises, but those guys can.
  This is not a perfect bill, but I am sick and tired of those guys 
buying influence with free cruises, and if this measure will help us 
stop that practice, then I am going to vote for it, and I wish I could 
vote for it 10 times.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 50 seconds to my 
distinguished friend, the gentleman from East Petersburg, PA [Mr. 
Walker], our chief deputy whip.
  Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Madam Speaker, we have heard reference to a number of groups that are 
supporting this bill. Let me talk about some groups that have some 
problem with the bill, beginning with the Christian coalition who has 
written and said: ``This legislation serves the interest of some in 
Congress who have targeted religious people for direct and virulent 
attacks over the past several months * * * this legislation represents 
a new `gag rule' on democratic participation.''
  Americans for Tax Reform say: ``The `chilling effect' of such a 
vague, broad piece of legislation is unimaginable * * * the power 
concentrated in an unaccountable `directorate' is frightening.''
  The Small Business Survival Committee says: ``There is no benefit to 
the Nation in stifling the kind of communications outlined in the 
bill.''
  The National Committee of Catholic Laymen say: ``The American people 
who belong to organizations such as ours will be intimidated.''
  The problem with this bill is not the question of gifts from 
lobbyists. Across the board here I think all of us suggest that gifts 
from lobbyists are a bad thing. But to take a bill about gifts from 
lobbyists and turn grassroots America into a lobbying community that 
then is gagged is absolutely wrong.
  The problem with this bill is that we have made a lobbying bill into 
a grassroots gag that religious America is beginning to understand is 
aimed directly at them.
  The problem is that there have been meetings held in the Capitol 
Building that have indicated that legislation of this type was about to 
come down the pike. Today we see the first fruits of this kind of 
legislation.
  Many in this body are concerned about the wave of phone calls that 
they get every time a controversial piece of legislation comes up. They 
want to stop it, and in this bill they are attempting to stop it by 
gagging the grassroots. And the grassroots have found out about it and 
they are upset, and so group after group is coming forward yet today 
saying that they will no longer permit Congress to hide behind fancy 
titles in bills that gag grassroots America.

                          ____________________