[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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will announce that 9 minutes of 
debate time remain on the pending resolution.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak specifically to the 
allegations that were made earlier in debate and in 1-minutes about 
some sort of effort here to gag religious communities and their 
legitimate right to address government, Congress, et cetera. I would 
never be, nor would anyone, I believe, on this floor be part of any 
effort to gag any group of people, particularly people speaking from a 
religious perspective.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill specifically exempts churches, their 
auxiliaries, their conventions or associates of churches and religious 
orders from any reports of grassroots lobbying activities. That is 
clear. It also specifically excludes any communication which 
constitutes the free exercise of religion from the definition of 
lobbying.
  Now I am in receipt of three letters, one from the Jewish community 
which says, and this is the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism:

       It is therefore with astonishment that I read today 
     Representative Newt Gingrich's letter attacking the lobby 
     disclosure bill on the basis that religious organizations 
     would have to register and report their expenditures.

  Mr. speaker, I have also a letter from the Baptist Joint Committee 
which is made up of 12 subgroups of the Baptist faith. 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.

  Now here is one from the Catholic Conference. It says:

       It is our understanding that those church organizations 
     which fit the definition contained in the bill will be exempt 
     from registering and reporting any legislative activities 
     involving communications with their own membership.

  So, Mr. Speaker, there is no question here that, if one wants to 
oppose this bill, they can do so, but they ought not to do it under the 
cloak of religion, implying that it is impossible for people of faith 
to communicate with us without falling under the provisions of this 
bill. That is totally antithetical to the Constitution, to the 
traditions of this body and, I think, to everyone's understanding of 
what this bill is really about.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purpose of debate only, I yield 1 minute 
to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Schenk].
  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Speaker, many of us in the freshman class promised 
our constituents throughout our first term that we would reform the way 
Congress does business. Yesterday most of our Republican colleagues 
made representations about changing this body if they were to be the 
majority party. Today all of us have the opportunity to deliver on our 
promises.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report represents real reform that would 
change the way Washington does business and would do it in an immediate 
and dramatic fashion by banning all the lobbyists' freebies that have 
kept the playing field unlevel.
  Earlier, one of our colleagues seemed to bemoan the loss of lobbyist-
purchased hamburgers. Surely with what we earn we can pay for our own 
hamburgers.
  If this bill goes down, we break faith with the American people. Let 
us stop the empty promises and starting delivering. Let us pass the 
rule, let us pass the bill, and begin the process of restoring faith.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time, which I 
believe is 5 minutes, to the distinguished Republican whip, the 
gentleman from Marietta, GA [Mr. Gingrich].
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, let me start out by saying what these next 
two votes are not about. They are not about the gift rule, and they are 
not about lobbyists' lunches. The motion to instruct conferees, which 
will be offered if the rule goes down, will not in any way touch the 
gift rule or lunches, so all the speeches about that are irrelevant to 
the next two votes.
  Mr. Speaker, the vote coming up is an opportunity to do exactly what 
the House did on the crime bill to defeat a rule and reopen the 
conference. Now why would we want to do that?
  Let me start out by saying I think there are four reasons we want to 
return this bill to conference to change four key provisions that 
threaten the American people's right to be active citizens. There are 
four:
  First, the worst single thing, which I doubt if many Members even 
looked at yet, is that, if you're a citizen, you can pay a $200,000 
fine under this bill. If you're a Member, you might not even be named 
in the incident in which a citizen pays a $200,000 fine, and I will 
return to that.
  Second, there is, in the judgment of those of us who are active in 
the grassroots, a grassroots gag rule here, and I will cite from 
grassroots Catholic organizations their fear of being intimidated.
  Third, there is an issue of who defines ``religious freedom'' and 
whether or not you truly want one person appointed by the Clinton 
administration to define ``religious freedom.''
  And fourth, the concept of that one person having virtually 
dictatorial powers, powers over lobbying groups, powers over every 
filing, file powers over every penalty, and for those of you on the 
left who think it is going to be fine if it is a Clinton appointee, how 
would you have felt during the Bork nomination if that person had been 
a Reagan appointee? And you might say, ``We're going to get a paragon 
of virtue and they'll always be just,'' and I suggest to you that is a 
long way from how the real world works.
  Now let me expand.
  First, we recently voted overwhelmingly to require the Congress to be 
under the same laws as the rest of the country. Everywhere I go in 
America, when I describe the Shays Act and say, ``Every Member of 
Congress will obey the same law,'' this bill sets one standard of 
criminal and civil penalties for citizens and then exempts the Member 
of Congress from exactly the same activities.
  I say to my colleagues, ``Now you can't vote for this bill, you can't 
vote yes on the rule, and go home and say you want to cover Congress 
because this bill has two very different standards, and I know that 
Members have been reassured on both sides of the aisle.''

                              {time}  1410

  ``Oh, you won't be covered. The lobbyist might go to jail, the 
citizen might pay $200,000, but you'll be OK. Don't be afraid of 
this.''
  That is wrong.
  Second, when you read the provisions that define what the time of a 
Lobbyist is, 10 percent of their time paid as a lobbyist, over 2,500 
hours in 6 months is for a lobbyist. One trip from California to visit 
your Member of Congress and two nights in a Washington hotel, and you 
may have passed the limit, and then you are a citizen and you did not 
know you were supposed to file; you would have to pay 10 percent 
because you belong to the California Desert Association, something many 
of our friends on the left might be concerned about. They say, ``Oh, I 
want them to call and visit me.'' But now they have got to fill out a 
form; now they have to start registering because with 10 percent of 
their paid time in a State-level organization, they are visiting the 52 
members of the California organization, and believe me, if you visit 
all the members of the California delegation, that is 10 percent of 
your time.
  Now they are subject to a Federal law with Federal penalties under a 
Federal involvement at the local grassroots. And by the way, this 
includes reporting when they are communicating with their own 
constituents. It says specifically in here, ``communicating with your 
own members of your own group.'' That is covered, and you have to 
report in aggregate on what you do.
  That is not lobbying the U.S. Congress; that is crippling the 
citizen's right to be involved.
  Third, on page 13 this bill describes ``religious freedom.'' The 
exemption the gentleman from California referred to says they are 
exempted, the church or religious institution is exempted--and this is 
page 13--``if the communication constitutes the free exercise of 
religion.''
  I will say to my friends on the left that maybe from your standpoint 
an administration which appoints Roberta Achtenberg or an 
administration which appoints Joycelyn Elders might be fine for a 
single person appointed by this administration to define what 
constitutes ``religious freedom.'' But I am not sure I want a papal 
message on abortion, a papal message on homosexuality, or a papal 
message on any other issue such as school prayer interpreted by a 
secular, antireligious liberal as to whether or not that is a political 
message or a religious freedom message.
  And finally, there is the question of allowing one person to make 
these kinds of decisions. You can vote yes today and you can say, 
``Well, I had to do it.'' But let me say that someplace down the road 
some grotesque injustice is going to be enacted by a single person who 
has a bias, whether it is right or left or just personal, but a single 
person who is given virtually dictatorial powers under this to punish--
and by the way, for the same action they have a different penalty for 
different groups based on their interpretation of motive.
  This is a dangerous bill. All we are asking is this: We are not 
asking to beat the bill. We are asking Members to vote no on the rule, 
as they did on the crime bill, send it back to conference, and let them 
fix those parts. This has nothing to do with lunches; this has nothing 
to do with gifts; this has to do with fixing some very dangerous 
provisions, and then we can bring it back next week and we can debate 
any other provisions. But for today, I say, do not accept the flawed 
document from the conferees; do not threaten the rights of our fellow 
citizens; do not threaten religious freedom; and do not turn over 
dictatorial powers of government; and finally, do not vote for a 
$200,000 fine on citizens and nothing to punish Members of Congress. 
That is wrong.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield our 
1 remaining minute to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I will only take a few seconds to say that 
the characterization of the bill just made by the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] is inaccurate. It is inaccurate with respect to 
grassroots lobbying, and it is inaccurate with respect to lobbying 
registration. It is wholly inaccurate, and we never heard about these 
concerns until right now after 18 months of considering this bill.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the Members what I 
think this bill is about and what the American people are concerned 
about. They are concerned about undue influence of lobbyists.
  I think the House of Representatives is a wonderful organization of 
wonderful, dedicated, committed people, and I resent the implication 
that sometimes is made that lobbyists run Washington and not Members 
representing their constituents. By the passage of this bill, we make 
it clear to everyone that if someone comes here to lobby, they have to 
register. These are lobbyists who are here actively to lobby, not 
grassroots organizations, and they have to tell what they are doing and 
how they are doing it.
  The public deserves that kind of explanation.
  Mr. Speaker, let us make the record of this Congress what it ought to 
be--good, committed people doing the right thing by their constituents, 
with Government not run by lobbyists, but run by the American people. I 
ask the Members to vote for the rule and to vote for the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings). All time has expired.
  Mr. FROST. 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, 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 216, 
nays 205, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 449]

                               YEAS--216

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Whitten
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--205

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Brown (FL)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meek
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Valentine
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Applegate
     Fields (LA)
     Gallo
     Hayes
     Hutto
     Lloyd
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McNulty
     Slattery
     Thompson
     Washington
     Wheat

                              {time}  1438

  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland and Mr. DEAL changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Messrs. LaFALCE, MFUME, PAYNE of New Jersey, HILLARD, FLAKE, TUCKER, 
BISHOP, and TOWNS changed their vote from ``nay'' 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.

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I call up the conference report on the 
Senate bill (S. 349) to provide for the disclosure of lobbying 
activities to influence the Federal Government, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Pelosi). Pursuant to House Resolution 
550, the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
September 26, 1994, at page H9691.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Gekas] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1994 is easily one of 
the most important bills and sweeping changes we will consider as this 
session comes to a close. It is the product of more than 18 months of 
hard work. It was in the beginning a bipartisan product. To some extent 
I think it still will be, notwithstanding the developments of the last 
24 hours. It is needed to help restore the confidence of the American 
people, both in the lawmaking process and in the men and women who 
serve them in this institution.
  I want to say at the outset that, as is the case with every law we 
pass, and perhaps with every rule in our society, it is written to 
affect the behavior of a small minority of people; in this case, a 
small minority of those who lobby to influence the Members of this 
House. We must deal with the perception of the public. This bill takes 
head-on the concern that the public has about the lawmaking process and 
the extent to which those who are paid to influence it succeed.
  Simply put, this bill will ensure that our constituents know how much 
is being spent to influence the decisions that we were sent here to 
make on their behalf. It will close the loopholes in the existing 
lobbying disclosure laws. It will also streamline disclosure 
requirements and establish a more effective and equitable system for 
administering and enforcing disclosure rules. The bill's registration 
requirement applies to each organization that is a separate legal 
entity, whether related to another organization or not.
  Madam Speaker, this bill will also permanently bar lobbyists from 
gaining access to Members by picking up tabs for meals and 
entertainment, and it will end subsidies for what is essentially 
private recreational travel.
  Madam Speaker, this bill passed the House last March by a 3-to-1 
margin, after having been reported unanimously--all Members, Republican 
and Democrat--by our subcommittee, and the Senate lobbying bill passed 
by a vote of 95 to 2. Given the wide margins of passage in both the 
House and the Senate and the broad public support for what this bill is 
attempting to do, it is hard to believe that there remains any suspense 
about whether or not we can succeed in getting the bill enacted.
  The bill has been mischaracterized and parts of the bill that have 
been settled for months are, only in the last 36 hours, coming under 
attack. Madam Speaker, I must ask the question, about the questions 
that were asked earlier, why were those questions not asked at some 
point during the last 18 or 20 months? Never once did we hear a concern 
expressed about the provisions for grassroots lobbying until last night 
at 7:30, when the Republican leader made a speech about it.

  I submit to the Members that had there been any significant problem 
with the grassroots lobbying portion of this bill, we would have heard 
about it from the Catholic Conference. Instead, they wrote a letter 
saying the provisions were quite all right. We heard from the Baptist 
Joint Committee. They said the provisions in the bill with regard to 
lobbying for them were quite all right. We would have heard from the 
spokesman for the Jewish community. We heard from the Religious Action 
Center, which represents Reform Judaism. They said the provisions of 
the bill are quite all right.
  The conference report does absolutely nothing to hamper or to require 
disclosure of churches' communications with their members, clergymen's 
sermons from their pulpits, or the activities of church volunteers who 
contact Members of Congress. Such activities are all exempted under the 
bill. The provisions relating to church groups were discussed at great 
length with all the affected groups.
  Questions have also been raised about whether reports will be 
required on expenditures to organize a grassroots lobbying campaign. 
Estimates of grassroots expenditures will not be required unless the 
organization conducting the campaign has a paid lobbyist who otherwise 
meets the requirements of the act. Members of organizations who contact 
Members in response to such an effort do not have to register or report 
their expenditures and are not affected by this bill in any way, and 
never have been.
  Madam Speaker, do not be fooled by the arguments that will be made 
either against the bill or in favor of the minority's anticipated 
motion to recommit. This debate is only about one issue: Whether we 
will continue to allow Members and their staffs to be wined and dined 
and flown around the country at lobbyists' expense, or whether we are 
going to put a stop to it by voting for this legislation.
  As my colleagues know, and as I said at the beginning, I believe the 
stereotypes of the vast majority of the Members of this House, as well 
as those in the private sector that work with this House, are wrong. 
This institution is not filled with Members who are, in my view, 
influenced by meals, travel, entertainment, or other gifts, but the 
fact of the matter is that a minority of this body has managed to make 
the public believe that something is wrong here.
  Far more important than any of the perks of this office is the 
importance of underscoring and reinforcing public confidence in the 
lawmaking process. That is what we are doing with this bill today.
  Based upon the statements that are repeatedly made, some by Members 
of this body, based upon the behavior of a tiny minority of this body, 
past, present, and no doubt future, as well, the American people can be 
forgiven for concluding that these gifts affect the process and that 
there is something wrong. Regardless of whether there is or there is 
not, we have the obligation to reinforce public confidence in this 
lawmaking institution, and that is what this legislation would do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 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 the bill, and 
in favor of the motion to recommit.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the conference report on lobbying 
regulation just as I opposed the bill when it first passed the House.
  This legislation does not represent reform in any sense of the word. 
Instead it constitutes more big brother central control and orwellian 
denial of freedom in the name of reform and good government. Moreover 
the bill will not result in a more honest special-interest-free 
Congress, but rather it will encourage some otherwise well-intentioned 
Members to engage in subterfuge and obfuscation, thereby increasing the 
public's distrust of elected leaders, rather than alleviating their 
existing alienation.
  I intend to scrupulously obey the law, whatever it may be. But I am 
concerned that in this new effort to legislate morality, we may be 
setting traps for Members to run afoul of technical barriers, thereby 
opening themselves to picayune charges of ethical lapse and even 
criminal violation.
  Far better than this atrocity is to impose rigid and enforceable 
mandates of disclosure on Members and lobbyists, so that Members will 
know in advance that all activities in which they engage will be 
reported and made known to their constituents. Such procedure would 
more simply and straightforwardly put the onus on a Member's discretion 
and judgement, rather than binding him in a strait-jacket of rigid 
prohibition and inducing him to refrain from innocent contact with 
legitimate advocates of American interest.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote on this motion to recommit and a ``no'' on the 
bill.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, when we began this long journey that 
brought us to this very controversial day, we began with the idea of 
addressing the very serious problems that we had with lobbying and 
lobbying registration, particularly as it applied to foreign agents. 
The Foreign Agents Registration Act, FARA, and other lobbying 
requirements were arcane, were unenforceable, gave much heartache and 
heartburn to Members of Congress, to the proper exercise of 
governmental functions across the board.

                              {time}  1450

  That was our original purpose. Through a convolution of events that 
happened since then, this whole bill now has been wracked with attacks 
from the left and from the right on a various number of considerations 
where we now have to deal with gift bans. There is not a Member of the 
House, as far as I have been able to discern, who is not willing to put 
in writing and to keep in place a gift ban. That is good. But then when 
that is applied to other situations where campaign contributions are 
specifically exempted from this, we have the anomaly which has been 
touched upon by so many Members, that on one hand you cannot accept a 
Big Mac but on the other you can accept, specifically exempted in this 
language, you can exempt a big PAC. You receive a campaign contribution 
from the very lobbyist who cannot buy you a Big Mac to try to influence 
your responses on the floor of the House of Representatives. That is 
bad. It is good that we prohibit gifts, but it is bad that we then 
allow a tremendous loophole through which the biggest gift of all, 
money, can still be placed at the doorstep of the Member of Congress to 
influence him if the Member of Congress is influenceable by that. Is he 
influenceable by the Big Mac? That is a judgment we have to make. That 
is bad. The very fact that we have exempted campaign contributions, the 
biggest gift of all, makes the gift ban to some people laughable.
  What am I going to do about it? I want to exempt gifts, to ban gifts, 
and I have voted that way. But also at the conference, I offered an 
amendment that would make campaign contributions, the biggest gift of 
all, as one of the banned gifts that lobbyists cannot approach Members 
of Congress with that big PAC, that big gift. But I was rebuffed at the 
conference.
  What am I going to do? I am going to include that into a motion to 
recommit this bill with instructions to consider those kinds of gaping 
loopholes. The big PAC has got to be included in the next session of 
this conference. Where we have not specifically exempted it, we want to 
include it.
  It is good that we have brought into this bill certain tightening up 
of registration and reporting requirements for the lobbyists. That is 
good. We have done that. And for foreign agents. That is really good. 
But it is bad when you lump into that what happens to be a grassroots 
lobbying activity. That is bad.

  We are not here to tell Members that under the explanations that were 
given to us that the proponents of the bill at conference feel that 
grassroots activities who do not have a registered lobbyist are exempt 
from all of the requirements of this bill. That may be correct, but at 
best it is ambiguous.
  We have heard today from various Members of Congress about how that 
can militate, at least to have the appearance of militating against and 
chilling the effect of citizen efforts to lobby Members of Congress on 
their neighborhood projects. Citizens against the bomb, citizens 
against an incinerator, citizens against whatever are included in this 
prohibition, in this set of regulations, if they have a registered 
lobbyist. If they do not, then they are in some ambiguous, cloudy areas 
in which they may or may not be, depending upon how much money, time 
they spend, et cetera.
  My motion to recommit, later after this debate, to recommit to the 
conference with instructions will cover that situation. We want to make 
clear at the behest of all the Members who are interested not in 
gagging the grassroots activities, we want to have an opportunity in 
the conference to straighten that out, to remove the ambiguities. It is 
good that we have tightened up lobbying and registration and money 
situations and all of that for lobbyists, but it is bad if we lump into 
that, by inadvertence or misinterpretation, the grassroots activities 
that are so near and dear to the hearts of the American public and to 
which we have been responsive ever since the founding of the republic. 
That is good.
  It is good that we have in the legislation some reference, some 
exemption, some adherence to religious organizations and organizations 
with religious purposes. The proponents of the bill and in conference, 
we think that we have covered that. But it is bad that it is not less 
ambiguous. We have got to straighten out that language.
  So here we are. A great bona fide effort to ban gifts, and we may be 
banning religious organizations from proper activities at the doorstep 
of the Congress of the United States. We want to clean it up.
  My motion to recommit, I repeat, and this is the whole essence of the 
debate, will include a plank in which we will try to undo the 
ambiguities that are circling around the religious section of this 
legislation.
  We want to return to the conference for a whole host of reasons. 
These 2 primarily are the engine that forces us to take this position 
and ask the Members of Congress to help us ban gifts but to help us 
clear up the language on grassroots lobbyists. To ban the lunch but do 
not ban the hunch of lobbyists that they can still give Members a 
campaign contribution. We are for banning those gifts, but let us 
straighten out the language of campaign contributions, should they 
belong.
  We ought to make a judgment, should we have made this bill a 
companion bill to campaign reform and bring both together? Why did we 
isolate this gift ban from campaign contributions, the biggest gift of 
all?
  Madam Speaker, we have a situation where it is good that we have 
within the purview of these lobbying requirements the staff of 
legislators, the staff of Members of Congress. They are included in the 
overall language on prohibition on gifts and all the other prohibitions 
that are in this bill, legislative staff. Yet when I offered at the 
committee an amendment to include executive assistants and executive 
Cabinet officials like from the GS-14 and above who are decisionmakers 
and who have more power and influence than any 20 lobbyists sometimes 
and could be the subject of importuning on the part of a lobbyist, I 
was rebuffed at the conference. I want the opportunity to do something 
that is good. It is good that we have staff of the Members of Congress 
included as covered officials. It is bad that we do not have GS-14 and 
above in the various agencies and bureaus of our government not 
included as covered officials.
  The good, the bad and the ugly are all in this bill. I want to 
separate the bad and not even look at the ugly and keep the good after 
the conference reassembles and takes into consideration what this House 
will say on the motion to recommit, namely, that the good is good, we 
can make it even better, we will excise the bad and not even have a 
chance to look at the ugly.
  We have got to recommit this bill, because those of us who want the 
ban on gifts to remain pure and proper cannot in the same hand in which 
we offer that to the American public say, ``We are going to hold on to 
campaign contributions.'' There you are. ``I will not have lunch with a 
lobbyist. I will accept a contribution, a financial contribution to 
make sure that I am reelected to this Congress. You can keep your hors 
d'oeuvres, keep your lunch, just give me the campaign contribution.''
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I assume the gentleman would acknowledge 
that first we did not hear about this concern about the campaign 
contributions in subcommittee in November, on the floor in March.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I seize back the balance of my time. I tell 
the gentleman from Texas that this last week was the first time that we 
were able to even discuss as a conference. We failed, somebody failed 
to call a conference, and we had only 1 day in which to bring these 
concerns which had been fomenting for a long time. The full committee 
never considered it, the subcommittee never considered the prefaces to 
these matters. Then we went straight to conference without the full 
committee having the light of day in this thing.
  I will continue. On the gentleman's own time, he can castigate my 
inability to bring this up 18 months ago, when the chairman of the 
subcommittee well knows that the original purpose was lobby 
registration, not a gift ban and not all the other considerations that 
have surfaced since.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. BRYANT. The gentleman voted for it.
  Mr. GEKAS. On the gentleman's own time he may cross examine me and I 
will speak if he yields to me then.
  So, the whole issue revolves about and down to and through the motion 
to recommit with instructions. If Members feel that this is unambiguous 
about religious organizations, that it is unambiguous about campaign 
contributions, that it is unambiguous about grassroots activities, then 
they should vote against the motion to recommit that is to follow and 
vote their own conscience on final passage.
  I for one will present with as much fervor as I can the motion to 
recommit with the hope that the gift ban will survive and the lobbying 
registration requirements will survive while we make sure that the 
grass roots are not hurt, that religious organizations are not found in 
a cloudy area, and where campaign contributions can be visited as the 
real, big gift that we ought to be addressing, not the Big Mac, which 
cannot, I hope, influence actions of Members of Congress.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Indiana [Ms. Long].
  Ms. LONG. Madam Speaker, I strongly support this lobbying reform and 
gift ban bill, and commend--above all other Members--Mr. Bryant, the 
chairman of the subcommittee for his steadfast leadership on this 
important legislation. Today is the time to do the right thing and pass 
this legislation.
  Current law still allows Members to accept gifts worth up to $250 
from any one source, and an unlimited number of gifts worth $100 or 
less. Last year, I introduced the first gift ban bill in the House. 
That legislation mirrors--to a great extent--the conference report 
before us today. Some of my colleagues believe current rules are tough 
enough. but many of our constituents see these gifts, trips, and meals 
as a way for lobbyists to gain a level of access and influence that is 
not available to the average citizen back home.
  Our constituents are right. While it is extremely unlikely that any 
Member of Congress would ever cast a vote on the basis of a meal or a 
gift purchased by a lobbyist, gifts from lobbyists do alter the nature 
of the relationship. The truth is that gift giving is an integral part 
of a money-driven Washington way of life which helps explain why voters 
are so angry at politicians today.
  The House should do the right thing and pass the conference report 
today.
  Again, Madam Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Bryant] for his tireless work on behalf of this legislation.
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I come from a State where we 
have had a law prohibiting gifts from lobbyists for many years. I want 
to report to those Members, particularly those on the other side of the 
aisle, there has not been a single legislator in the State of Wisconsin 
who has starved to death since this law went into effect. It is a good 
law, a law we should pass here.
  The issue is very plain. If Members think legislators should accept 
gifts from lobbyists then they should not vote for this bill. But if 
they think, as the American people do, that legislators should not 
accept gifts, trips or lunches from lobbyists, they should vote for 
this very good bill.
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Utah [Ms. Shepherd].
  Ms. SHEPHERD. Madam Speaker, on August 3 of last year I introduced 
H.R. 2835, the Congressional Ethics Reform Act, which called for a ban 
on any gift valued at more than $20 to Members of Congress and their 
staffs. Some Members at that time criticized that effort, saying the 
proposed restrictions were too stringent. But Madam Speaker, we are now 
on the verge of adopting legislation that contains virtually all of the 
provisions and I sought I proposed in that legislation.
  For more than a year now, I have been happy to work with Chairman 
John Bryant as he has crafted an extraordinary bill that will 
fundamentally change the way business is conducted in Washington.
  The current hodge-podge of existing lobbyist registration statutes, 
some of which are half a century old, will be replaced by a 
comprehensive law that consolidates registration and reporting 
requirements so that the public will finally know who is spending how 
much to influence whom.
  Equally important, in my view, are the gift ban provisions added to 
this bill. The tough new curbs on gifts will help assure the public 
that their voices are not being drowned out by the free flow of perks 
being bestowed by special interests.
  Last spring, when the House first considered this legislation on the 
floor, I spoke in favor of its passage. But I added, ``I have argued--
and I will continue to argue--for strengthening amendments when this 
legislation goes to conference.'' Madam Speaker, I want to assure my 
colleagues today that we were successful in making this an even better 
bill in conference. We have before us today a bill that combines the 
best provisions of three different bills, including restrictions on 
gifts that no one in this Chamber dreamed possible when this Congress 
convened last year.
  I rise in happy support of the conference report, and I encourage all 
of my colleagues to join me in voting for this landmark legislation.
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. McDermott].
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise here really to try and clarify 
some things that I have heard on the floor. As chairman of the Ethics 
Committee I am not sure whether it is from ignorance or from an attempt 
to mislead, but there has been an issue raised about whether or not 
Members of the House of Representatives can be fined as though this 
bill sets up a fine for people in the public but nothing for us.
  Under the theory of separation of powers, we have set up an agency of 
the Federal Government to deal with the lobby registration and deal 
with their problems, but the House is still covered by the Ethics 
Committee. I would just remind Members that in the manual we pass out 
to all Members, under rule 20(e) Members of the House can be expelled, 
they can be censured, they can be reprimanded, they can be fined, they 
can be denied or limited any privilege including voting by this House 
if the Ethics Committee recommends it to the House and the House votes 
such a penalty. So the ability to fine a Member is defined in our 
rules. Everybody ought to know that. When Members vote for this bill 
they are simply saying they accept that the House can fine Members at 
any point.
  Let me finish with a couple of other things. There has been a 
question raised out here, Members have used the illustration that we 
can take $10,000 from a PAC. That would lead anyone watching this or 
listening to this to believe that Members can go around and accept from 
a PAC $10,000, and a Member actually indicated ``Put it in my pocket'' 
as though it were their personal money to spend. I would remind the 
Members that under the rules of the House under which all of us live, 
rule 45.6 it says a Member of the House shall keep his campaign funds 
separate from his personal funds. A Member shall convert no campaign 
funds to personal use.
  So the idea that Members can use money from a PAC, a Member can take 
$10,000 for personal use is absolutely fallacious. That same rule in 
almost exactly the same words is in the Federal Election Commission 
prohibition against the use of campaign funds for private funds.
  So all of us in the House are subject not only to House rules, but 
also to the Federal Election Commission, and it is absolutely 
prohibited to use campaign funds for private use. If Members do it, 
they are subject to fine and go to prison, and there are all sorts of 
things that can happen, and everybody here knows that no one can take 
$10,000.
  I would like to say one other thing. The reason I support this bill 
is that it is stricter than current law, it is stricter than current 
rules in the House, and we have looked at it, there has been 
consultation with the staff of the Ethics Committee and with Members, 
and it is workable.

                              {time}  1510

  We did not want any surprises for Members. In fact, that is the 
reason the bill has as its effective date May 31, 1995, so there will 
be time for the rules to be drawn and issued so that Members will know.
  I urge your support of this bill.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Washington has touched upon a 
subject that has to be cleared up. This statute which we are creating 
by this conference report is one that visits criminal penalties against 
lobbyists and not against Members of Congress unless there is 
complicity or conspiracy or that kind of thing. And it leaves, most of 
it, to the Ethics Committee. It reestablishes that principle that on 
the receipt of a gratuity or a gift, those kinds of things that are 
already part of the ethics community that a Member of Congress is not 
chargeable like a lobbyist is for violation of the statute, but would 
be, in effect, referred to the Ethics Committee for any kind of 
reprimand that might come out of that situation.
  That has been affirmed and reaffirmed in recent arguments on this 
very floor. I remember in the act of 1989, et cetera, that officials 
receiving gratuities come under their own ethics groupings both in the 
executive and in the House of Representatives in the Congress.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I would take a minute to point out to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania that on page 44 of the bill it says, 
``Assessing a civil monetary penalty.'' We are not talking criminal, 
and there is no criminal penalty in this. This is civil monetary 
penalties only.
  We can do the very same to the Members in the House under the House 
rules. So there is a balance.
  The House rules allow us to fine the Members, and this allows us to 
fine a lobbyist who breaks the rules.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
  Mr. BATEMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, this conference 
report. I do so because to my mind it is a product in which zeal has 
overcome judgment. You can try and fudge around the edges of it, but 
there is something terribly unappealing to the notion that to someone 
who has made a gift that violates some technical standard in this bill 
about which they are unaware is subject to the imposition of a $200,000 
fine, whereas the person who ought to be charged with superior 
knowledge of whether something can or cannot be accepted is very 
unlikely to be disciplined in anything such as that magnitude.
  It is to me passing very, very strange to say that those who cannot 
buy you lunch, bearing in mind that it is not a personal contribution 
but a campaign contribution, can visit you in your office and on two 
occasions leave behind $5,000 contributions.
  This bill, I think, is terribly ill-conceived. It proceeds from the 
premise that those who lobby are somehow shady, bad characters who are 
despoiling the legislative process. Yet everyone who rises says they 
really do not see anything wrong with what people are doing; they are 
worried about a perception. I think we are creating a perception. I 
think it is indeed a false perception. I think this bill is born more 
and more of political desperation than it is its merits. I shall vote 
against it.
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to just simply 
say I am not clear whether the last gentleman who spoke is in favor of 
$5,000 campaign contributions or against them.
  Let me make something very clear. Mr. Gekas, at the last minute in 
the conference, brought to us a notion that we ought to put a provision 
in this bill, a provision which says that a lobbyist cannot make a 
campaign contribution. That might be a very good idea if we are taking 
up campaign finance legislation. But Mr. Gekas' proposal and what he 
intends to put in his motion to recommit says a lobbyist cannot make a 
campaign contribution to an incumbent but can make one to a challenger, 
which is unconstitutional. At the behest of Senator Cohen, one of the 
members of the conference, he then withdrew the unconstitutional 
proposal. It cannot be made constitutional. This is a bill that 
regulates the way in which lobbyists relate to Members of the House and 
of the Senate. We can regulate their behavior with regard to that, but 
we cannot regulate their behavior with regard to non-Members. 
Accordingly, this is not the vehicle to deal with the campaign finance 
question. That is not in the bill.
  The other reason perhaps it is not in the bill is because we never 
heard a single thing about it. Mr. Gekas never said a single word about 
this until the last 36 or 48 hours. All I can say is, if you are 
genuinely concerned about it, get involved in the campaign finance 
reform debate.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEKAS. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Madam Speaker, there is more to this bill than prohibiting gifts from 
lobbyists. In my opinion, this bill is ``Big Brotherism'' from 
Washington at its worst, disguised as an ethics reform for Congress. 
Why do I say this? I say it because there are a number of provisions in 
the bill that put so much control over private groups in the hands of 
the Federal Government, and not the Federal Government but one person 
who is going to decide whether or not they violated the law. And the 
penalties for individuals is up to $10,000 and could be as much as 
$200,000.
  Now, the gentleman there said the ethics rules in this House would 
penalize a Member of this House in the event that they broke the law 
that is in this bill. I would like to ask anybody here when was the 
last time you heard of any Member being penalized to the tune of 
$10,000 or $200,000? It just does not happen. For to you say it happens 
is erroneous. It simply is not going to happen.
  You might chastise them or censure them here in this body, but they 
are not going to be penalized like the average citizen who is going to 
get hit with a $10,000 or $200,000 fine.
  Now, we talk about the PAC contributions. The gentleman from Texas, 
the sponsor of this bill, from April 9 of this year to June 30 got 76 
percent of his campaign contributions from PAC's, $42,500. Now, I am 
not saying that influences him, but I would say that it would probably 
have more of an impact on him than a Big Mac that he is getting from 
the same people who are giving him this money.
  From January 1 to February 16 of this year he got 45 percent of the 
money from PAC's, or $26,357.11. Now, I am not saying that influences 
him, but I would say it would have more of an impact on him or anybody 
else than a Big Mac. Yet if somebody takes a Member of Congress out and 
buys him a sandwich, he is guilty of breaking the law and can be 
penalized $10,000, but he cannot be if he gives him $45,000.
  Where is the logic in that? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
  This bill will stop, kill, in my opinion, many philanthropic 
organizations that give millions of dollars to cancer research 
projects, child and wife abuse centers, Ronald McDonald Houses, and 
others because it, in effect, prohibits any Congressman from 
participating in those charitable events. You are not going to be able 
to do it anymore. Believe it or not, folks, some people like us to go 
to these events and raise money for these charities. That is 
prohibited. So who is going to pick up the tab? It is going to be the 
taxpayers because those philanthropic organizations are not going to 
get that money in the future.
  My question to my colleagues is why not make all lunches or all 
dinners or any event reportable on the reports that we file? We have to 
report about 9 reports this year alone. Why not report all of that?
  If we did that, the public would know, our constituents would know, 
who we are having lunch with and who is taking us out to play golf or 
something, and the media would know. Make no mistake about it, the 
media watchers every single thing we do around here. So they would know 
if we were grossly violating or even remotely violating any kind of 
ethics rules of this House.

                              {time}  1520

  By doing that, Mr. Speaker, we would not create a new bureaucracy 
costing millions of dollars to the American taxpayer and infringing on 
their rights to contact their Congressman under the threat of a 
$100,000 fine.

                          ____________________