[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. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Glickman].
  (Mr. GLICKMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, there is clearly a need for campaign 
finance reform. I personally believe there is a need for limits on 
special interests or PAC contributions. I support that. But that need 
does not obviate or destroy the need for passage of Federal lobbying 
reform bills, and I think this is a sensible bill that puts Federal 
legislators essentially on a similar plane that most State legislators 
are already on in this country. They are subject to the restrictions 
and the amount that lobbyists can provide in terms of gifts and related 
things, and they seem to operate very nicely in those confines, and all 
we are asking is that Members of this body and the other body should be 
treated similar to what most State legislators are treated in this 
country.
  I also believe this issue of grassroots lobbying that has come up in 
the last 24 to 48 hours is a bit of a red herring. The fact of the 
matter is we heard nothing about this during the time the bill was 
going through the legislative process. Most of the major large national 
religious organizations like the U.S. Catholic Conference and others 
support the provisions of this bill, do not believe in any way that 
this bill is going to infringe on legitimate grassroots lobbying nor 
impede or restrict people's rights to lobby or right to call on their 
Congressmen in any way whatsoever.
  There is an extraordinary cynicism in this country about public life, 
about Washington, about the things that we do up here. I do not know if 
this bill is going to be any miraculous cure or try to be an antidote 
to that. I doubt it, but I do think it is important for us, if we want 
to preserve the democracy that we live in, this wonderful country of 
representative form of government, and we have to show the people that 
we are independent from those who want to influence government, that we 
are independent of the lobbyists, and therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge 
support for this bill.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg].
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
bill.
  Folks, the idea that a Member of Congress can be bought with a fancy 
meal, a round of golf, or even a ticket to a baseball game, is a slap 
in the face to the integrity of this Chamber. I cannot conceive the 
type of political deception that would create a measure of this kind.
  When I cast my first vote in this Chamber, I was struck by the truly 
awesome responsibility given me by the people of the 11th District of 
Michigan. I would certainly like to know which of my colleagues would 
forsake this responsibility and sell their votes for a hamburger and a 
coke.
  Second, this bill is riddled with inconsistencies. It would impose 
$200,000 fines and harsh criminal penalties on our constituents, while 
doling out mere slaps-on-the-wrists to Members of Congress who violate 
its provisions.
  How can anyone suggest that all the blame belongs to one side is 
beyond me.
  Furthermore, why is it that, under this bill, it is OK for a 
constituent to take me to a Tiger-Orioles game in Detroit but it is a 
criminal offense for that same constituent to take me to a Tiger-
Orioles game at Camden Yards.
  I think everybody knows what's going on here. This piece of 
legislation is designed for one reason and one reason alone--politics. 
It seems that there are a number of Members who are willing to malign 
the integrity of this Chamber for their own personal political gain. 
And it is this kind of behavior, not the issues addressed in the bill, 
that has undermined the public's trust in Congress.
  My constituents did not send me here to pass shoddy, half-way 
measures designed to pull the wool over the eyes of the American 
public.
  I encourage my colleagues: do what you know in your heart is right--
vote against this bill and vote for a motion to recommit.
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Browder].
  (Mr. BROWDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference 
report, and I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] 
and the people who have worked on this legislation from both sides of 
the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation. I have got 
friends on both sides. Some of my friends are concerned because they 
see possible problems in this legislation. But, Mr. Speaker, the 
problems that they are going to encounter if we pass this legislation 
are small. They are greatly outweighed by the benefits of this 
legislation.
  I urge strong support for this legislation among my colleagues and 
also from those who think that this is just for public perception that 
we are doing this. I think this legislation acknowledges that the vast 
majority of this body intends to conduct its business in a reasonable 
way that the people of this country expect.
  I rise in strong support and urge my colleagues to vote for this 
legislation.
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Fingerhut].
  (Mr. FINGERHUT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Bryant] for yielding this time to me as well as for his long, hard work 
on this subject. As someone who has been somewhat involved in this 
piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, I can tell all those who are 
listening to this debate today that it is no picnic to be the person 
carrying the bill that is seeking to change the basic way that we do 
business in this body. The gentleman from Texas deserves our gratitude, 
and he has mine.
  The arguments against this bill, as usual, come down both to what it 
does do and what it does not do, and let me just briefly respond, 
taking the latter first. It is always possible to argue against any 
bill on this floor about what it does not do. The principal argument 
here about what it does not do is it does not solve the problem of 
campaign finance reform, how we raise and spend money on our campaigns. 
I, like many others on this floor today, wish to reform the subject of 
campaign spending, and I am working on that legislation, as are many on 
the other side. But that does not mean that we should not take up this 
legislation today.
  The second argument, about what it does do, I think is also not well 
taken today. One is that somehow we should not enact a gift ban because 
there is no specific allegation that anyone's vote has been bought or 
sold. We are dealing, regrettably but honestly and seriously, with 
perceptions that exist in this country about how this body operates in 
light of the tremendous growth in the practice of professional lobbying 
over the last decade. To do something about that by drawing a line 
between ourselves and those who are professionally engaged in the 
practice of lobbying in appropriate, is correct and will do a lot of 
good.
  The second thing is to argue that somehow this has a chilling effect 
on the practice of grassroots lobbying. In fact it has been called on 
this floor today a gag rule. Nothing could be further from the truth. I 
believe the public has the right to know that there are organizations 
who have invested considerably in professional public relations firms 
in Washington who specialize in reaching out and generating phone calls 
and letters. If with that information they then continue to respond to 
those appeals, then they will at least be doing so fully informed. We 
are informing them today.
  I urge support of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, there are few things I have worked as long or as hard 
for as the Lobbying Disclosure Act. As you know, in March 1993, the 
freshman Democrats released a comprehensive, 27-point reform package 
which included a section on limiting the influence of well-financed 
lobbyists. We expressed our strong support for legislation that would 
close loopholes in the current lobbying registration laws, and we 
supported efforts to force the itemized disclosure of lobbying 
expenses.
  Mr. Speaker, the Lobbying Disclosure Act accomplishes these goals and 
more. It will require the registration of thousands of lobbyists who 
have never been registered. Anyone who spends more than 10 percent of 
his or her time lobbying senior executive branch officials, legislative 
branch officials, and congressional employees will have to register 
with the Federal Government as a lobbyist.
  The legislation also requires the registration of people who do 
grassroots style lobbying.
  As recommended in the freshman Democratic task force report, 
lobbyists will also be required to itemize their expenditures in detail 
which will include the identity of their employers or clients, issues 
on which the lobbyist is lobbying, and an estimate of the total amount 
of all income from the client or expenses incurred in connection with 
lobbying activities.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues, Representative John Bryant in 
the House and Senator Carl Levin in the Senate for their hard work on 
developing this underlying registration bill. In the controversy about 
the gift provisions of this conference report, the important 
registration requirements are often overlooked. Long before I took 
office, Representative Bryant and Senator Levin were working hard to 
craft effective lobbyist registration legislation.
  An outgrowth of my work on the reform package was an interest on my 
part in somehow further limiting the influence of lobbyists by 
restricting any financial benefits they give to members and their 
staffs. In August 1993, Representative Karen Shepherd and I introduced 
the Sunshine for Lobbyists Act and the Congressional Ethics Reform Act 
which essentially prohibited Members of Congress from receiving any but 
the most nominal gifts and to disclose those that they do receive. Our 
legislation was patterned after legislation introduced as an amendment 
by Senator Paul Wellstone and after a sense of the Senate resolution 
introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg. Both of these measures were 
added to Senator Levin's underlying registration bill.
  Over the course of the past year and a half, Representative Shepherd 
and I have worked with Representative Bryant and his staff on the 
inclusion of our legislation in his registration bill. We gathered 
support from a number of our freshman colleagues who cosponsored our 
bills and from more senior members like Representative Jill Long and 
Representative Dan Glickman who had introduced gift limitation 
legislation of their own. I appreciate their input throughout the 
process.
  On March 24, 1994, by an overwhelming vote of 315 to 110, the House 
passed S. 349, Senator Levin's underlying registration bill with 
Representative Bryant's gift limit language that paralleled our 
legislation. On May 6, the Senate passed similar legislation and a week 
later a separate gift ban bill introduced by Senator Wellstone. We in 
the House realized that our legislation would have to be strengthened 
in order to compare favorably with that of the Senate, and many of us 
vowed in March on the House floor to bring back a bill that was even 
stronger after the conference with the Senate.
  This brings us to the conference report that we have before us today. 
This is a good piece of legislation. It is not perfect, but it is an 
excellent step towards addressing the concerns of our constituents 
about the way that business is done here in Washington. There is a very 
real perception outside the beltway that we members of Congress are 
treated like kings and queens and that we are wined and dined every 
night of our existence. Obviously, for most of us, this is not the 
case. However, the people in Ohio and in Utah and in Indiana, see us 
portrayed by the media as privileged people who never have to lift a 
finger for ourselves. They see lobbyists who have special access and 
influence, and they feel that their input is somehow less important.
  The public's trust in Congress is at an historic low, and it is 
deepening. Let's act to address this problem by changing the way that 
things work around here. Let's restore the faith of our constituents in 
this body by passing the final version of this legislation to bring 
sunshine to our system of governing.
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Georgia
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lobbying 
Disclosure Act and gift ban.
  My constituents are the little people, not the high rollers. When I 
lunch with constituents in my district, we eat fried chicken in a 
little cafe without tablecloths, and I am happy to pick up my own 
check. Really, there aren't too many places in my district where you 
can spend $20 on lunch for one person.
  The average American doesn't eat lunch or dinner in a fancy 
restaurant with clean white table cloths. My constituents don't take 
vacations at fancy golf resorts--they pile the kids in the van and go 
to grandma's. So, when the people's servants are seen at fancy resorts 
and upscale restaurants spending time with lobbyists, it just doesn't 
look right.
  I urge my colleagues to support strong lobbying reform. Support this 
conference report.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I support the Lobbying Disclosure Act because 
it is a step toward a more open Government, responsive to the people, 
not special interests. It will be good for this institution, closing 
loopholes in existing lobbying registration and disclosure laws, and 
includes the toughest restrictions on gifts to Members and staff in the 
history of this institution.
  The tactics of the opposition are diversionary. Unwilling to face the 
music, opponents try to change the subject. For example, in campaign 
finance reform, we do need to enact it, but the deadlock to date on 
that subject is no excuse for gridlock on lobbying reform.
  The reference to Big Mac is a big smoke screen. The opponents have 
tried to politicize this issue. For example, on the subject of grass 
roots lobbying. This bill will not inhibit efforts by religious and 
other grass roots organizations to express their views.
  The opponents have gone too far, overpoliticizing this issue. They 
are standing in the way of the very kind of change they sometimes 
proclaim that they favor. Those proclamations now have a very hollow 
ring.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Mica].
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, the problem with this place is they pass 
legislation that has fancy sounding titles, like this bill, the 
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1994. What a bunch of bunk. Look at what 
this piece of legislation does. And I made this same speech when it was 
before us before. Now, does this bill disclose more to the public and 
to the press and to people who need to know?
  Right now you must disclose four times a year. This bill says twice a 
year. Now, do you get to know more of what they are spending money on 
to defeat or pass legislation, I ask you?
  The current law has criminal penalties. This law does not. Is that 
tougher enforcement? Is that going to ensure disclosure?
  Do not give me this stuff about free trips going to end. With trips, 
this bill just limits the confines of the trip, and the same thing will 
go on, and the public will be dismayed.
  You know what the title of this bill should be? This bill should be 
entitled the ``Big D.C. Law Firm Relief Act,'' because what it does in 
fact is it really requires you to use one of the 23,000 attorneys in 
this town to present your case before this Congress.
  This is a sham. This is a disgrace, that we should allow thresholds 
created by this bill. Are you 10 percent lobbying, are you 10 percent 
pregnant? Come on. You are fooling the American people. Why not, if you 
have got it even a dime report it. Report it, who gave it, who got it.
  Now, I know who wrote this bill, and it is a sham. I support the gift 
provisions, but you have weakened the system, and you are going to 
force the American people to again to be dismayed by your actions here. 
And yet we can take, as they have said here, a $20 meal and reject, not 
today, a $10,000 PAC contribution. What a sham.
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, in which I would 
like to say that the gentleman from Florida who just spoke indeed did 
make those points in debate last March. He was dead wrong then, and he 
is dead wrong now.
  At this time, I yield 1 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington 
[Mr. Cantwell].
  (Ms. CANTWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to follow through on a 
commitment that many of the freshmen made this place works in 
congressional reform legislation. This bill before us is that 
commitment, signed, sealed, and delivered. Our message is clear: 
Instead of empty rhetoric, we have chosen to act. The Lobbying 
Disclosure Act that was originally proposed by the freshmen Democratic 
task force in 1993 is what is before us today, and is that commitment 
to the American people. It moves us one step closer.
  Those same people want to see campaign lobbying reform. They wanted 
to see other improvements, and we hope that we will get bipartisan 
efforts to bring those bills before Congress and continue to have them 
voted on before we adjourn.
  But, specifically, what we are voting on today, this legislation 
includes the broadcast and strictest lobbying disclosure requirements 
ever enacted. It provides a total ban on entertainment and other gifts 
from lobbyists to Members of Congress and their staffs, and it 
permanently limits the influence of lobbyists and special interests on 
Capitol Hill.
  This, I think, is the most important lobbying disclosure act that we 
can pass. Let us move a step closer to the American people. Let us move 
a step closer to Government that makes sure that these interests are 
registered.
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding, and I thank the gentleman from Texas for listening to all of 
this. There is no one that should have gotten abuse on this, because he 
has worked so hard to tighten up these loopholes.
  If people want to know what a sham was, a sham was the prior laws on 
lobbyists, and that is why we have has such an incredible culture 
growing here, where we have tens of thousands of lobbyists blooming all 
over this city, along with many lawyers who can also be lobbyists. Now 
they are going to have to register and tell and disclose a lot more, 
and now they are going to have to sell us on the facts. And that is 
what it is all about.
  Actually, that is what is has really been about for a lot of people 
for a very long time. I am always amazed, and it always reminds me of 
how much this law and this reform is needed, whenever I have a 
constituent following me around during the day. Because at the end of 
the day, they always say. ``Wow, that is not what I thought your life 
was like.''
  When you ask them what they thought your life was like, they thought 
it was about getting gifts and fancy meals, playing athletic games, and 
doing all sorts of things. They had no idea that we really worked here. 
And that has been the media image, and that has been the unfortunate 
image many people picked up.

  Well, that is not the image for most Members of Congress. This is a 
very hard-working group. But for those who have abused it, this is the 
way we bring those abuses under control. Let us be perfectly clear what 
this is about. The Committee on the Judiciary that I have sat on has 
done long, long hearings on this, has looked at this. It is very 
similar to what they have done in many State legislatures.
  It does not do anything about cutting off grass roots. For heaven's 
sake, anybody can phone, anybody can write, and this means their phone 
call and their letter is going to mean a whole lot more. Because those 
who weigh more heavily on the sides of others will now have to listen 
to everybody more equally.
  I say support this reform. It is long overdue. I thank the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Bryant] for bringing it to the floor.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I have a list of speakers yet to appear, and 
would ask the gentleman from Texas if he would proceed until they 
appear on the floor. I had the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Rowland] 
down as a speaker. The speakers yet to come to the podium are not 
present, so I ask the indulgence of the Chair and indulgence of the 
gentleman from Texas to proceed on your side until they appear.
  Mr. BRYANT. The difficulty, of course, is we have now expended more 
time than you have.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, than I move that we recess.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not entertain that motion. We 
should proceed in regular order. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
seek time, or does the gentleman reserve the balance of his time?

                              {time}  1540


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaRocco). The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, a motion to adjourn is in order, it 
is not? And there will be a vote taken on it, will there not?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Did the gentleman say a motion to adjourn?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Yes. Mr. Speaker, is in order, is it not? Is it 
not?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As long as it does not take a Member from 
his feet, it is in order, between speakers. Does the gentleman wish to 
enter a motion?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I asked a parliamentary inquiry. 
This is going to be worked out, or I will make a motion to adjourn.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Rowland].
  (Mr. ROWLAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROWLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation in 
its present form.
  Mr. Speaker, while I support many of the provisions of the Lobbying 
Disclosure Act and appreciate the efforts of those involved in 
developing the conference report, I am opposed to S. 349 for a number 
of reasons. Specifically, I am distressed that the conference report 
does not include a provision pertaining to charity functions. While I 
will not be affected personally as I will not be returning next 
Congress, I remain concerned about the impact on charities.
  In March of this year, the House of Representatives approved a 
lobbying reform bill that also banned lobbyists from giving Members 
gifts, meals or entertainment; however, it would permit Members to 
travel to charity events. I supported the House version of the bill as 
it does not adversely impact the endeavors of those who raise money for 
worthy causes. An excellent illustration is the Danny Thompson Memorial 
Golf Tournament which has raised approximately $2.5 million for the 
University of Minnesota Leukemia Research Fund and the Mountain States 
Tumor Institute.
  In addition, it is unclear how S. 349 will impact the efforts of 
grassroots groups from our districts that come to Capitol Hill to 
inform us of their views. For example, a local chamber of commerce that 
has a military base in their community on the closure list would likely 
meet the threshold of spending 10 percent of its budget or $5,000 to 
plead their case in Washington. Such a group would then be subject to 
the reporting and registration requirements under this bill or face 
liability of $200,000 for failure to comply. Groups like our local Farm 
Bureaus who travel to Washington for brief periods of grassroots 
activity could be similarly affected.
  As a result of these concerns, I must oppose this legislation despite 
its good intentions.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Two years ago I did not think I would be coming to the floor of the 
House of Representatives speaking against a reform effort, but the bill 
that we have in front of us today is a sham. In many ways it is once 
again a Washington solution to a very serious problem, but once again, 
the Washington solution falls far short of what we need to do. It 
really goes in the wrong direction.
  How do we solve a perceived ethics problem in the House of 
Representatives or our relationships with lobbyists? We are going to 
create a new bureaucracy. We are going to muzzle the grassroots, and we 
are going to provide preferential treatment for Members of Congress.
  I do not believe that is what the American people sent us to 
Washington for, and I do not believe that that is what the American 
people will identify as reform.
  In many ways the legislation in front of us is the height of 
hypocrisy. Let me just outline some of the things that is going to be 
in front of the grassroots organizations, the people that we want to 
open up the process to, the types of things that they are going to have 
to go through.
  They are going to have to have and meet pages and pages of new 
requirements that probably will ensure that they will spend more on 
reporting their contacts with Congress rather than the actual dollars 
that they will spend on any exercises. They will have to maintain a 
list and an inventory of all their contacts with committees, with 
committee members, contacts with Members of the House of 
Representatives, contacts with Federal agencies. They will have to go 
into a whole new series of accounting techniques independent of what 
they do for the IRS; good faith estimates of the total expense of the 
registrant; good faith estimate of total expenses of the registrant and 
its employer in connection with the lobbying activities; a list of the 
employees of the registrant who acted as lobbyists; a list of all the 
people who may have contributed to support the lobbying activities.
  What we have is a typical Washington solution, a new bureaucracy and 
more paperwork, and the problem will still be with us.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Armey].
  Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Madam Speaker, I oppose this bill, and I will vote against the bill.
  Every time Congress passes a so-called reform, you must ask yourself, 
``What is being taken away from the American people?'' Are we taking 
away from ordinary Americans their precious right to pick up the 
telephone and petition their elected representatives in Congress? It 
seems that we are. I oppose this bill because it would further isolate 
this institution from the American people--hard as that may be to 
imagine.
  The more you read this bill, the more questions arise--questions for 
which we have, as yet, received no satisfactory answers. Let me just 
pose a few of those questions.
  Will this bill stop secret, 500 member health care task forces from 
working with special interest groups, be they corporate lobbyists or 
nonprofit advocacy groups, to overhaul our Nation's health system?
  Will this bill require advocacy groups and labor unions to report 
their specific contacts and agendas within such groups as the secret, 
500-member health task force?
  What if Lane Kirkland, president of the AFL-CIO, talked to President 
or Mrs. Clinton to specifically ask that the President's health bill be 
revised to exempt union-negotiated health plans? Would the AFL-CIO have 
to report the contact and the specific favor it sought?
  Would the Children's Defense Fund, the Robert Woods Johnson 
Foundation, or the Sierra Club, or any other such group, have to 
disclose their lobbying of the administration for special contracts, 
grants, or regulatory changes?
  Will the bill permit the American people to scrutinize the pervasive 
behind-the-scenes influence of the incredible network of congressional 
committees, nonprofit groups, and advocacy organizations that the Wall 
Street Journal has dubbed the Clinton ``ad-hocracy''?
  Will the bill disclose the activities of high-paid lobbyists and 
consultants, such as James Carville, Paul Begala, Mandy Grunwald, Stan 
Greenberg, Betsy Wright, Susan Thomases, and Tony Coehlo when they 
obtain White House passes to enter into high level decision making on 
Presidential initiatives and decisions?
  Will the bill prevent a friend of the President, for example, 
Hollywood producer Harry Thomasson, from directing the hiring and 
firing of career White House staff at the White House travel office in 
order to ensure that the Government air charter business works through 
a company owned partially by himself?
  Will the bill treat as a gift a $600,000 mortgage loan for a plush 
apartment at remarkably favorable interest rates when the recipient of 
the loan is a high-level White House staffer on a $125,000 a year 
salary?
  Will the bill prevent a Cabinet Secretary, say, the Agriculture 
Secretary, from conducting his official business at the Super Bowl, 
courtesy of a chicken company? Will it prevent the Cabinet member from 
accepting free trips, cheap jeep rentals, and who knows what else until 
an independent counsel completes an investigation?
  Will the bill prevent a Cabinet member, say, the Commerce Secretary, 
from soliciting contributions from big business special interests 
during the Presidential inaugural festivities?
  Will the bill force someone who works on the President's election 
campaign and hopes to be rewarded with a plumb post after the election, 
say, the job of U.S. trade representative, to brief such clients and 
potential clients as General Electric, Bell Atlantic, and U.S. West?
  The authors of this bill owe us answers to these questions.
  Madam Speaker, I will submit in the Record selected newspaper 
articles and other material relating to the questions I have just 
asked.
  Finally, I will also submit in the Record a sample of the disclosure 
form that the House Judiciary Subcommittee has advised would be an 
acceptable disclosure form under the terms of this bill. I think the 
American people may be disappointed with how little the bill would 
actually reveal about the contacts occurring between paid lobbyists and 
their Government in Washington.
  When Congress says it wants to protect your right to petition 
Congress, read the fine print.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule, support the motion to 
recommit, and oppose this bad piece of legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I include for the Record the articles to which I 
referred.

                      [From the Washington Times]

              Dwindling Vital Signs of Health Care Reform

                          (By Paul Greenberg)

       No wonder Hillary Rodham Clinton didn't want to reveal the 
     working papers of her Task Force on National Health Care 
     Reform. She successfully stonewalled for some 18 months 
     before releasing 234 boxes of documents, each containing 
     about 2,500 pages of material. Her task force was able to 
     maintain its secrecy much longer than the one amassed around 
     Haiti, but of course Miss Hillary's outfit had a more 
     determined commander in chief.
       And what do the first, cursory dips into this library of 
     healthspeak show? That almost from the first, officials 
     within the administration were making the kind of devastating 
     criticisms that, in the end, sank this Task Force. The 
     criticisms were ignored, but nobody can say Ira Magaziner, 
     who was supposed to coordinate this uncoordinated effort, 
     wasn't warned. Hillary Clinton should have been able to 
     detect the torpedoes, too. They started coming early:
       On Feb. 17, 1993, a senior economist at Treasury--James R. 
     Ukockis, described the administration's health-care planners 
     as having gone ``from frenetic to frantic'' in trying to 
     answer unanswerable criticisms of its work. It was clear to 
     Mr. Ukockis even then that the White House ``was not 
     interested in a balanced evaluation'' of its plan, but just 
     looking for ``someone to make the best possible case for a 
     specific price control program.''
       Somehow this does not surprise. Rather than conducting an 
     objective study to find the best solution to the problems of 
     American health care, the organizers of the task force seemed 
     out to confirm their own preconceptions. True Believers are 
     like that; they hold onto their cognitive dissonance as if it 
     were an article of faith, confident that sheer will power can 
     make 2 plus 2 equal 5. Or at least 4\1/2\ as a compromise. 
     Can this be what Bill Clinton, in his 1992 presidential 
     campaign, used to deride as ``brain-dead politics''?
       A month later (March 23, 1993) Mr. Ukockis surveyed the 
     jury rigged plan being assembled and warned: ``Every option 
     has fatal flaws, which, although passed off as problems 
     `still under examination,' are actually major roadblocks to 
     successful implementation.'' It would take more than a year 
     for the administration to tacitly admit as much when it 
     agreed to scuttle the task force's plan. The challenge now is 
     to make a strategic rout sound like a great victory.
       The big problem with the Clinton Plan was that, instead of 
     making only incremental changes, or beginning anew, it 
     attempted to make coherent changes--well, changes that seemed 
     coherent to its theorists--in a health-care system that isn't 
     a coherent whole to begin with. How did health insurance in 
     America ever get tied to employment in the first place? 
     Because war industries during the First World War set up 
     their own medical systems to care for their workers, and 
     everything else just grew from the quirk. If the American 
     (non)system of health care had a name, it would be Topsy.
       Eventually the country would develop an arrangement under 
     which insurance companies make medical decisions, lawyers' 
     fees determine insurance rates, competition has less effect 
     on price than do government dictates, coverage tends to end 
     when the job does, employees have an HMO instead of a doctor, 
     taxes are called ``mandates'' * * * and the whole, ramshackle 
     system continues to grow in all directions, or maybe shrink.
       One cannot make changes, however rational in theory, to 
     selected parts of this clanking, uneven machine without 
     throwing off all the other parts. The economist at Treasury 
     had identified the big problem with the Clinton Plan early in 
     the game: ``Every option has fatal flaws'' that could be 
     disguised as ``problems still under examination'' only for 
     so long. Eventually the American people, to judge by the 
     polls, caught on, Congress followed suit, and ClintonCare 
     was undone.
       Here's a memo from Treasury that affords a glimpse into how 
     things worked on Planet Clinton: On April 1, 1993, when the 
     administration was asked to provide some reliable figures on 
     how much its health plan would cost, the health planners 
     ``sat around the table making guesstimates of the savings to 
     be realized'' by their ever-changing plan. Conclusion: ``It 
     was an appropriate exercise for April Fool's Day.''
       What we have here is the familiar triumph of theory over 
     mere reality: First concoct a program or a policy, and then 
     find the numbers to justify it. The administration's health-
     care plan, like Dr. Johnson's description of second 
     marriages, was a triumph of hope over experience.
       The administration was able to pursue this complex mirage 
     for more than a year, but inevitably it fell apart. What 
     reason cannot teach, time must. And now Congress is 
     considering only incremental reforms that could have been 
     passed in President Clinton's first year in the White House, 
     or maybe even President Bush's last.
       The True Believers are in retreat for the moment. What is 
     remarkable is not that they had to retreat, but that they 
     held out against the facts for so long. Ira Magaziner's 
     leadership style, which might best be described as 
     extraterrestrial, lost touch with reality early, while 
     Hillary Clinton did not give up the struggle till late, 
     apparently under the impression that arithmetic was but 
     another sneaky Republican plot that must be foiled at all 
     costs.
       Whatever all this says about the health plan, it 
     demonstrates once again that the Clintons make a perfectly 
     balanced political couple: If the president seems to have no 
     convictions he won't sacrifice for political advantage, Mrs. 
     Clinton has entirely too many.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, April 15, 1994]

                        Carville's Artful Dodge

                (By Jack Anderson and Michael Binstein)

       In politics, sometimes appearance is everything. Nobody 
     understands that better than James Carville, the ``Ragin' 
     Cajun'' whose political prowess helped transform the governor 
     of Arkansas into the president of the United States. Today, 
     Carville's celebrity has crowned him with two highly 
     desirable hats: presidential confidant and a top draw on the 
     speaking circuit.
       Although no official numbers were available, each 
     appearance nets him more than $15,000, according to several 
     sources, including one whose group recently hired Carville to 
     speak. Recent engagements were before organizations the White 
     House might label ``special interests'': the American 
     Hospital Association, the American Trucking Associations, the 
     National Association of Home Builders and the New Mexico Oil 
     and Gas Association.
       Because Carville is not a government employee, he is in an 
     ethical no man's land--allowed to float from the private to 
     the public sector without being subjected to the stringent 
     new ethics rules of the Clinton administration or those 
     already in place proscribing acceptance of speaking income.
       The arrangement suits both President Clinton and Carville. 
     Clinton can capitalize on Carville's trouble-shooting skills, 
     and Carville, a member of Clinton's ``Kitchen Cabinet,'' can 
     pursue a private-sector career while maintaining White House 
     ties.
       Although Carville's road show breaks no laws or 
     regulations, some believe it's an artful dodge, particularly 
     given the cleaner-than-Caesar's-wife standard set by the 
     Clinton administration.
       ``Carville can say that he's not in government. But if 
     you're at the White House every day, you're in government,'' 
     says Charles Lewis, executive director of the nonpartisan 
     Center for Public Integrity. ``Perception and reality are not 
     the same thing, though they become the same thing here.''
       Carville makes no apologies for his role, and defends 
     actions of the consulting firm he runs with partner Paul 
     Begala. ``Let me make this perfectly clear. We have never 
     taken corporate clients--ever,'' Carville told our associate 
     Jan Moller. Carville confines his consulting to working to 
     elect Democrats to office.
       ``Every candidate I've worked for has asked me to stay on 
     in some way or another,'' Carville said, adding that he has 
     turned down offers of ``millions'' to lobby on behalf of 
     corporate interests.
       Last year, corporate lobbying became a major issue after 
     conservative Patrick J. Buchanan scolded President Bush for 
     taking advice from Charles Black and James Lake, both of whom 
     worked for firms with extensive corporate and foreign 
     clients.
       Carville is not the first White House adviser to confront 
     ethical questions related to public speaking. Former national 
     drug policy director William J. Bennett and Clinton health 
     care adviser Paul Starr, for example, have wrestled with 
     similar questions but arrived at different conclusions than 
     Carville has.
       Bennett turned down an offer to head the Republican 
     National Committee in 1990, fearing in part that his 
     extensive speaking schedule could be seen as conflicting with 
     his role as a White House adviser. His speech-making 
     technically would have fit within the rules.
       More recently, Starr, a top adviser to Hillary Rodham 
     Clinton's health care task force, has put his own lucrative 
     public speaking career on hold while he serves the country. 
     Starr, a professor at Princeton, is considered one of the 
     grandfathers of health care reform, having developed one of 
     the models for ``managed competition'' that has gained wide 
     notice among Clinton's reformers. But sources tell us that 
     when Starr was tapped as an adviser to the task force, he 
     voluntarily gave up all speaking engagements until that work 
     is finished.
       The Senate discussed honoraria from speeches as part of 
     ethics reform in 1989. After much deliberation, it banned the 
     acceptance of honoraria in exchange for a hefty salary 
     increase. Today, senators are required to give proceeds from 
     speeches to charity.
       ``If we think honoraria is a potentially corrosive thing 
     for congressmen, then why would it not be a problem for a 
     daily, de facto employee?'' Lewis says. Of Carville and his 
     firm, Lewis adds: ``I do admire and commend them [for 
     rejecting corporate clients]. But if they're going to be that 
     diligent, then they should be the same way about their 
     honoraria.''
       There is no evidence to suggest Carville has let the 
     agendas of his speaking circuit hosts filter into his 
     discussions with Clinton. Carville says all of his 
     engagements are booked by a speakers bureau and he plays no 
     role in choosing his audiences. Yet there is always the 
     problem of appearance.
                                  ____


                  [From Business Week, Nov. 15, 1993]

                         It's The Money, Stupid


Four campaign aides are making pots of cash as consultants--while still 
                         advising the president

       It was a few weeks after Inauguration Day, and delirious 
     Democrats were still celebrating. But not James Carville, 
     Paul E. Begala, Mandy Grunwald, and Stanley B. Greenberg. The 
     four Clinton campaign veterans sat in a Chicago hotel room, 
     looking through a one-way mirror while voters in an adjoining 
     room talked about their frustrations with the nation's health 
     system.
       When the focus group ended, the four were convinced that 
     the cautious approach some Democrats were taking on health 
     reform was off base. Voters knew plenty about the intricacies 
     of the health system and wanted radical change. ``That 
     knocked my socks off,'' recalls Begala. ``It led us to 
     understand that the President was right in wanting to move 
     more forcefully.'' Back in Washington. Greenberg conveyed the 
     message directly to the Oval Office. And that helped persuade 
     Bill Clinton to seek the most sweeping social reform since 
     the New Deal.


                            ``netherworld''

       Nearly a year later, the four still exert enormous clout at 
     the White House. Like full-time White House staffers, each 
     carries the special security pass that grants entry to 1600 
     Pennsylvania Ave. But none, by choice, is on the White House 
     staff, where top aides earn $125,000. Instead, group members 
     earn far more as consultants to the Democratic National 
     Committee. This arrangement permits them to act as 
     troubleshooters while working for other candidates, 
     corporations, even foreign political parties. Never before 
     have so many key political advisers plied their trade as 
     free-lancers--freed from the restrictive conflict-of-interest 
     rules that govern Administration appointees.
       This dual role worries government-watchdog groups. The four 
     ``are operating in an ethical netherworld.'' contends Ellen 
     S. Miller, director of the Center for Responsive Politics. 
     ``The fact that they have a close relationship with the White 
     House while maintaining outside clients raises the specter of 
     conflict of interest.'' Adds Charles Lewis, head of the 
     Center for Public Integrity: ``The DNC and its advisers have 
     become an adjunct wing of government--with no accountability 
     to government.''
       The doubts haven't stopped Carville, Begala, Grunwald, and 
     Greenberg from becoming the hottest hired guns in politics. 
     ``Every Democrat running for high office next year will call 
     one of these people,'' says Republican consultant Jay Severin 
     III. ``Hire someone with their track record, and you look 
     more like a winner than you did the day before.'' But their 
     popularity raises a tantalizing question: Are the Fab Four's 
     services being sought because they're good or because they're 
     close to Clinton? Says one Democratic activist: ``People are 
     buying a name and a connection.''
       One person who isn't complaining is Bill Clinton. He 
     constantly enlists the inside-outsiders in his ``permanent 
     campaign.'' The four helped direct the fight for the 
     President's economic plan, mopped up after early stumbles 
     over Cabinet appointments, and provided brilliant image 
     counseling for Hillary Rodham Clinton. More recently, they 
     developed the marketing strategy for health reform, with its 
     alluring emphasis on lifetime security. The four are 
     ``conceptual thinkers, each with a piece of the whole,'' says 
     Samuel L. Popkin, a University of California-San Diego 
     political scientist who worked on the campaign. ``Stanley 
     knows how to think about an issue, Paul knows how to talk 
     about it, Mandy knows how to picture it. And James just nails 
     it.''
       Obviously, each one of the four could have had top White 
     House posts. Although Campaign Manager David C. Wilhelm was 
     sent to head the DNC, most war-room commandos, such as George 
     R. Stephanopoulos, went to the White House.


                            rocky relations

       Critics feel that by staying outside, the four deprived 
     Clinton of a heavyweight staff. Indeed, while Carville, 
     Begala, Grunwald, and Greenberg ply their private interests. 
     White House operations have been left in the hands of such 
     relatively inexperienced aides as Chief of Staff Thomas F. 
     ``Mack'' McLarty III, a former Arkansas utility executive, 
     and Stephanopoulos and his fellow thirty-somethings. Even 
     with the arrival of image counselor David R. Gergen, who has 
     improved operations, few think the setup works well.
                                  ____

       Group members dismiss the notion that Clinton needs them 
     'round the clock. But they fret possible conflicts. To 
     insulate themselves, the quartet made a pact: No corporate 
     lobbying and no deals with foreign governments. ``We asked 
     for information from the White House and DNC counsel about 
     laws that governed us,'' says Grunwald. ``We found out there 
     were very few. So we decided to make our own rules.'' The 
     Clintonites see no problem with self-policing. Says Wilhelm: 
     ``They come to me when there are questions. These are folks 
     with good judgment.''


                              yanked pass

       Still, there are doubts. For starters, the fact that group 
     members have White House passes troubles some--especially 
     because a few Friends of Bill have been controversial. New 
     York attorney Harold C. Ickes had his pass yanked after he 
     was hired by companies to lobby against expanding a tax break 
     for investment in Puerto Rico. New York lawyer Susan P. 
     Thomases, a Hillary chum, surrendered her pass after McLarty 
     raised questions about her corporate clients.
       By past standards, Carville, Begala, Grunwald, and 
     Greenberg merit passing grades for handling potential 
     conflicts. Pollsters have traditionally worked part-time for 
     Presidents, and Greenberg--unlike Carter guru Patrick Caddell 
     and Reagan pollster Richard Wirthlin--has refrained from 
     rapid expansion fueled by corporate work. Carville and Begala 
     advise just a handful of campaigns, though that's likely to 
     change in 1994. Grunwald's firm is growing fast but still 
     concentrates on politics. ``The President,'' insists 
     Carville, ``is happy for our success.''

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Carville seems intent on grasping the fleeting brass ring 
     of celebrity. ``I've never made any money in my life. If I 
     don't make it now, I'm never going to.'' says Carville and 
     his fiancee.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       In his guise as the Ragin Cajun. Carville is a defender of 
     the downtrodden. But now, his typical audience is a business 
     group, which Carville describes as ``150 rich white guys who 
     quote Rush Limbaugh to me.'' Past clients include the 
     American Hospital Assn., the National Restaurant Assn., and 
     McGraw-hill, publisher of Business Week. Isn't he taking 
     corporate cash? Carville concedes ``most of these companies 
     are not riddled with Democrats,'' but denies that he's 
     peddling access. ``Reports of my influence are exaggerated.''
       That didn't stop the restaurateurs from making a pitch to 
     him. Last April, the group invited Carville to speak. At the 
     time, the White House was proposing further limits on the 
     deductibility of business meals. Upset members buttonholed 
     Carville. Says spokeswoman Wendy Webster: ``They hope he 
     would bring back a message to the President.'' Carville 
     portrays himself as an entertainer, but not everyone agrees. 
     Carvell & Co. ``are very powerful people'' says one 
     Democratic activist. ``What do they think people are 
     buying?''
       Except for lectures, Carville & Begala don't accept 
     business clients. ``When I advise the President that a tax on 
     beer is a bad idea, he doesn't have to worry that I work for 
     Budweiser,'' says Begala. Carville claims the policy ``has 
     cost us $10 million.'' The bids come from companies, bond 
     houses, interest groups, ever foreign governments.
       As for C&B's political candidates. Begala insists that ``we 
     can't do anything to help clients at the White House.'' As 
     evidence, he cites the six-week stretch he served as a White 
     House temp during the budget fight. ``When New Jersey, 
     Georgia, and Pennsylvania [states where C&B has clients] came 
     up, I left the room.'' Moreover, Carville adds, by aiding 
     endangered Democrats such as New Jersey Governor James J. 
     Florio, the pair is also helping Clinton.
       C&B won't represent foreign governments in the U.S. But 
     they see dollar signs in campaigns abroad. The duo recently 
     handled the reelection bid of Greek Prime Minister 
     Constantine Mitsotakis--badly, as it turned out. Mitsotakis 
     was trounced by Socialist Andreas Papandreou, and C&B left 
     Greece shaken by the death threats they received.


                           driving miss mandy

       Of all the inside-outsiders, Grunwald has the most 
     complicated task--juggling White House demands and her media 
     firm. Business is booming for Grunwald, Eskew & Donilon, 
     which makes ads for state and congressional candidates. 
     Recent business clients include cable giant Tele-
     Communications Inc. GED made ads for local cable operators 
     battling TV stations over programming rights. Meanwhile, 
     Grunwald has become a key player in selling health reform and 
     the North American Free Trade Agreement.
       Grunwald has a talent vital to Clinton: She can translate 
     the most convoluted wonkisms into terms Joe Sixpack can 
     understand. ``On health reform, Mandy spent hours refining 
     the language, fine-tuning the names of things, so people 
     would get it,'' says White House Communications Director Mark 
     D. Gearan.
       Of the Fab Four, Grunwald is the most plugged in to the 
     zeitgeist. She convinced Clinton to appear on MTV and 
     Arsenio. ``Mandy's immersed in popular culture,'' says 
     partner Carter Eskew. ``A lot of people in our business think 
     in words. She thinks in pictures.''
       Grunwald's firm has become a magnet for politicians--so 
     much so that some contests pose potential problems for 
     Clinton. For instance, GED is committed to handle Alabama 
     educator Paul R. Hubbert's expected primary challenge to 
     Governor Jim Folsom Jr. next year.
                                 ______

       The White House fears that when Pennsylvania Senator Harris 
     Wofford runs for reelection next year, he may trumpet his 
     opposition to NAFTA. In New Jersey, Senator Frank Lautenberg 
     may boast of his vote against Clinton's tax-heavy budget. 
     Would Grunwald produce such ads? ``I don't consider that a 
     problem,'' she says. Still, she adds: ``I don't think it's 
     good politics to spend a lot of time attacking this 
     President--ask what's-his-name in Texas.'' The reference is 
     to ousted Senator Bob Krueger, whose Clinton-bashing campaign 
     flopped despite help from--guess who?--Carville & Begala.
       Although Grunwald insists that DNC work is a small part of 
     her business, it's lucrative. The party pays her $15,000 a 
     month. In addition, the DNC compensates her firm at the 
     standard rate--around 15%--for its media purchases. In May 
     and June, she got more than $113,000 in DNC consulting fees, 
     according to the Federal Election Commission.
       Grunwald also handles media for the DNC's national health-
     care blitz. The campaign has an ad budget of $3 million, most 
     of it raised from the pesky corporations the inside-outsiders 
     say they try to avoid.
       Some competitors think that's fine. ``To the victor go the 
     spoils,'' says one GOP adman. Others disagree, noting that 
     Grunwald was among the Clinton pols who urged delaying the 
     trade pact for fear it would clash with health reform. 
     ``Everyone knows she's against NAFTA,'' grouses a Democratic 
     consultant.
       Is Grunwald selling something she doesn't believe in? ``I 
     have absolutely no personal views on NAFTA,'' she replies. 
     ``My job is to make sure my client has his views accurately 
     described. I understand the President's views. And I 
     understand why Senator Wofford and others oppose it.''


                         bearer of the scrolls

       To meet pollster Stan Greenberg is to meet a truly happy 
     man. Ever since his college activist days, Greenberg has only 
     wanted to work for reformist Democrats. When he met Clinton, 
     who inhales polls like Big Macs, the two clicked instantly. 
     Now Greenberg zips in and out of the White House with his 
     latest readings of the President's job performance. ``Clinton 
     is remaking the country,'' the pollster says approvingly, ``I 
     organized my DNC contract so I can spend all my time working 
     for him.''
       Actually, Greenberg Research still polls for long-standing 
     clients: Senators Jeff Bingaman (N.M.) and Joseph Lieberman 
     (Conn.), plus Michigan Representatives Bob Carr and David 
     Bonior. Working for Bonior is another jarring bit of inside-
     outism, since he's leading anti-NAFTA forces. Greenberg says 
     an associate is handling Bonior. Nor is he concerned about 
     the free work he does for the African National Congress.
       Despite his firm's demands, Greenberg meets White House 
     aides nearly every day and gives Clinton a weekly briefing on 
     his standing with voters. ``Stan's the one who has to go in 
     and say `Mr. President, you're dropping like a hot rock,''' 
     say Begala.
       Although their circumstances differ, Clinton's inside-
     outsiders insist they are trying to keep their private 
     pursuits from entangling with Clinton's. ``Judge them by what 
     their counterparts did in the past, and you see a higher 
     standard,'' says party activist Mark Siegel.
       Perhaps. But given their boss's vow to rid Washington of 
     influence-peddling, even some CBGG admirers wonder whether 
     they shouldn't take an extra step. ``They should disclose 
     their clients and their fees,'' says a top Democratic 
     consultant. ``That's a commonsense way to avoid potential 
     problems in the '90s.''
                                  ____


              [From the Washington Times, Sept. 22, 1994]

         Espy ``Dead'' as Reports of Improper Conduct Continue

       Support for embattled Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy is 
     quickly eroding as speculation heightens that he will resign 
     soon.
       Reports that he was paying back thousands of dollars to 
     correct the appearance of past improprieties have not helped 
     his cause.
       Senior sources on Capitol Hill yesterday were dismayed at 
     the increasing flow of negative reports on Mr. Espy, 
     including details of personal trips to his home state, 
     Mississippi, at taxpayer expense.
       ``Espy is dead. He has lost any moral credibility,'' a 
     senior Capitol Hill official said.
       An influential agricultural lobbyist agreed, saying, ``All 
     the financial stuff and the travel--it just looks horrible.''
       A refusal by the White House to say whether Mr. Espy had 
     offered his resignation fueled speculation that he will quit 
     soon, but a senior aide to the secretary denied such plans.
       ``The rumors are completely unfounded,'' said Ali Webb, 
     director of communications at the Agriculture Department. 
     ``The secretary has not offered his resignation and has no 
     plans to do so.''
       White House spokeswoman Dee Dee Myers said President 
     Clinton will not prejudge the secretary. ``The president has 
     confidence in the job Mike Espy's done. He thinks he's served 
     ably and well as agriculture secretary,'' she said. ``I think 
     the president is going to make a judgment based on the facts, 
     not on a call for rush to judgment.''
       Asked whether Mr. Espy had offered to resign, Miss Myers 
     said, ``I'm not going to open that door.''
       Pressed on the matter, she said, ``I don't want to 
     [answer]. I do know, and I choose not to comment, and I 
     wouldn't read anything into that.''
       But sources on Capitol Hill and around the city said the 
     continual bad publicity on Mr. Espy had pushed him past the 
     point of redemption. They said he is an embarrassment to a 
     White House already worried about losing congressional seats 
     in the Nov. 8 general election.
       ``If you were the president and were in striking distance 
     of losing the House and the Senate, and one guy could drag 
     you down, then what would you do?'' a congressional source 
     said.
       ``Espy's exercised some very bad judgment. A lot of people 
     don't think he'll last past the election,'' a well-placed 
     Senate source said.
                                  ____


                       Registration for Lobbying


          pursuant to proposed lobbying disclosure act of 1993

       A. Organization or individual filing: (if total income or 
     expenses are $1,000 or more in semiannual period), National 
     Association of Manufacturers, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 
     #1500--North Tower, Washington, DC 20004-1703, (202) 637-
     3000.
       Principal place of business: same as above.
       Client address & principal place of business: same.
       General description of client's business or activities: The 
     NAM is a voluntary trade association principally involved in 
     protecting & furthering the competitive free enterprise 
     system.
       B. Name of any organization that contributes more than 
     $5,000 in a semiannual period, significantly participates in 
     the supervision or control of the lobbying activities, and 
     has a direct financial interest in the outcome of the 
     lobbying activities: None.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\Questions or suggestions are discussed in NAM testimony. 
     All entries are fictional and for demonstration purposes 
     only,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       C. Name, address and approx. percentage of equitable 
     ownership in the client [of] any foreign entity that holds at 
     least 20% equitable ownership in the client; directly or 
     indirectly, in whole or in major part, supervises, controls, 
     directs, finances, or subsidizes the activities of the 
     client; or is an affiliate of the client that has a direct 
     interest in the outcome of the lobbying activity: None.
       D. The general issue areas in which the registrant expects 
     to engage in lobbying, and a list of specific issues that 
     have already been addressed or are likely to be addressed: 
     See attachment.
       E. The name of each employee of the registrant expected to 
     act as a lobbyist on behalf of the client. If any such 
     employee has served as a covered legislative or executive 
     branch official in the 2 years prior to the date of 
     registration, list the position in which such employee 
     served. See attachment.
                                  ____


                           Semiannual Report


            pursuant to proposed lobbying discl. act of 1993

                      (due July 30 and January 30)

       A. Name of Registrant: National Ass'n of Manufacturers.
       B. Name of Client: Same.
       C. List any changes in above from initial registration: 
     None.
       D. For each general issue area in which the registrant 
     engaged in lobbying activities during the past 6 months (use 
     additional pages if needed):
       1. A list of the specific issues upon which the registrant 
     engaged in significant lobbying activities, including a list 
     of bill numbers and references to specific regulatory 
     actions, programs, projects, contracts, grants and loans: See 
     Attachment 1.
       2. A statement of the Houses and committees of Congress and 
     the Federal agencies contacted by lobbyists employed by the 
     registrant on behalf of the client: See Attachment 1.
       3. A list of employees who acted as lobbyists for each 
     issue area: See Attachment 1.
       4. A description of the interest in the issue of any 
     foreign entity listed in the registration: None.
       E. Estimate of total income from the client (or for 
     organizations lobbying on their own behalf, estimate of total 
     expenses incurred in connection with lobbying activities):
       At least $1,000 but not more than $10,000.
       More than $10,000 but not more than $20,000.
       More than $20,000 but not more than $50,000.
       More than $50,000 but not more than $100,000.
       More than $100,000 but not more than $200,000.
       More than $200,000 rounded to the nearest $100,000: 
     $900,000.
       Houses and committees of Congress and the Federal agencies 
     contacted:
       Senate Committee on Appropriations.
       Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
       Senate Committee on Finance.
       Senate Committee on Small Business.
       House Committee on Appropriations.
       House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
       House Committee on Science, Space & Technology.
       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
       U.S. Department of the Interior.
       Office of Management and Budget.
       A list of employees who acted as lobbyists: Michael E. 
     Baroody, Jerry J. Jasinowski, Jan Amundson, John Cohen, Susan 
     R. Hogg, Mary C. Pigott, H. Richard Seibert
       Issue area: Labor relations and product liability.
       Specific Issues:
       Consumer Product Safety Comm'n Reauthorization, H.R. 4706.
       Medical Malpractice Reform, S. 489, H.R. 1004.
       Family and Medical Leave Legislation, H.R. 2, S. 5.
       Product Liability Reform, S. 640, H.R. 3030.
       Drug Testing bill, H.R. 33, S. 2008.
       Civil Rights Damages, S. 2062, H.R. 3975.
       ERISA Preemption, S. 794, H.R. 1602, H.R. 2782.
       Replacement of Strikers, H.R. 5, S. 55.
       Whistleblower Protection.
       OSHA Reform, H.R. 3160, S. 1622.
       OSHA Criminal Penalties, S. 445, H.R. 1192, H.R. 549.
       Pension Simplification.
       Health System Reform, S. 1227, H.R.5502, S. 1872, S. 1936, 
     S. 2731, S. 2732.
       Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1992, H.R. 5260.
       Houses and committees of Congress and the Federal agencies 
     contacted: [similar to listings above].
       A list of employees who acted as lobbyists: [similar to 
     listings above].
       Issue area: [Others omitted--sample only].
                                  ____


                     ATTACHMENT 1 (ITEM D1 AND D2)


                  nam issue areas and specific issues

            nam lobbying report--july through december 1992

       Issue area: International Economic Affairs
       Specific Issues:
       Trade Import Restrictions, H.R. 5100.
       Foreign Direct Investment Reporting, H.R. 2624, H.R. 2631.
       Export Administration Act Reauthorization, H.R. 3489.
       Export-Import Bank Reauthorization, S. 2864, H.R. 5739.
       U.S.-Mexico Free Trade Negotiations.
       Manufacturing Strategy Act, S. 1330.
       Industrial Design Protection, H.R. 1790.
       Denial of Most-Favored-Nation Status to China, H.R. 5318, 
     H.J. Res. 502.
       Trade with former Soviet Union, S. 2532.
       Overseas Private Investment Corporation Reauthorization, 
     H.R. 4996, S. 2338.
       Houses and committees of Congress and the Federal agencies 
     contacted:
       Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
       Senate Committee on Finance.
       Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
       Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
       House Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs.
       House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
       House Committee on the Judiciary.
       U.S. Department of Commerce.
       U.S. Trade Representative.
       A list of employees who acted as lobbyists: Michael E. 
     Baroody, J. Lee Hamilton, Jerry J. Jasinowski, Howard Lewis 
     III, William G. Morin.
       Issue area: Resources and Environment.
       Specific Issues:
       Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, S. 1220.
       Global Climate Change, H.R. 4750.
       National Energy Strategy, H.R. 776.
       Environmental Crimes.
       Superfund Reauthorization.
       Superfund Lender Liability.
       Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, S. 976, H.R. 3865.

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane].
  (Mr. CRANE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
conference report. I would simply remind the members that the British 
Colonial Government cut off the freedom of speech and the right of 
petition to our Founding Fathers, too.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the conference report to accompany S. 
349, the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1994.
  Madam Speaker, there are perhaps many reasons to oppose this 
legislation; however, I want to focus on a few of my reservations.
  Man's right to free speech is an inalienable one. Thankfully, our 
Constitution and its Bill of Rights recognizes and preserves that 
right. Included in that right to free speech is freedom to petition the 
Government. This right was not guaranteed to the Founding Fathers by 
the British Colonial Government and led to their fight for 
independence. The conference report, as currently written, is a direct 
attack on that right.
  Particularly onerous is the requirement that grassroots lobbying 
organizations release the names of their contributors. If this 
conference report is passed, the Federal Big Brother will be given 
authority to barge into the living rooms of Americans demanding to know 
their political views. In addition, this legislation denies an 
exemption to people who lobby on behalf of religious organizations, 
forcing them to register and report their business.
  Because of the new rules created by this legislation, a businessman 
who flies from my home State of Illinois and spends several days in 
Washington to visit members of the Illinois congressional delegation 
could easily fall within the new definition of a lobbyist. I resent the 
attempt by the majority party to prohibit my constituents from 
expressing their legislative concerns to me.
  Furthermore, the bill will create another bureaucratic agency, the 
Office of Lobbying Registration and Public Disclosure. The position of 
Director in this office will be politically appointed by President 
Clinton, and responsible for governing lobbying organizations. I 
shudder to think of the retribution that could be wielded against 
individuals who oppose the President's policies.
  Madam Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this conference report.
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma [Mr. Synar].
  Mr. SYNAR. Madam Speaker, as so often in life, there comes a moment 
where it is either put up or shut up. I am comfortable that history and 
the American public, in reviewing today's debate, will see through the 
hyperbole and the reinvention of facts which we have been hearing 
about.
  What this lobbying disclosure bill is not about is impinging upon 
one's religious freedom. It is not about stopping or gagging a 
citizen's grass roots participation in this democracy.What it is about 
is cleaning up and defining an outdated gift rule, and modernizing 
lobbying rules which reflect the new dynamics of pressure politics.
  Most of all, however, it is about ensuring our ability to govern 
ourselves as a nation. No country, no democratic government, can 
function without the confidence and trust by those who we serve, for 
right or wrong, whether we admit it or not, even in this the cleanest 
democracy on the face of the Earth, we are challenged each year, each 
day, to constantly and regularly strengthen that bond and trust.
  Passage of this lobbying disclosure bill continues to build that 
faith. I encourage my colleagues to keep that faith and to make it 
better.
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I thank all of the Members for their patience 
throughout this long debate, and throughout the last 18 months. I will 
have to say that while I am glad to be finished with it, I think it is 
going to cause a very significant improvement in the public's 
perception of this institution and the way in which we do business. I 
think one thing has been lost in the process, and that has been the 
realization that it seems to be almost virtually impossible to succeed 
with a bill like this on a bipartisan basis as we would like to have 
done.
  Madam Speaker, the only issue that Members have mentioned to me today 
that they are concerned about has been this issue of grass roots 
lobbying. Yet less than 24 hours ago, no one had asked me about that 
question for 18 months, 20 months. All this time has passed and not one 
time did we see anybody come forward and say, ``We are worried about 
it.'' Not one time did the Republican leader come forward and say, ``We 
want to change it.'' Not one time did we have anybody from these 
organizations want to contact us.
  In fact, the religious organizations we have worked with support the 
language and have reaffirmed their support of it, even in the last 12 
hours. The fact of the matter is, the bill does not contain anything 
that would limit or inhibit in any way the ability of religious 
organizations or other grass roots organizations to petition this 
Congress or to lobby with regard to their objectives, not in any way 
whatsoever.
  Madam Speaker, the facts are very, very clear. The grass roots 
provisions have been in the bill since last November when it passed out 
of subcommittee unanimously, with the support of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] and the Republicans. They were in the bill in 
March when the bill passed this House with only 110 people voting no. 
Nobody said a word about grass roots lobbying at the time. We checked 
the record today. The words ``grass roots lobbying'' were never uttered 
during that debate.
  Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that at the very last 
minute, for purposes that are, I think, not too hard to figure out, we 
have watched many people in this country, probably people who are 
idealistic, who are deeply religious, be used by the leadership of the 
other side in an effort to stop a bill for reasons that do not have 
anything to do with grass roots lobbying, but have a whole lot to do 
with maintaining the status quo.
  What is the status quo? Free meals, free tickets, free trips. That is 
what the status quo is. This bill is about one thing and one thing 
only: Changing the way we do business in Washington, DC, and 
reinforcing public confidence in the House of Representatives and the 
U.S. Senate. I strongly urge the Members to show the courage today and 
the foresight to reject this last-minute lobbying effort, this last-
minute telephone effort, this last-minute radio show effort that is 
going on right now and has begun only in the last few hours, to say no 
to that and to say yes to a new policy that will reinforce the public's 
understanding that this legislative body makes it decisions based upon 
the public interest; that no one will have the opportunity, whether it 
would have that effect or not, no one will have the opportunity to wine 
or dine or pay for travel for Members of this Congress in order to 
influence the outcome of legislation.
  Madam Speaker, that is the sum total of this bill. That is the sum 
total of the meaning of the Members' vote. Vote against the motion to 
recommit, vote for this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I thank all the Members who have participated in this 
debate for their courage and their long months of work.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 349, 
the Lobby Reform and Disclosure Act. I voted for this measure when it 
originally came before the House only because it arose under 
suspension. There was no way to amend it, and Members were not aware of 
the more pernicious provisions in the bill.
  Like the crime bill, Mr. Speaker, this legislation has noble goals 
that all Members of Congress share. Unfortunately, this bill, like the 
crime bill, is a sham. It is full of loopholes that protect the 
Washington special interests but infringe on the right of ordinary 
Americans to contribute to the national debates that affect their daily 
lives.
  The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that ``Congress 
shall make no law * * * abridging the freedom of speech * * * or the 
right of people * * * to petition the Government for a redress of 
grievances.''
  The bill before us today will have a chilling effect on free speech 
and will make it more difficult for American citizens to have their 
voices heard in Washington.
  What's in the bill? First, it puts more restrictions on private 
individuals and grassroots organizations than it does on Members of 
Congress. For instance, the bill authorizes fines up to $200,000 
against private citizens for failing to register with the new lobbying 
bureaucracy created by the act. Yet a Member of Congress will not even 
have his or her name disclosed if he or she breaks this law. This is 
justice, Washington-style.
  Even worse, Mr. Speaker, this bill forces grassroots groups, such as 
churches, to register and report to the Federal Government all 
expenditures and list every individual who lobbies on their behalf, 
including volunteers. And while the Government keeps records on all 
individuals that lobby--a move certain to have a chilling effect on 
free expression--the bill addresses only appearances of impropriety for 
big money lobbyists.
  Under the new law, lobbyists will be prohibited from taking a Member 
of Congress to lunch at McDonald's but will be allowed to dump $10,000 
from a single PAC into the coffers of a beholden Member. This 
discrepancy is unjustified, Mr. Speaker, for its is big PAC's, not Big 
Mac's that cause the problem in Washington.
  Amongst the many diverse groups opposed to this legislation are the 
American Civil Liberties Union, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Defenders of 
Property Rights, and the Christian Coalition.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a grassroots gag rule and deserves to be 
defeated. We cannot afford to tarnish the worthy cause of lobby reform 
with such a sham measure. Let us kill this bill, and vote for real 
reform that eliminates PAC's but protests first amendment freedoms.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
reforming the laws that govern Washington lobbyists. In the end, I am 
going to vote for the Lobby Reform and Disclosure Act conference report 
because it makes important changes in the way lobbyists interact with 
Congress.
  But I am concerned about one aspect of this legislation as it is now 
written. In our zeal to make some important changes affecting special 
interest lobbyists, we may be unfairly hindering individual citizens 
that want to express their views through grassroots organizations.
  For that reason, I will support a motion to recommit the bill back to 
conference so that we can make some adjustments and if that is 
unsuccessful I will support legislative initiatives to make this bill a 
better law. We must ensure that this legislation does not have the 
unintended effect of discouraging citizens from becoming part of the 
political process.
  Make no mistake, the Lobby Disclosure Act makes many important 
changes and that is why I am going to vote for it today. Quite frankly, 
we need to limit the role of influence peddlers in Washington. There 
should be no free lunch from lobbyists, no free trips, no free golf 
games, for Members of Congress. This bill rightly stops this practice.
  Unfortunately, the conference report language raises some issues that 
need to be addressed regarding the reporting requirements of activist 
citizens. We should not create a situation in which citizens who want 
to petition their elected officials on issues being considered by the 
Congress are afraid to do so because of concern about the complicated 
laws that apply to registered lobbyists.
  For example, it appears that this bill would require a representative 
of a grassroots organization sent to Washington to speak with an 
official covered by the Lobby Disclosure Act to register and then in 
certain instances disclose all subsequent expenditures of the 
organization. This may very well give an advantage to Washington based 
lobbyists over those who come to Washington from our districts.
  The bill may also require that any organization that attempts to 
influence Federal decisions with the help of a grassroots operation 
reveal the specific names, possibly including volunteers, addresses and 
principal places of business retained in grassroots lobbying.
  Moreover, the bill potentially sets up a double standard, imposing 
dramatic penalties on citizens who violate its provisions while 
protecting Members of Congress from exposure.
  For these reasons, I support the motion to recommit so that we can 
make this bill even better. And if we choose not to do that, I will 
work tirelessly with my colleagues to amend this law and correct any 
problems that arise with the provisions that impact the grassroots 
community.
  Mr. WHEAT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my continued support for 
the Lobbying Disclosure Act--legislation I was proud to vote for when 
it was first passed by the House of Representatives this March.
  Although I was unavoidably detained during the vote on the conference 
report today, the Lobbying Disclosure Act has my full support. This 
measure is the most significant reform of our Nation's lobbying 
disclosure laws in decades. It builds on legislation many of us 
cosponsored in recent years to prohibit tax breaks for lobbying, and 
which was passed into law last year.
  The Lobbying Disclosure Act bans Members of Congress or their staffs 
from receiving free meals, entertainment, travel, or gifts from 
professional lobbyists. It closes current loopholes without undermining 
grassroots lobbying, or the activities of religious organizations. It 
expands lobbyist registration requirements for those who lobby for a 
living.
  In short, it opens the door, and lets the American people see exactly 
who is seeking to influence legislation affecting their lives and how 
much is being spent for that purpose. And, in the process, the measure 
will restore a greater measure of public confidence in the institution 
of Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, in recent years, we have taken important steps in 
reforming the way Congress does the people's business. In 1989, I 
supported the Ethics Reform Act, the most sweeping overhaul of House 
ethics rules and governmentwide conflict of interest laws in over a 
decade.
  That measure banned Members of Congress from accepting money for 
speeches to organizations and special interests. It restricted the 
ability of former high government officials to turn around and lobby 
Congress. And it put an end to the conversion of campaign funds by ex-
Members of Congress for personal use.
  In 1990, I supported the Franking Reform Act which has placed strict 
limits on congressional mailings and required the disclosure of how 
much each Member spends on mail.
  Last year, Congress enacted legislation to reduce the number of 
legislative branch employees by 4 percent and cut the congressional 
budget $500 million over the next 5 years. Congressional pay has been 
frozen for the second year in a row, and I have voted on three separate 
occasions to freeze salaries. In addition, I was a cosponsor of 
legislation to ban pay raises for Members of Congress.
  I have also supported a crucial measure approved by the House to 
reform our campaign finance laws and create a more level playing field 
for candidates, legislation which I have cosponsored since my first 
term in Congress.
  Taken together, these measures--along with today's passage of the 
Lobbying Disclosure Act--are steps to move us forward toward the goal 
of a more responsive, more accountable government for the American 
people.
  But while Congress tends to the business of the Nation, there is more 
that can and must be done to change how Washington conducts its own 
business.
  In particular, we must pass the Congressional Accountability Act to 
make sure that Congress lives under the same workplace laws as everyone 
else. As a cosponsor of the Congressional Accountability Act, I was 
proud to join my colleagues in the House last month to pass this 
measure by an overwhelming margin, 427 to 4.
  Congress will make wiser policies when it lives under the same rules 
and regulations others must live by. But time is running short, and the 
other body has yet to pass the Congressional Accountability Act.
  The American people have heard enough talk, they want action on a 
tough, strong bill on congressional compliance and enforcement. They 
want campaign finance reform. And they want lobbying reform. It's time 
to deliver these bills to the American people and help renew public 
faith and trust in the institution of Congress.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, in 1992 the voters sent Washington a clear 
message: They are tired of the Government being controlled by a power 
elite--a small political class comprised of politicians and fat-cat 
lobbyists, and during these last 2 years, the people have begun to 
mobilize at the grassroots level to take back their Government.
  They have mobilized in churches. They have mobilized under the banner 
of citizens' movements such as United We Stand America. They have even 
mobilized via informal computer networks, and quite frankly, seeing the 
people mobilize scares the hell out of the party that has run this 
place for 40 years, and, it scares the hell out of the big unions and 
other special interests who support and control them.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a sham.
  It is not a lobbying reform bill.
  It is a protect the power brokers bill.
  The provisions of this legislation will reduce public input into 
congress, rather than increase it. It will have a chilling effect on 
religious groups, independent political parties, Chambers of Commerce 
and other local individuals who want their message to be heard in 
Washington. It won't hurt the AFL-CIO and it won't hurt the foreign 
governments who hire big time lobbying firms; but, it will hurt 
grassroots organizations like small-town religious, business or civic 
groups.
  The registration and reporting requirements proposed in this bill 
threaten to jeopardize the basic right of all Americans to communicate 
with and lobby their Government. Apparently, that is what the majority 
party and their allies want, but, that is not what the American people 
want
  Mr. Speaker, if a small church congregation from Corona, CA can't 
send a representative two or three times a year to tell me their views 
about legislation without being hassled by a Federal Bureaucracy, there 
is something wrong.
  I urge my colleagues to send this bill back to committee.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to register my 
support for true lobbying reform and opposition to the Lobby Reform and 
Disclosure Act.
  This bill has laudatory goals--to put a stop to special interest 
manipulation and perks paid for by lobbyists. I support these goals. 
However, the bill is riddled with loopholes for those inside the 
Washington beltway and restrictions on constitutional rights for the 
rest of America.
  Moreover, this legislation stifles free speech and makes it more 
difficult for average Americans to express their views.
  The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, 
states: ``Congress shall make no law--abridging the right of the 
people--to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'' 
Unfortunately, this bill puts more restrictions on private individuals 
and grassroots organizations than it does on Congress. This bill 
authorizes fines of up to $200,000 on private citizens for failure to 
register with the forthcoming lobbying bureaucracy at the White House. 
But a Member of Congress would not even have his or her name disclosed, 
even if he or she is involved in a violation of this legislation. Not 
only is this a double standard, it also violates the spirit of 
legislation the House passed recently to require that the laws Congress 
passes for everyone else apply to Congress itself.
  This bill forces grassroots groups, such as churches, to register and 
report all expenditures and list those lobbying on their behalf, 
including volunteers.
  While this bill puts a gag on grassroots lobbying, it addresses only 
appearances of impropriety on the part of big-money lobbyists. For 
instance, lobbyists would be prohibited from taking a Member of 
Congress for lunch at MacDonald's, but would still be permitted to give 
$10,000 to a Congressman from a single PAC.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this fatally flawed bill and welcome true 
reform legislation, including the elimination of political action 
committees. We need real and permanent change, not a bill that 
undermines the Constitution we are sworn to uphold.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Speaker, once again Congress is coming up short on 
reform. This bill addresses only a minor part of the problem that has 
caused Americans to lose faith in their government. We need tougher 
lobby reform, and more important, we need meaningful campaign finance 
reform.
  What's the point in banning a lobbyist from buying lunch for a 
Congressman if he is still allowed to hand him a $10,000 PAC check? The 
link between big money and politics won't be severed until we enact 
real campaign finance reform. But the leadership of Congress doesn't 
seem to want to change the rules under which they got here.
  Moreover, this bill completely ignores scandalous lobbying practices 
that cry out for reform. For instance, Members of Congress too often 
leave public service and then use their contacts and knowledge to 
influence the very people they worked with as a public servant. I have 
introduced legislation with my colleague from Florida, Mr. Bacchus, 
that would slam shut this revolving door. It would impose a 5-year ban 
on Members of Congress who seek to lobby any committee on which they 
served and would permanently ban them from lobbying on behalf of 
foreign nationals. I have introduced another bill that would prevent 
former Members of Congress and high-level staff from lobbying the 
executive branch. And, I will soon be introducing legislation that 
would permanently ban former Members of Congress who have been 
convicted of a felony from becoming lobbyists.
  Despite its flaws and omissions. I will be voting for the lobbying 
bill because I believe it is a small step toward restoring some measure 
of accountability to Congress.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, as I have stated before on the 
floor of this Chamber, I recognize and support reasonable initiatives 
that seek to ensure greater openness and accountability in our 
legislative process. However, I do not believe that the bill before us 
today adequately addresses the most substantive ways in which we as 
Members of Congress can meet these important goals. Unfortunately, this 
conference report and all the innuendo and hype surrounding it have 
simply fed the fuel of negative opinions that all too many Americans 
have about Washington without tackling the real concerns on the minds 
of most citizens.
  Each one of us as Members has been charged with the responsibility of 
representing the priorities and interests of thousands of individuals, 
families, and businesses back home in our districts. We meet this 
responsibility by listening to their concerns and voices at a variety 
of times and in a myriad of settings, including over meals or during 
conferences. However, this legislation seems to suggest that doing so 
is somehow improper or corrupt or that Members' motivations on such 
occasions stem from nothing more than mere self-interest. I deeply 
resent such a suggestion.
  It is ludicrous that some of my colleagues would imply that by 
accepting an invitation to dinner or to an industry function my views 
and decisions on a particular legislative issue will be swayed. This is 
flatout false, and I believe that an overwhelming majority of Members 
would agree to this premise.
  These incidental measures included in the conference report we are 
considering will have but minor impact on the vital business of the 
Nation that we conduct in this Chamber every day. For the remainder of 
this Congress and into the next, Members must continue to focus their 
efforts upon the more important and fundamental issues that underlie 
lobby reform and the public's disenchantment with this institution.
  This issue before us is not whether Congress is for sale. It is not. 
The real issue is how do we expand the ability of more individuals and 
groups to have a say in the democratic governing process. Throughout 
the 103d Congress we have been extremely successful under the 
leadership of President Clinton in revitalizing the economy, creating 
jobs, strengthening our communities, families, and schools, and making 
our streets safer--and I look forward with great optimism to the 
opportunities that await the next Congress to once and for all tackle 
such issues as comprehensive health care and welfare reform.
  My colleagues, we need to stop playing the blame game and pointing 
fingers at one another. We need to move forward and get on with the 
vital legislative business of the Nation that the American people want 
passed. We should not have to apologize for carrying out the important 
work which our constituents sent us to this body to perform. We do not 
need to legislate our integrity. We need to continue with the mission 
for which we were elected to Congress--to listen to, communicate with, 
understand, and represent average, hard-working Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I spoke at length when the House passed the 
lobbying reform bill, and so I will only take a few minutes today.
  The bill that has come out of conference has been praised by reform 
advocates, including Common Cause. The lobbying reform bill will ban 
meals, travel, entertainment, and gifts from lobbyists to Members of 
Congress and their staff. In addition, the bill places new restrictions 
on meals, entertainment, and gifts from nonlobbyists.
  There is a decided view in America that lobbyists and special 
interests have too much access to elected officials. The Lobbying 
Disclosure Act will address these concerns by requiring those who lobby 
to disclose their activities--to document the issues they lobby on and 
the amount of money they spend doing so.
  I rise in support of the Lobbying Disclosure Act, not to limit or 
stop the act of lobbying, but to shed light on the process and to 
instill confidence that lobbying is an appropriate avenue for people to 
express their concerns and interests to their elected representatives.
  When this bill is enacted, the American people will be better 
informed and educated. Whether it is a group of activists who organize 
a letter writing campaign, or a one-on-one meeting with a company's 
representative--the American people will know it happened, know what 
issue was discussed and how much money was spent in the process.
  This bill will ban lobbyists from buying lunches, providing gifts, 
and paying for entertainment for Members of Congress--but it will allow 
Members to continue to have legitimate interaction with their 
constituents.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Pelosi). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.


                motion to recommit offered by mr. gekas

  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. GEKAS. In its present form, I am, Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Gekas moves to recommit the conference report on the 
     bill (S. 349) to the committee of conference with 
     instructions for the managers on the part of the House to 
     carry out the following:
       (1) In the proposed section 103--
       (A) strike out paragraph (8),
       (B) strike out the second sentence of paragraph (9)(A), and
       (C) strike out subparagraph (B) of paragraph (9),
       (2) Strike out paragraph (5) of section 104(b).
       (3) Strike out paragraph (6) of section 105(b).
       (4) In the proposed section 103(10)(B)(xviii), strike out 
     the material following subclause (II).
       (5) In the proposed section 103, insert before the period 
     at the end of paragraph (12) the following: ``or a person who 
     spends more than $100,000 in a 6 month period to influence 
     decisionmaking in the executive and legislative branch.''.
       (6) In the proposed section 106(c), strike paragraph (2).
       (7) In the proposed Rule XXXV of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate strike out subparagraphs (a) and (c) of paragraph 2 
     and in clause 4 of Rule XLIII of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives strike out paragraphs (b) and (d) of clause 
     4.
       (8) In title I redesignate sections 112 through 121 as 
     sections 113 through 122, respectively, and add after section 
     111 the following:

     SEC. 112. LEGISLATIVE SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) Coverage.--Any entity affiliated with a legislative 
     service organization shall be considered a lobbyist subject 
     to--
       (1) the registration, reporting, and disclosure 
     requirements of sections 104 and 105
       (2) the prohibition of section 106, and
       (3) the amendments to the Standing Rules of the Senate and 
     the Rules of the House of Representatives made by title II.
       (b) Other Requirements.--Each entity affiliated with a 
     legislative service organization shall report to the Office 
     of Lobbying Registration and Public Disclosure--
       (1) the names and salaries of its staff,
       (2) arrangements made with others to share staff and costs,
       (3) relationships with other organizations in connection 
     with lobbying activities, and
       (4) any contributions, gifts, or reimbursements received.
       (c) Reports.--Any person, organization, or foreign 
     government which makes any contribution to any entity 
     affiliated with a legislative service organization during the 
     semiannual period beginning on the first day of January or 
     the first day of July of each year shall report such 
     contribution to the Office of Lobbying Registration and 
     Public Disclosure not later than 30 days after the end of 
     that semiannual period.
       (d) Special Form.--For purposes of reporting, the Office of 
     Lobbying Registration and Public Disclosure shall issue a 
     form that clearly identifies reportable activity by or to an 
     entity affiliated with a legislative service organization.
       (e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) The term ``contribution'' means a gift, subscription, 
     loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value and 
     includes a contract, promise, or agreement, whether or not 
     legally enforceable, to make a contribution.
       (2) The term ``legislative service organization'' refers to 
     a particular category of working groups or caucuses organized 
     to provide legislative services and assistance to Members of 
     the House of Representatives and certified by the Committee 
     on House Administration.
       (3) The term ``entity affiliated'' means an organization 
     which is described in at least 2 of the following:
       (A) An organization which spends at least 10 percent of its 
     funds in any year on--
       (i) travel expenses for Members of Congress or 
     congressional staff,
       (ii) meals, receptions, or other food and beverage expenses 
     on activities attended by Members of Congress or 
     congressional staff, and
       (iii) gifts (other than educational materials) to Members 
     of Congress or congressional staff.
       (B) An organization which has a name which is like or 
     similar to the name of an entity of the House of 
     Representatives, including a legislative service organization 
     or congressional member organization, or uses the word 
     ``congressional'' in its official name or title.
       (C) An organization which has a Member of Congress serving 
     on its board of directors or holding another controlling 
     position.
       In the proposed section 103(3), strike ``and'' at the end 
     of subparagraph (F), strike the period at the end of 
     subparagraph (G) and insert ``; and'', and insert after 
     subparagraph (G) the following:
       (H) any other officer or employee not otherwise described 
     in this paragraph serving in a position in the executive 
     branch that is classified at or above GS-14 of the General 
     Schedule.''.
       At the end of the bill, add:
       Any penalty applicable to lobbyists or lobbying firms in 
     this bill shall also apply to Members of Congress.

  Mr. GEKAS (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would 
like to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] if the motion 
to recommit is the one that was most recently given to our side.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BRYANT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. Yes, Madam Speaker, we believe so.
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I would ask if we could get a clear 
identification of which motion it is.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, we 
are down to two versions, the one that is now being read, or was being 
read, the one concerning grassroots lobbying, GS-14's and 16's, 
campaign spending, campaign contributions, and a few others.
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.


                             point of order

  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I make a point of order that the motion to 
recommit offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] is not 
in order, in that it instructs the conferees to carry out instructions 
which exceed the scope of the matters committed to conference. 
Specifically, the motion to recommit contains language which expands 
the definition of lobbyists and expands the definition of covered 
executive branch officials.
  Both of these expanded definitions exceed the scope of the matters 
committed to conference. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I insist on the 
point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Gekas] desire to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. GEKAS. Yes, Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.Gekas] 
is recognized on the point of order.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, if I am to understand the point of order, 
it is visited against the section that we have in which we strike out, 
or that we have a motion to instruct the conferees to eliminate 
campaign contributions, is that correct? Is that part of the point of 
order that was made? I could not hear all of it.
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I have already stated my point of order.


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. GEKAS. I have a Parliamentary Inquiry, Madam Speaker. If the 
gentleman would respond to me, I am asking if in his point of order he 
itemizes the campaign contributions as one of the items.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will control the debate. Does the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] concede the point of order?
  Mr. GEKAS. No, Madam Speaker, I want to speak on it, but I want to 
make sure that that is what I heard; that in the point of order that he 
made, as a parliamentary question, I would ask does the point of order 
that was just entered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr.Bryant] include a 
point of order against the campaign financing feature of my motion?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] has 
made a point of order on several grounds. The Chair will entertain 
argument on the point of order from each Member on his own time.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, as a point of parliamentary inquiry, I 
simply wanted to have repeated whether or not the point of order that 
was made included the point on campaign financing. I could not hear the 
gentleman from Texas.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Pelosi). Will the gentleman from Texas 
repeat his point of order.
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I made a point of order that the motion to 
recommit offered by the gentleman is not in order in that it instructs 
the conferees to carry out instructions which exceed the scope of the 
matters that were committed to the conference.
  Specifically the motion to recommit contains language which expands 
the definition of lobbyists and expands the definition of covered 
executive branch officials. both of these expanded definitions exceed 
the scope of the matters committed to conference.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I believe that the motion to recommit is in 
order. The important feature of the motion to recommit has to do with 
campaign contributions in which we feel that, as we argued in the well 
of the House, the big gift that we should be banning is campaign 
contributions by lobbyists, not just sandwiches. The question is, if 
the point of order is to prevail and the Chair is to rule that my 
campaign contribution feature is out of order, does that not return it 
to the status of the current law in which, then, the whole issue 
becomes one that cannot be a point of order if it is returned to 
current law? I pose that as a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the Chair rules this motion out of order, 
the gentleman may offer another motion to recommit.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, that is not answering my question. My 
inquiry is this: If the Chair rules that my motion is out of order in 
that the striking of campaign contributions is beyond the scope, is not 
the result of that, and this is the test of whether or not it is out of 
order, is not the result of that to return campaign contributions to 
the status in current law, thus making the point of order inoperable?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot respond to that inquiry. 
The Chair will address the point of order that has been raised.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, is the motion in order insofar as it seeks 
to clarify the ambiguous language that we feel is contained in this 
legislation on grassroots lobbying?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point 
of order of the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I think I know the answer to this, but I 
must pose it for the record.
  Is the motion that I have made divisible in any way?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's motion is not divisible. The 
gentleman may offer one, proper motion to recommit.
  Mr. GEKAS. I understand that. I will yield to the decision of the 
Chair on this matter.
  Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I see by the rule just passed that allows 
this bill to be under consideration that in this rule, it says all 
points of order against conference report and against its consideration 
are waived except the provisions of clause 2. If in fact the majority 
is able to bring the bill to the floor by waiving all points of order 
against the bill, would that waiver not also cover the gentleman's 
motion to recommit?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The waiver does not inure to the motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. ARMEY. The waiver only applies to the bill brought to the floor 
by the majority, not to the motion to recommit offered by the minority?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. To the conference report.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, before we receive the final edict of the 
Chair, am I to understand in the nature of a parliamentary inquiry that 
the point of order is based partially on our effort in the motion to 
have the conference reconsider language that would equalize the 
penalties making Members of Congress equally liable to citizens who 
violate the grassroots lobbying requirements?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Pelosi). The gentleman from Texas has 
stated the point of order two times for the gentleman.
  The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from Texas makes a point 
of order against the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  As discussed in section 26.12, chapter 33 of Procedure in the U.S. 
House of Representatives, a motion to recommit a conference report may 
not instruct House conferees to include matter beyond the scope of 
differences committed to conference by either House.
  The motion offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania includes 
several instructions that violate this principle. For example, the 
motion instructs conferees to expand the definition of ``lobbyist'' as 
defined in both the Senate bill and House amendment to include not only 
persons who spend a certain period of time engaging in lobbying 
activities while serving a client but also those who spend more than a 
certain dollar amount within a fixed period to influence 
decisionmaking.
  Another example is found in the instruction that expands the 
definition of ``covered executive branch official'' as defined in both 
the Senate bill and House amendment to include a position in the 
executive branch that is classified at or above GS-14 of the General 
Schedule.
  The inclusion of even one of the above-described instructions 
provides the Chair with an adequate basis to find the entire motion out 
of order on the grounds the instructions exceed the scope of 
differences committed to conference. Accordingly, the point of order is 
sustained.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, that is a marvelous conclusion. I thank the 
Chair.


                motion to recommit offered by Mr. Gekas

  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Gekas moves to recommit the conference report on the 
     bill (S.349) to the committee of conference with instructions 
     for the managers on the part of the House to carry out the 
     following:
       (1) In the proposed section 103--
       (C) strike out subparagraph (B) of paragraph (9),
       (2) Strike out paragraph (5) of section 104(b).
       (3) Strike out paragraph (6) of section 105(b).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.


                             point of order

  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I am reserving a point of order against 
the gentleman's motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman must state his point of order 
now.
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, it is not clear to our side whether or not 
this motion includes section 1, subsection (c), or only includes 
section 2 and 3. The motion that we have been given has portions 
stricken out by hand and it is not clear to us what is in and what is 
out.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Clerk will reread the 
motion.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk reread the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Texas insist on his 
point of order?
  Mr. BRYANT. I do not insist, no.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentay inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, are we to understand now that what lies 
before the Members of the House is our motion to recommit to the 
conference with instructions to sort out the language on grassroots 
lobbying, to strike the requirements for grassroots registration?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is the gentleman's interpretation of 
his motion.
  The motion as read is what is before the House.
  Mr. GEKAS. I understand.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 202, 
nays 215, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 450]

                               YEAS--202

     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
     Brooks
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Hefner
     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
     Lancaster
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Valentine
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--215

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     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
     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
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--18

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

                              {time}  1629

  Ms. DANNER changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.'' Messrs. OLVER, 
ORTIZ, and SHAYS changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Pelosi). The question is on the 
conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 306, 
noes 112, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 451]

                               AYES--306

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Morella
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (WY)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--112

     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Brown (FL)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Gingrich
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastings
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Livingston
     Lucas
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meek
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pombo
     Quillen
     Ravenel
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Rowland
     Royce
     Rush
     Sarpalius
     Schaefer
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (OR)
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Whitten
     Wilson
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--17

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

                              {time}  1651

  Mr. HALL of Texas and Mr. LAUGHLIN changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________