[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.
____________________