[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. ____________________