[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]

 
                        LOBBYING DISCLOSURE BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House this evening to talk 
for a few minutes about the lobbying disclosure bill that was passed by 
the House today. I had just 2 minutes to speak very rapidly when the 
measure was before the House and I made some points there that I wanted 
to elaborate on this evening.
  First of all, the title of the bill, as I said, is the Lobbying 
Disclosure Act of 1994. The American people really deserve under our 
system to know that a piece of legislation that passes this body does 
indeed do what the title says. As I pointed out in those remarks, and I 
want to point out again tonight, that bill that passed this House 
really does not do what the title states. It does not provide more 
disclosure.
  For example, let us just take a few minutes here and look at what the 
bill does. Is it more or less disclosure if you decrease the reporting 
periods from four times a year, that is quarterly under the current 
law, to two times per year? What is the intent of this disclosure law?
  The intent is to know more about how money is spent to influence or 
pass legislation in this Congress. Does this bill in fact provide more 
information and more disclosure or less, reporting twice a year instead 
of four times a year? I submit very simply it gives less information, 
gives the public, the media and others who are interested in how 
legislation is influenced and passed in this body less information, 
less disclosure.
  Let us take the second point that I raised today, a criminal versus 
civil penalty. Under current law there are criminal penalties. 
Unfortunately, there are also weak enforcement provisions in the 
current law. But which is stronger, criminal or civil penalties? In the 
bill that passed this House today, there are civil penalties that are 
replacing criminal penalties, so we have actually less enforcement 
potential and less penalties under this bill that was passed by the 
House today.
  Now let us look at the final issue here of disclosure. Are we going 
to have more people report or less people report? There is a 10 percent 
of your time expended in lobbying provision in this bill. That provides 
in my estimation a great loophole, and I said it some months ago when 
this was before us, that it is big enough to drive a lobbyist's 
limousine through. There are 23,000 attorneys in this town, and they 
are looking for relief from this bill. So what did they do? They put in 
here a little provision that said 10 percent of your time. The larger 
the law firm the better advantage this type of legislation.
  I said then and I say now if you get 10 cents, a simple dime for 
lobbying or influencing legislation and you are paid for it, why not 
report it? But this bill does not do that.
  Then let me talk also about the trips that have been on television 
and before the public. This only defines the amount of time. This does 
not eliminate those trips. If you can do a golf exercise or whatever 
you do, and fortunately I am not a golfer, but those that golf can 
still go. Do not be fooled into thinking that that is banned by this 
bill. It is just confined in the amount of time.
  So there is less disclosure, there is less information, there is less 
reporting, and there is less penalty.
  The gift ban I agree with, and I said I agree with it. If we want to 
ban all gifts, I think that that sets a fine standard for this body and 
is acceptable. But this is the Lobby Disclosure Act of 1994. It does 
not disclose, it again, and I heard this repeated here today that we 
have to do something about perception, it only deals with perception. 
It does not deal with real reform, and it will create even more 
cynicism toward this body and toward this institution that I have grown 
to love and respect during my 2 short years as a Member here.
  So Mr. Speaker, I submit this additional evidence that we made a 
mistake in judgement here, and it is a sad mistake because this 
institution is a great institution and we should be doing a better job 
to reinforce its standing with the American people.

                          ____________________