[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 137 (Wednesday, September 6, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8555-H8572]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1854,
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 206 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 206
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 1854) making appropriations for the Legislative
Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for
other purposes. All points of order against the conference
report and against its consideration are waived.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart]
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost],
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded as for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forth the first of the 13
appropriations bills that has made it through the conference process.
This rule is very simple--it merely waives points of order against the
consideration of the conference report. Specifically, the rule contains
waivers for three items that go beyond the scope of the conference,
thereby waiving clause 3 of rule XXVIII. There are also a few
legislative items which necessitate a waiver of clause 2 of rule XX.
There was very little discussion at the hearing to grant the rule and
I do not believe there should be much controversy surrounding it.
Before the district work period, I read press accounts that the
President may be considering a veto of this conference report, not
because he disagrees with any of its substance, but rather because it
is the first of the necessary 13 spending measures to reach his desk,
and he may, apparently, wish to protest against some other bills that
he does not have substantive objections to.
I think that action by the President would be very unfortunate--but
we need to proceed with the responsibilities that we have, like passing
the appropriations bills. And with this bill we are setting the example
of moving toward a balanced budget by reducing our own budget first. As
a Member of Congress who serves on both of the Speaker-appointed
committees, and in my role on the Committee on House Oversight, I am
very proud of the reforms achieved in H.R. 1854 and retained in this
conference report, based on the recommendations by House Oversight. We
had some tough choices to make, but getting our own House in order and
cutting our own budget was a necessary and important first step in the
long and difficult road toward achieving a balanced Federal budget.
Mr. Speaker, as you will recall from the House's consideration of
this bill in June, H.R. 1854 incorporates House Oversight plans to
greatly reform the internal workings of the House of Representatives,
and over the next few months alone, save the taxpayers $7 million by
streamlining operations. This bill is below the subcommittee's 602(B)
allocation and is over 8 percent below last year's spending level.
Additionally, H.R. 1854 eliminates, consolidates and reduces, and paves
the way for the privatization of some functions that may be less costly
when performed by the private sector.
I would like to commend Chairman Thomas, Chairman Packard, Ranking
Member Fazio and of course Chairman Livingston, for their excellent
work in bringing this conference report forward.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 206 is necessary to preserve the
agreements reached in conference on legislative branch appropriations I
urge adoption of both the rule and the conference report.
Rule for Legislative Branch Appropriation Conference Report Specific
Waivers Included in the General Waiver
items beyond the scope of conference (clause 3, rule xxviii)
Amendment #10 adds new features to the Senate proposal for
60 days of severance pay for employees of the Office of
Technology Assessment (OTA), such as entitlement to health
benefits. The House had no comparable provision.
Amendment #34 includes a provision directing the Public
Printer to propose a
[[Page H 8556]]
means to create cost incentives for publishing agencies, including
Congress, to migrate from print-on paper products to
electronic format. This is a different approach from that
recommended by the House. There was no Senate provision on
this subject.
Amendment #55 drops a Senate provision regarding reductions
in facility energy costs. There was no comparable House
provision. Then three new provisions were inserted as
follows: (1) to specify the law enforcement authority of the
House Sergeant at Arms, (2) to clarify existing authority of
the Committee on House Oversight to consolidate
representational allowances of House Members, and (3) to
establish an account to pay settlements under the
Congressional Accountability Act and to require that
specified Congressional agencies submit proposals to reduce
facility energy costs.
legislative items on an appropriation conference report (clause 2, rule
xx)--example
Amendment #10 establishes a new procedure for the phase out
of OTA employees.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, while I may not agree with the priorities established in
the conference report to accompany the fiscal year 1996 legislative
branch appropriation, I support this rule. I will, however, oppose the
previous question.
As we have in years past, the Committee on Rules has recommended a
rule which waives all points of order against the consideration of the
conference report. The Democratic members of the Rules Committee concur
that these waivers should be granted.
Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the conference report is penny wise
and pound foolish with regard to the continued existence of the Office
of Technology Assessment. We all agree that every part of the
Government needs to be carefully examined and subjected to cuts, it
does not make a great deal of sense to me to abolish a congressional
support agency which has provided us with invaluable information about
science and technology. The work of the OTA has been supported on a
bipartisan basis, and in fact, in July, the House voted 228 to 201 to
continue the functions of this agency. Yet, the conference agreement
contains a provision which terminates OTA. It is my view the abolition
of such an information source is really counterproductive and the loss
of this office will be one we in the Congress will live to regret.
Mr. Speaker, while I support this rule, I will support the
proposition of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] to defeat the
previous question in order to allow the House to consider lobby reform
and a gift ban. As we all know, the Senate has now adopted such a ban
and it is high time that the House be afforded an opportunity to vote
on this good government issue. This proposition is identical to the
Senate passed lobby reform and gift ban adapted to apply to House
rules. The Bryant proposal is not anything new and different, it is
merely an opportunity to do for the House what the Senate has already
wisely and prudently imposed upon themselves. For that reason, I will
support Mr. Bryant and his proposed amendment to this rule.
I would ask that the amendment to the rule be printed in the Record
at this point. The amendment would adopt the text of a concurrent
resolution providing lobby and gift reform, and I would ask that the
text of House Concurrent Resolution 99 also be printed in the Record at
this point.
The material referred to is as follows:
Amendment to Rule on H.R. 1854 Legislative Branch Conference Report
``Section 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution, the
House shall be considered to have adopted a concurrent
resolution (H. Con. Res. 99) directing the Clerk of the House
to correct the enrollment of H.R. 1854.
``Section 3. The Clerk of the House of Representatives
shall not send to the Senate a message informing the Senate
of the adoption by the House of the conference report on H.R.
1854 until the House receives a message from the Senate
informing the House of the adoption of a concurrent
resolution (H. Con. Res. 99) directing the Clerk of the House
to correct the enrollment of H.R. 1854.''
H. Con. Res. 99
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 1854)
entitled, ``An Act making appropriations for the Legislative
Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for
other purposes'', the Clerk of the House shall make the
following correction:
At the end of title III add the following:
TITLE IV--LOBBYING DISCLOSURE
SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Lobbying Disclosure Act of
1995''.
SEC. 402. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) responsible representative Government requires public
awareness of the efforts of paid lobbyists to influence the
public decisionmaking process in both the legislative and
executive branches of the Federal Government;
(2) existing lobbying disclosure statutes have been
ineffective because of unclear statutory language, weak
administrative and enforcement provisions, and an absence of
clear guidance as to who is required to register and what
they are required to disclose; and
(3) the effective public disclosure of the identity and
extent of the efforts of paid lobbyists to influence Federal
officials in the conduct of Government actions will increase
public confidence in the integrity of Government.
SEC. 403. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this title:
(1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given that
term in section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code.
(2) Client.--The term ``client'' means any person or entity
that employs or retains another person for financial or other
compensation to conduct lobbying activities on behalf of that
person or entity. A person or entity whose employees act as
lobbyists on its own behalf is both a client and an employer
of such employees. In the case of a coalition or association
that employs or retains other persons to conduct lobbying
activities, the client is the coalition or association and
not its individual members.
(3) Covered executive branch official.--The term ``covered
executive branch official'' means--
(A) the President;
(B) the Vice President;
(C) any officer or employee, or any other individual
functioning in the capacity of such an officer or employee,
in the Executive Office of the President;
(D) any officer or employee serving in a position in level
I, II, III, IV, or V of the Executive Schedule, as designated
by statute or Executive order;
(E) any member of the uniformed services whose pay grade is
at or above O-7 under section 201 of title 37, United States
Code; and
(F) any officer or employee serving in a position of a
confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-
advocating character described in section 7511(b)(2) of title
5, United States Code.
(4) Covered legislative branch official.--The term
``covered legislative branch official'' means--
(A) a Member of Congress;
(B) an elected officer of either House of Congress;
(C) any employee of, or any other individual functioning in
the capacity of an employee of--
(i) a Member of Congress;
(ii) a committee of either House of Congress;
(iii) the leadership staff of the House of Representatives
or the leadership staff of the Senate;
(iv) a joint committee of Congress; and
(v) a working group or caucus organized to provide
legislative services or other assistance to Members of
Congress; and
(D) any other legislative branch employee serving in a
position described under section 109(13) of the Ethics in
Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.).
(5) Employee.--The term ``employee'' means any individual
who is an officer, employee, partner, director, or proprietor
of a person or entity, but does not include--
(A) independent contractors; or
(B) volunteers who receive no financial or other
compensation from the person or entity for their services.
(6) Foreign entity.--The term ``foreign entity'' means a
foreign principal (as defined in section 1(b) of the Foreign
Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C. 611(b)).
(7) Lobbying activities.--The term ``lobbying activities''
means lobbying contacts and efforts in support of such
contacts, including preparation and planning activities,
research and other background work that is intended, at the
time it is performed, for use in contacts, and coordination
with the lobbying activities of others.
(8) Lobbying contact.--
(A) Definition.--The term ``lobbying contact'' means any
oral or written communication (including an electronic
communication) to a covered executive branch official or a
covered legislative branch official that is made on behalf of
a client with regard to--
(i) the formulation, modification, or adoption of Federal
legislation (including legislative proposals);
(ii) the formulation, modification, or adoption of a
Federal rule, regulation, Executive order, or any other
program, policy, or position of the United States Government;
(iii) the administration or execution of a Federal program
or policy (including the negotiation, award, or
administration of a Federal contract, grant, loan, permit, or
license); or
(iv) the nomination or confirmation of a person for a
position subject to confirmation by the Senate.
(B) Exceptions.--The term ``lobbying contact'' does not
include a communication that is--
(i) made by a public official acting in the public
official's official capacity;
[[Page H 8557]]
(ii) made by a representative of a media organization if
the purpose of the communication is gathering and
disseminating news and information to the public;
(iii) made in a speech, article, publication or other
material that is distributed and made available to the
public, or through radio, television, cable television, or
other medium of mass communication;
(iv) made on behalf of a government of a foreign country or
a foreign political party and disclosed under the Foreign
Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C. 611 et seq.);
(v) a request for a meeting, a request for the status of an
action, or any other similar administrative request, if the
request does not include an attempt to influence a covered
executive branch official or a covered legislative branch
official;
(vi) made in the course of participation in an advisory
committee subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act;
(vii) testimony given before a committee, subcommittee, or
task force of the Congress, or submitted for inclusion in the
public record of a hearing conducted by such committee,
subcommittee, or task force;
(viii) information provided in writing in response to an
oral or written request by a covered executive branch
official or a covered legislative branch official for
specific information;
(ix) required by subpoena, civil investigative demand, or
otherwise compelled by statute, regulation, or other action
of the Congress or an agency;
(x) made in response to a notice in the Federal Register,
Commerce Business Daily, or other similar publication
soliciting communications from the public and directed to the
agency official specifically designated in the notice to
receive such communications;
(xi) not possible to report without disclosing information,
the unauthorized disclosure of which is prohibited by law;
(xii) made to an official in an agency with regard to--
(I) a judicial proceeding or a criminal or civil law
enforcement inquiry, investigation, or proceeding; or
(II) a filing or proceeding that the Government is
specifically required by statute or regulation to maintain or
conduct on a confidential basis,
if that agency is charged with responsibility for such
proceeding, inquiry, investigation, or filing;
(xiii) made in compliance with written agency procedures
regarding an adjudication conducted by the agency under
section 554 of title 5, United States Code, or substantially
similar provisions;
(xiv) a written comment filed in the course of a public
proceeding or any other communication that is made on the
record in a public proceeding;
(xv) a petition for agency action made in writing and
required to be a matter of public record pursuant to
established agency procedures;
(xvi) made on behalf of an individual with regard to that
individual's benefits, employment, or other personal matters
involving only that individual, except that this clause does
not apply to any communication with--
(I) a covered executive branch official, or
(II) a covered legislative branch official (other than the
individual's elected Members of Congress or employees who
work under such Members' direct supervision),
with respect to the formulation, modification, or adoption of
private legislation for the relief of that individual;
(xvii) a disclosure by an individual that is protected
under the amendments made by the Whistleblower Protection Act
of 1989, under the Inspector General Act of 1978, or under
another provision of law;
(xviii) made by--
(I) a church, its integrated auxiliary, or a convention or
association of churches that is exempt from filing a Federal
income tax return under paragraph 2(A)(i) of section 6033(a)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or
(II) a religious order that is exempt from filing a Federal
income tax return under paragraph (2)(A)(iii) of such section
6033(a); and
(xix) between--
(I) officials of a self-regulatory organization (as defined
in section 3(a)(26) of the Securities Exchange Act) that is
registered with or established by the Securities and Exchange
Commission as required by that Act or a similar organization
that is designated by or registered with the Commodities
Future Trading Commission as provided under the Commodity
Exchange Act; and
(II) the Securities and Exchange Commission or the
Commodities Future Trading Commission, respectively;
relating to the regulatory responsibilities of such
organization under that Act.
(9) Lobbying firm.--The term ``lobbying firm'' means a
person or entity that has 1 or more employees who are
lobbyists on behalf of a client other than that person or
entity. The term also includes a self-employed individual who
is a lobbyist.
(10) Lobbyist.--The term ``lobbyist'' means any individual
who is employed or retained by a client for financial or
other compensation for services that include more than one
lobbying contact, other than an individual whose lobbying
activities constitute less than 20 percent of the time
engaged in the services provided by such individual to that
client over a six month period.
(11) Media organization.--The term ``media organization''
means a person or entity engaged in disseminating information
to the general public through a newspaper, magazine, other
publication, radio, television, cable television, or other
medium of mass communication.
(12) Member of congress.--The term ``Member of Congress''
means a Senator or a Representative in, or Delegate or
Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.
(13) Organization.--The term ``organization'' means a
person or entity other than an individual.
(14) Person or entity.--The term ``person or entity'' means
any individual, corporation, company, foundation,
association, labor organization, firm, partnership, society,
joint stock company, group of organizations, or State or
local government.
(15) Public official.--The term ``public official'' means
any elected official, appointed official, or employee of--
(A) a Federal, State, or local unit of government in the
United States other than--
(i) a college or university;
(ii) a government-sponsored enterprise (as defined in
section 3(8) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974);
(iii) a public utility that provides gas, electricity,
water, or communications;
(iv) a guaranty agency (as defined in section 435(j) of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1085(j))), including
any affiliate of such an agency; or
(v) an agency of any State functioning as a student loan
secondary market pursuant to section 435(d)(1)(F) of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1085(d)(1)(F));
(B) a Government corporation (as defined in section 9101 of
title 31, United States Code);
(C) an organization of State or local elected or appointed
officials other than officials of an entity described in
clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of subparagraph (A);
(D) an Indian tribe (as defined in section 4(e) of the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25
U.S.C. 450b(e));
(E) a national or State political party or any
organizational unit thereof; or
(F) a national, regional, or local unit of any foreign
government.
(16) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth,
territory, or possession of the United States.
SEC. 404. REGISTRATION OF LOBBYISTS.
(a) Registration.--
(1) General rule.--No later than 45 days after a lobbyist
first makes a lobbying contact or is employed or retained to
make a lobbying contact, whichever is earlier, such lobbyist
(or, as provided under paragraph (2), the organization
employing such lobbyist), shall register with the Secretary
of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
(2) Employer filing.--Any organization that has 1 or more
employees who are lobbyists shall file a single registration
under this section on behalf of such employees for each
client on whose behalf the employees act as lobbyists.
(3) Exemption.--
(A) General rule.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2),
a person or entity whose--
(i) total income for matters related to lobbying activities
on behalf of a particular client (in the case of a lobbying
firm) does not exceed and is not expected to exceed $5,000;
or
(ii) total expenses in connection with lobbying activities
(in the case of an organization whose employees engage in
lobbying activities on its own behalf) do not exceed or are
not expected to exceed $20,000,
(as estimated under section 405) in the semiannual period
described in section 405(a) during which the registration
would be made is not required to register under subsection
(a) with respect to such client.
(B) Adjustment.--The dollar amounts in subparagraph (A)
shall be adjusted--
(i) on January 1, 1997, to reflect changes in the Consumer
Price Index (as determined by the Secretary of Labor) since
the date of enactment of this Act; and
(ii) on January 1 of each fourth year occurring after
January 1, 1997, to reflect changes in the Consumer Price
Index (as determined by the Secretary of Labor) during the
preceding 4-year period,
rounded to the nearest $500.
(b) Contents of Registration.--Each registration under this
section shall contain--
(1) the name, address, business telephone number, and
principal place of business of the registrant, and a general
description of its business or activities;
(2) the name, address, and principal place of business of
the registrant's client, and a general description of its
business or activities (if different from paragraph (1));
(3) the name, address, and principal place of business of
any organization, other than the client, that--
(A) contributes more than $10,000 toward the lobbying
activities of the registrant in a semiannual period described
in section 405(a); and
(B) in whole or in major part plans, supervises, or
controls such lobbying activities.
(4) the name, address, principal place of business, amount
of any contribution of more than $10,000 to the lobbying
activities of the registrant, and approximate percentage of
equitable ownership in the client (if any) of any foreign
entity that--
[[Page H 8558]]
(A) holds at least 20 percent equitable ownership in the
client or any organization identified under paragraph (3);
(B) directly or indirectly, in whole or in major part,
plans, supervises, controls, directs, finances, or subsidizes
the activities of the client or any organization identified
under paragraph (3); or
(C) is an affiliate of the client or any organization
identified under paragraph (3) and has a direct interest in
the outcome of the lobbying activity;
(5) a statement of--
(A) the general issue areas in which the registrant expects
to engage in lobbying activities on behalf of the client; and
(B) to the extent practicable, specific issues that have
(as of the date of the registration) already been addressed
or are likely to be addressed in lobbying activities; and
(6) the name of each employee of the registrant who has
acted or whom the registrant expects to act as a lobbyist on
behalf of the client and, if any such employee has served as
a covered executive branch official or a covered legislative
branch official in the 2 years before the date on which such
employee first acted (after the date of enactment of this
Act) as a lobbyist on behalf of the client, the position in
which such employee served.
(c) Guidelines for Registration.--
(1) Multiple clients.--In the case of a registrant making
lobbying contacts on behalf of more than 1 client, a separate
registration under this section shall be filed for each such
client.
(2) Multiple contacts.--A registrant who makes more than 1
lobbying contact for the same client shall file a single
registration covering all such lobbying contacts.
(d) Termination of Registration.--A registrant who after
registration--
(1) is no longer employed or retained by a client to
conduct lobbying activities, and
(2) does not anticipate any additional lobbying activities
for such client,
may so notify the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of
the House of Representatives and terminate its registration.
SEC. 405. REPORTS BY REGISTERED LOBBYISTS.
(a) Semiannual Report.--No later than 45 days after the end
of the semiannual period beginning on the first day of each
January and the first day of July of each year in which a
registrant is registered under section 404, each registrant
shall file a report with the Secretary of the Senate and the
Clerk of the House of Representatives on its lobbying
activities during such semiannual period. A separate report
shall be filed for each client of the registrant.
(b) Contents of Report.--Each semiannual report filed under
subsection (a) shall contain--
(1) the name of the registrant, the name of the client, and
any changes or updates to the information provided in the
initial registration;
(2) for each general issue area in which the registrant
engaged in lobbying activities on behalf of the client during
the semiannual filing period--
(A) a list of the specific issues upon which a lobbyist
employed by the registrant engaged in lobbying activities,
including, to the maximum extent practicable, a list of bill
numbers and references to specific executive branch actions;
(B) a statement of the Houses of Congress and the Federal
agencies contacted by lobbyists employed by the registrant on
behalf of the client;
(C) a list of the employees of the registrant who acted as
lobbyists on behalf of the client; and
(D) a description of the interest, if any, of any foreign
entity identified under section 404(b)(4) in the specific
issues listed under subparagraph (A).
(3) in the case of a lobbying firm, a good faith estimate
of the total amount of all income from the client (including
any payments to the registrant by any other person for
lobbying activities on behalf of the client) during the
semiannual period, other than income for matters that are
unrelated to lobbying activities; and
(4) in the case of a registrant engaged in lobbying
activities on its own behalf, a good faith estimate of the
total expenses that the registrant and its employees incurred
in connection with lobbying activities during the semiannual
filing period.
(c) Estimates of Income or Expenses.--For purposes of this
section, estimates of income or expenses shall be made as
follows:
(1) Estimates of amounts in excess of $10,000 shall be
rounded to the nearest $20,000.
(2) In the event income or expenses do not exceed $10,000,
the registrant shall include a statement that income or
expenses totaled less than $10,000 for the reporting period.
(3) A registrant that reports lobbying expenditures
pursuant to section 6033(b)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 may satisfy the requirement to report income or
expenses by filing with the Secretary of the Senate and the
Clerk of the House of Representatives a copy of the form
filed in accordance with section 6033(b)(8).
SEC. 406. DISCLOSURE AND ENFORCEMENT.
The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of
Representatives shall--
(1) provide guidance and assistance on the registration and
reporting requirements of this title and develop common
standards, rules, and procedures for compliance with this
title;
(2) review, and, where necessary, verify and inquire to
ensure the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of
registration and reports;
(3) develop filing, coding, and cross-indexing systems to
carry out the purpose of this title, including--
(A) a publicly available list of all registered lobbyists,
lobbying firms, and their clients; and
(B) computerized systems designed to minimize the burden of
filing and maximize public access to materials filed under
this title;
(4) make available for public inspection and copying at
reasonable times the registrations and reports filed under
this title;
(5) retain registrations for a period of at least 6 years
after they are terminated and reports for a period of at
least 6 years after they are filed;
(6) compile and summarize, with respect to each semiannual
period, the information contained in registrations and
reports filed with respect to such period in a clear and
complete manner;
(7) notify any lobbyist or lobbying firm in writing that
may be in noncompliance with this title; and
(8) notify the United States Attorney for the District of
Columbia that a lobbyist or lobbying firm may be in
noncompliance with this title, if the registrant has been
notified in writing and has failed to provide an appropriate
response within 60 days after notice was given under
paragraph (6).
SEC. 407. PENALTIES.
Whoever knowingly fails to--
(1) remedy a defective filing within 60 days after notice
of such a defect by the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk
of the House of Representatives; or
(2) comply with any other provision of this title;
shall, upon proof of such knowing violation by a
preponderance of the evidence, be subject to a civil fine of
not more than $50,000, depending on the extent and gravity of
the violation.
SEC. 408. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.
(a) Constitutional Rights.--Nothing in this title shall be
construed to prohibit or interfere with--
(1) the right to petition the government for the redress of
grievances;
(2) the right to express a personal opinion; or
(3) the right of association,
protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
(b) Prohibition of Activities.--Nothing in this title shall
be construed to prohibit, or to authorize any court to
prohibit, lobbying activities or lobbying contacts by any
person or entity, regardless of whether such person or entity
is in compliance with the requirements of this title.
(c) Audit and Investigations.--Nothing in this title shall
be construed to grant general audit or investigative
authority to the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the
House of Representatives.
SEC. 409. AMENDMENTS TO THE FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION ACT.
The Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C. 611
et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 1--
(A) by striking subsection (j);
(B) in subsection (o) by striking ``the dissemination of
political propaganda and any other activity which the person
engaging therein believes will, or which he intends to,
prevail upon, indoctrinate, convert, induce, persuade, or in
any other way influence'' and inserting ``any activity that
the person engaging in believes will, or that the person
intends to, in any way influence'';
(C) in subsection (p) by striking the semicolon and
inserting a period; and
(D) by striking subsection (q);
(2) in section 3(g) (22 U.S.C. 613(g)), by striking
``established agency proceedings, whether formal or
informal.'' and inserting ``judicial proceedings, criminal or
civil law enforcement inquiries, investigations, or
proceedings, or agency proceedings required by statute or
regulation to be conducted on the record.'';
(3) in section 3 (22 U.S.C. 613) by adding at the end the
following:
``(h) Any agent of a person described in section 1(b)(2) or
an entity described in section 1(b)(3) if the agent is
required to register and does register under the Lobbying
Disclosure Act of 1995 in connection with the agent's
representation of such person or entity.'';
(4) in section 4(a) (22 U.S.C. 614(a))--
(A) by striking ``political propaganda'' and inserting
``informational materials''; and
(B) by striking ``and a statement, duly signed by or on
behalf of such an agent, setting forth full information as to
the places, times, and extent of such transmittal'';
(5) in section 4(b) (22 U.S.C. 614(b))--
(A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking
``political propaganda'' and inserting ``informational
materials''; and
(B) by striking ``(i) in the form of prints, or'' and all
that follows through the end of the subsection and inserting
``without placing in such informational materials a
conspicuous statement that the materials are distributed by
the agent on behalf of the foreign principal, and that
additional information is on file with the Department of
Justice, Washington, District of Columbia. The Attorney
General may by rule define what constitutes a conspicuous
statement for the purposes of this subsection.'';
(6) in section 4(c) (22 U.S.C. 614(c)), by striking
``political propaganda'' and inserting ``informational
materials'';
(7) in section 6 (22 U.S.C. 616)--
[[Page H 8559]]
(A) in subsection (a) by striking ``and all statements
concerning the distribution of political propaganda'';
(B) in subsection (b) by striking ``, and one copy of every
item of political propaganda''; and
(C) in subsection (c) by striking ``copies of political
propaganda,'';
(8) in section 8 (22 U.S.C. 618)--
(A) in subsection (a)(2) by striking ``or in any statement
under section 4(a) hereof concerning the distribution of
political propaganda''; and
(B) by striking subsection (d); and
(9) in section 11 (22 U.S.C. 621) by striking ``, including
the nature, sources, and content of political propaganda
disseminated or distributed''.
SEC. 410. AMENDMENTS TO THE BYRD AMENDMENT.
(a) Revised Certification Requirements.--Section 1352(b) of
title 31, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2) by striking subparagraphs (A), (B),
and (C) and inserting the following:
``(A) the name of any registrant under the Lobbying
Disclosure Act of 1995 who has made lobbying contacts on
behalf of the person with respect to that Federal contract,
grant, loan, or cooperative agreement; and
``(B) a certification that the person making the
declaration has not made, and will not make, any payment
prohibited by subsection (a).'';
(2) in paragraph (3) by striking all that follows ``loan
shall contain'' and inserting ``the name of any registrant
under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who has made
lobbying contacts on behalf of the person in connection with
that loan insurance or guarantee.''; and
(3) by striking paragraph (6) and redesignating paragraph
(7) as paragraph (6).
(b) Removal of Obsolete Reporting Requirement.--Section
1352 of title 31, United States Code, is further amended--
(1) by striking subsection (d); and
(2) by redesignating subsections (e), (f), (g), and (h) as
subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g), respectively.
SEC. 411. REPEAL OF CERTAIN LOBBYING PROVISIONS.
(a) Repeal of the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act.--The
Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act (2 U.S.C. 261 et seq.) is
repealed.
(b) Repeal of Provisions Relating to Housing Lobbyist
Activities.--
(1) Section 13 of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3537b) is repealed.
(2) Section 536(d) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C.
1490p(d)) is repealed.
SEC. 412. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO OTHER STATUTES.
(a) Amendment to Competitiveness Policy Council Act.--
Section 5206(e) of the Competitiveness Policy Council Act (15
U.S.C. 4804(e)) is amended by inserting ``or a lobbyist for a
foreign entity (as the terms `lobbyist' and `foreign entity'
are defined under section 3 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of
1995)'' after ``an agent for a foreign principal''.
(b) Amendments to Title 18, United States Code.--Section
219(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``or a lobbyist required to register under
the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 in connection with the
representation of a foreign entity, as defined in section
3(7) of that Act'' after ``an agent of a foreign principal
required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration
Act of 1938''; and
(2) by striking out ``, as amended,''.
(c) Amendment to Foreign Service Act of 1980.--Section
602(c) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4002(c))
is amended by inserting ``or a lobbyist for a foreign entity
(as defined in section 3(7) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of
1995)'' after ``an agent of a foreign principal (as defined
by section 1(b) of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of
1938)''.
SEC. 413. IDENTIFICATION OF CLIENTS AND COVERED OFFICIALS.
(a) Oral Lobbying Contacts.--Any person or entity that
makes an oral lobbying contact with a covered legislative
branch official or a covered executive branch official shall,
on the request of the official at the time of the lobbying
contact--
(1) state whether the person or entity is registered under
this Act and identify the client on whose behalf the lobbying
contact is made; and
(2) state whether such client is a foreign entity and
identify any foreign entity required to be disclosed under
section 404(b)(4) that has a direct interest in the outcome
of the lobbying activity.
(b) Written Lobbying Contacts.--Any person or entity
registered under this Act that makes a written lobbying
contact (including an electronic communication) with a
covered legislative branch official or a covered executive
branch official shall--
(1) if the client on whose behalf the lobbying contact was
made is a foreign entity, identify such client, state that
the client is considered a foreign entity under this Act, and
state whether the person making the lobbying contact is
registered on behalf of that client under section 4; and
(2) identify any other foreign entity identified pursuant
to section 404(b)(4) that has a direct interest in the
outcome of the lobbying activity.
(c) Identification as Covered Official.--Upon request by a
person or entity making a lobbying contact, the individual
who is contacted or the office employing that individual
shall indicate whether or not the individual is a covered
legislative branch official or a covered executive branch
official.
SEC. 414. ESTIMATES BASED ON TAX REPORTING SYSTEM.
(a) Entities Covered by Section 6033(b) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.--A registrant that is required to
report and does report lobbying expenditures pursuant to
section 6033(b)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 may--
(1) make a good faith estimate (by category of dollar
value) of applicable amounts that would be required to be
disclosed under such section for the appropriate semiannual
period to meet the requirements of sections 404(a)(3),
405(a)(2), and 405(b)(4); and
(2) in lieu of using the definition of ``lobbying
activities'' in section 3(8) of this Act, consider as
lobbying activities only those activities that are
influencing legislation as defined in section 4911(d) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(b) Entities Covered by Section 162(e) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.--A registrant that is subject to
section 162(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 may--
(1) make a good faith estimate (by category of dollar
value) of applicable amounts that would not be deductible
pursuant to such section for the appropriate semiannual
period to meet the requirements of sections 404(a)(3),
405(a)(2), and 405(b)(4); and
(2) in lieu of using the definition of ``lobbying
activities'' in section 403(7) of this Act, consider as
lobbying activities only those activities, the costs of which
are not deductible pursuant to section 162(e) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
(c) Disclosure of Estimate.--Any registrant that elects to
make estimates required by this Act under the procedures
authorized by subsection (a) or (b) for reporting or
threshold purposes shall--
(1) inform the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the
House of Representatives that the registrant has elected to
make its estimates under such procedures; and
(2) make all such estimates, in a given calendar year,
under such procedures.
(d) Study.--Not later than March 31, 1997, the Comptroller
General of the United States shall review reporting by
registrants under subsections (a) and (b) and report to the
Congress--
(1) the differences between the definition of ``lobbying
activities'' in section 403(7) and the definitions of
``lobbying expenditures'', ``influencing legislation'', and
related terms in sections 162(e) and 4911 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as each are implemented by regulations;
(2) the impact that any such differences may have on filing
and reporting under this Act pursuant to this subsection; and
(3) any changes to this Act or to the appropriate sections
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that the Comptroller
General may recommend to harmonize the definitions.
SEC. 415. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this title, or the application thereof,
is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this title
and the application of such provision to other persons and
circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
SEC. 416. EFFECTIVE DATES.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, this
title and the amendments made by this title shall take
effect, and shall be effective with respect to calendar years
beginning on, January 1, 1996.
(b) The repeals and amendments made under sections 409,
410, and 411 shall take effect as provided under subsection
(a), except that such repeals and amendments--
(1) shall not affect any proceeding or suit commenced
before the effective date under subsection (a), and in all
such proceedings or suits, proceedings shall be had, appeals
taken, and judgments rendered in the same manner and with the
same effect as if this Act had not been enacted; and
(2) shall not affect the requirements of Federal agencies
to compile, publish, and retain information filed or received
before the effective date of such repeals and amendments.
TITLE V--CONGRESSIONAL GIFT RULES
SEC. 501. AMENDMENT TO HOUSE RULES.
Clause 4 of rule XLIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is amended to read as follows:
``4. (a)(1) No Member, officer, or employee of the House of
Representatives shall knowingly accept a gift except as
provided in this rule.
``(2) A Member, officer, or employee may accept a gift
(other than cash or cash equivalent) which the Member,
officer, or employee reasonably and in good faith believes to
have a value of less than $50, and a cumulative value from
one source during a calendar year of less than $100. No gift
with a value below $10 shall count toward the $100 annual
limit. No formal recordkeeping is required by this paragraph,
but a Member, officer, or employee shall make a good faith
effort to comply with this paragraph.
``(b)(1) For the purpose of this rule, the term `gift'
means any gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment,
hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item having monetary
value. The term includes gifts of services, training,
transportation, lodging, and meals, whether provided in kind,
by purchase of a ticket, payment in advance, or reimbursement
after the expense has been incurred.
``(2)(A) A gift to a family member of a Member, officer, or
employee, or a gift to
[[Page H 8560]]
any other individual based on that individual's relationship with the
Member, officer, or employee, shall be considered a gift to
the Member, officer, or employee if it is given with the
knowledge and acquiescence of the Member, officer, or
employee and the Member, officer, or employee has reason to
believe the gift was given because of the official position
of the Member, officer, or employee.
``(B) If food or refreshment is provided at the same time
and place to both a Member, officer, or employee and the
spouse or dependent thereof, only the food or refreshment
provided to the Member, officer, or employee shall be treated
as a gift for purposes of this rule.
``(c) The restrictions in subparagraph (a) shall not apply
to the following:
``(1) Anything for which the Member, officer, or employee
pays the market value, or does not use and promptly returns
to the donor.
``(2) A contribution, as defined in the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) that is lawfully
made under that Act, or attendance at a fundraising event
sponsored by a political organization described in section
527(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
``(3) A gift from a relative as described in section 107(2)
of title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (Public
Law 95-521).
``(4)(A) Anything provided by an individual on the basis of
a personal friendship unless the Member, officer, or employee
has reason to believe that, under the circumstances, the gift
was provided because of the official position of the Member,
officer, or employee and not because of the personal
friendship.
``(B) In determining whether a gift is provided on the
basis of personal friendship, the Member, officer, or
employee shall consider the circumstances under which the
gift was offered, such as:
``(i) The history of the relationship between the
individual giving the gift and the recipient of the gift,
including any previous exchange of gifts between such
individuals.
``(ii) Whether to the actual knowledge of the Member,
officer, or employee the individual who gave the gift
personally paid for the gift or sought a tax deduction or
business reimbursement for the gift.
``(iii) Whether to the actual knowledge of the Member,
officer, or employee the individual who gave the gift also at
the same time gave the same or similar gifts to other
Members, officers, or employees.
``(5) Except as provided in paragraph 3(c), a contribution
or other payment to a legal expense fund established for the
benefit of a Member, officer, or employee, that is otherwise
lawfully made, if the person making the contribution or
payment is identified for the Committee of Standards of
Official Conduct and complies with other disclosure
requirements established by such Committee.
``(6) Any gift from another Member, officer, or employee of
the Senate or the House of Representatives.
``(7) Food, refreshments, lodging, and other benefits--
``(A) resulting from the outside business or employment
activities (or other outside activities that are not
connected to the duties of the Member, officer, or employee
as an officeholder) of the Member, officer, or employee, or
the spouse of the Member, officer, or employee, if such
benefits have not been offered or enhanced because of the
official position of the Member, officer, or employee and are
customarily provided to others in similar circumstances;
``(B) customarily provided by a prospective employer in
connection with bona fide employment discussions; or
``(C) provided by a political organization described in
section 527(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in
connection with a fundraising or campaign event sponsored by
such an organization.
``(8) Pension and other benefits resulting from continued
participation in an employee welfare and benefits plan
maintained by a former employer.
``(9) Informational materials that are sent to the office
of the Member, officer, or employee in the form of books,
articles, periodicals, other written materials, audiotapes,
videotapes, or other forms of communication.
``(10) Awards or prizes which are given to competitors in
contests or events open to the public, including random
drawings.
``(11) Honorary degrees (and associated travel, food,
refreshments, and entertainment) and other bona fide,
nonmonetary awards presented in recognition of public service
(and associated food, refreshments, and entertainment
provided in the presentation of such degrees and awards).
``(12) Donations of products from the State that the Member
represents that are intended primarily for promotional
purposes, such as display or free distribution, and are of
minimal value to any individual recipient.
``(13) Training (including food and refreshments furnished
to all attendees as an integral part of the training)
provided to a Member, officer, or employee, if such training
is in the interest of the House of Representatives.
``(14) Bequests, inheritances, and other transfers at
death.
``(15) Any item, the receipt of which is authorized by the
Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, the Mutual Educational and
Cultural Exchange Act, or any other statute.
``(16) Anything which is paid for by the Federal
Government, by a State or local government, or secured by the
Government under a Government contract.
``(17) A gift of personal hospitality (as defined in
section 109(14) of the Ethics in Government Act) of an
individual other than a registered lobbyist or agent of a
foreign principal.
``(18) Free attendance at a widely attended event permitted
pursuant to subparagraph (d).
``(19) Opportunities and benefits which are--
``(A) available to the public or to a class consisting of
all Federal employees, whether or not restricted on the basis
of geographic consideration;
``(B) offered to members of a group or class in which
membership is unrelated to congressional employment;
``(C) offered to members of an organization, such as an
employees' association or congressional credit union, in
which membership is related to congressional employment and
similar opportunities are available to large segments of the
public through organizations of similar size;
``(D) offered to any group or class that is not defined in
a manner that specifically discriminates among Government
employees on the basis of branch of Government or type of
responsibility, or on a basis that favors those of higher
rank or rate of pay;
``(E) in the form of loans from banks and other financial
institutions on terms generally available to the public; or
``(F) in the form of reduced membership or other fees for
participation in organization activities offered to all
Government employees by professional organizations if the
only restrictions on membership relate to professional
qualifications.
``(20) A plaque, trophy, or other item that is
substantially commemorative in nature and which is intended
solely for presentation.
``(21) Anything for which, in an unusual case, a waiver is
granted by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
``(22) Food or refreshments of a nominal value offered
other than as a part of a meal.
``(23) An item of little intrinsic value such as a greeting
card, baseball cap, or a T-shirt.
``(d)(1) A Member, officer, or employee may accept an offer
of free attendance at a widely attended convention,
conference, symposium, forum, panel discussion, dinner,
viewing, reception, or similar event, provided by the sponsor
of the event, if--
``(A) the Member, officer, or employee participates in the
event as a speaker or a panel participant, by presenting
information related to Congress or matters before Congress,
or by performing a ceremonial function appropriate to the
Member's, officer's, or employee's official position; or
``(B) attendance at the event is appropriate to the
performance of the official duties or representative function
of the Member, officer, or employee.
``(2) A Member, officer, or employee who attends an event
described in clause (1) may accept a sponsor's unsolicited
offer of free attendance at the event for an accompanying
individual if others in attendance will generally be
similarly accompanied or if such attendance is appropriate to
assist in the representation of the House of Representatives.
``(3) A Member, officer, or employee, or the spouse or
dependent thereof, may accept a sponsor's unsolicited offer
of free attendance at a charity event, except that
reimbursement for transportation and lodging may not be
accepted in connection with an event that does not meet the
standards provided in paragraph 2.
``(4) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `free
attendance' may include waiver of all or part of a conference
or other fee, the provision of local transportation, or the
provision of food, refreshments, entertainment, and
instructional materials furnished to all attendees as an
integral part of the event. The term does not include
entertainment collateral to the event, nor does it include
food or refreshments taken other than in a group setting with
all or substantially all other attendees.
``(e) No Member, officer, or employee may accept a gift the
value of which exceeds $250 on the basis of the personal
friendship exception in subparagraph (c)(4) unless the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct issues a written
determination that such exception applies. No determination
under this subparagraph is required for gifts given on the
basis of the family relationship exception.
``(f) When it is not practicable to return a tangible item
because it is perishable, the item may, at the discretion of
the recipient, be given to an appropriate charity or
destroyed.
``2. (a)(1) A reimbursement (including payment in kind) to
a Member, officer, or employee from an individual other than
a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal for
necessary transportation, lodging and related expenses for
travel to a meeting, speaking engagement, factfinding trip or
similar event in connection with the duties of the Member,
officer, or employee as an officeholder shall be deemed to be
a reimbursement to the House of Representatives and not a
gift prohibited by this rule, if the Member, officer, or
employee--
``(A) in the case of an employee, receives advance
authorization, from the Member or officer under whose direct
supervision the employee works, to accept reimbursement, and
[[Page H 8561]]
``(B) discloses the expenses reimbursed or to be reimbursed
and the authorization to the Clerk of the House of
Representatives within 30 days after the travel is completed.
``(2) For purposes of clause (1), events, the activities of
which are substantially recreational in nature, shall not be
considered to be in connection with the duties of a Member,
officer, or employee as an officeholder.
``(b) Each advance authorization to accept reimbursement
shall be signed by the Member or officer under whose direct
supervision the employee works and shall include--
``(1) the name of the employee;
``(2) the name of the person who will make the
reimbursement;
``(3) the time, place, and purpose of the travel; and
``(4) a determination that the travel is in connection with
the duties of the employee as an officeholder and would not
create the appearance that the employee is using public
office for private gain.
``(c) Each disclosure made under subparagraph (a)(1) of
expenses reimbursed or to be reimbursed shall be signed by
the Member or officer (in the case of travel by that Member
or officer) or by the Member or officer under whose direct
supervision the employee works (in the case of travel by an
employee) and shall include--
``(1) a good faith estimate of total transportation
expenses reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
``(2) a good faith estimate of total lodging expenses
reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
``(3) a good faith estimate of total meal expenses
reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
``(4) a good faith estimate of the total of other expenses
reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
``(5) a determination that all such expenses are necessary
transportation, lodging, and related expenses as defined in
this paragraph; and
``(6) in the case of a reimbursement to a Member or
officer, a determination that the travel was in connection
with the duties of the Member or officer as an officeholder
and would not create the appearance that the Member or
officer is using public office for private gain.
``(d) For the purposes of this paragraph, the term
`necessary transportation, lodging, and related expenses'--
``(1) includes reasonable expenses that are necessary for
travel for a period not exceeding 3 days exclusive of travel
time within the United States or 7 days exclusive of travel
time outside of the United States unless approved in advance
by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct;
``(2) is limited to reasonable expenditures for
transportation, lodging, conference fees and materials, and
food and refreshments, including reimbursement for necessary
transportation, whether or not such transportation occurs
within the periods described in clause (1);
``(3) does not include expenditures for recreational
activities, not roes it include entertainment other than that
provided to all attendees as an integral part of the event,
except for activities or entertainment otherwise permissible
under this rule; and
``(4) may include travel expenses incurred on behalf of
either the spouse or a child of the Member, officer, or
employee, subject to a determination signed by the Member or
officer (or in the case of an employee, the Member or officer
under whose direct supervision the employee works) that the
attendance of the spouse or child is appropriate to assist in
the representation of the House of Representatives.
``(e) The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make
available to the public all advance authorizations and
disclosures of reimbursement filed pursuant to subparagraph
(a) as soon as possible after they are received.
``3. A gift prohibited by paragraph 1(a) includes the
following:
``(a) Anything provided by a registered lobbyist or an
agent of a foreign principal to an entity that is maintained
or controlled by a Member, officer, or employee.
``(b) A charitable contribution (as defined in section
170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) made by a
registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal on the
basis of a designation, recommendation, or other
specification of a Member, officer, or employee (not
including a mass mailing or other solicitation directed to a
broad category of persons or entities), other than a
charitable contribution permitted by paragraph 4.
``(c) A contribution or other payment by a registered
lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal to a legal
expense fund established for the benefit of a Member,
officer, or employee.
``(d) A financial contribution or expenditure made by a
registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal
relating to a conference, retreat, or similar event,
sponsored by or affiliated with an official congressional
organization, for or on behalf of Members, officers, or
employees.
``4. (a) A charitable contribution (as defined in section
170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) made by a
registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal in
lieu of an honorarium to a Member, officer, or employee shall
not be considered a gift under this rule if it is reported as
provided in subparagraph (b).
``(b) A Member, officer, or employee who designates or
recommends a contribution to a charitable organization in
lieu of honoraria described in subparagraph (a) shall report
within 30 days after such designation or recommendation to
the Clerk of the House of Representatives--
``(1) the name and address of the registered lobbyist who
is making the contribution in lieu of honoraria;
``(2) the date and amount of the contribution; and
``(3) the name and address of the charitable organization
designated or recommended by the Member.
The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make public
information received pursuant to this subparagraph as soon as
possible after it is received.
``5. For purposes of this rule--
``(a) the term `registered lobbyist' means a lobbyist
registered under the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act or
any successor statute; and
``(b) the term `agent of a foreign principal' means an
agent of a foreign principal registered under the Foreign
Agents Registration Act.
``6. All the provisions of this rule shall be interpreted
and enforced solely by the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is
authorized to issue guidance on any matter contained in this
rule.''.
SEC. 502. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this title shall take effect, and
shall be effective with respect to calendar years beginning
on, January 1, 1996.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both the chairman and ranking member of
the Legislative Branch Subcommittee for their very hard work on this
bill. I know their task has been very difficult; I only hope that the
cuts made to the operations of the Congress will not, in the long-run,
inhibit our ability to do the people's business.
I include the following additional material for the Record.
FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS; COMPILED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process used for floor Amendments in
Bill No. Title Resolution No. consideration order
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1*................ Compliance............. H. Res. 6 Closed...................... None.
H. Res. 6.............. Opening Day Rules H. Res. 5 Closed; contained a closed None.
Package. rule on H.R. 1 within the
closed rule.
H.R. 5*................ Unfunded Mandates...... H. Res. 38 Restrictive; Motion adopted N/A.
over Democratic objection
in the Committee of the
Whole to limit debate on
section 4; Pre-printing
gets preference.
H.J. Res. 2*........... Balanced Budget........ H. Res. 44 Restrictive; only certain 2R; 4D.
substitutes.
H. Res. 43............. Committee Hearings H. Res. 43 (OJ) Restrictive; considered in N/A.
Scheduling. House no amendments.
H.R. 2*................ Line Item Veto......... H. Res. 55 Open; Pre-printing gets N/A.
preference.
H.R. 665*.............. Victim Restitution Act H. Res. 61 Open; Pre-printing gets N/A.
of 1995. preference.
H.R. 666*.............. Exclusionary Rule H. Res. 60 Open; Pre-printing gets N/A.
Reform Act of 1995. preference.
H.R. 667*.............. Violent Criminal H. Res. 63 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
Incarceration Act of on amendments.
1995.
H.R. 668*.............. The Criminal Alien H. Res. 69 Open; Pre-printing gets N/A.
Deportation preference; Contains self-
Improvement Act. executing provision.
H.R. 728*.............. Local Government Law H. Res. 79 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
Enforcement Block on amendments; Pre-printing
Grants. gets preference.
H.R. 7*................ National Security H. Res. 83 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
Revitalization Act. on amendments; Pre-printing
gets preference.
H.R. 729*.............. Death Penalty/Habeas... N/A Restrictive; brought up N/A.
under UC with a 6 hr. time
cap on amendments.
S. 2................... Senate Compliance...... N/A Closed; Put on Suspension None.
Calendar over Democratic
objection.
H.R. 831............... To Permanently Extend H. Res. 88 Restrictive; makes in order 1D.
the Health Insurance only the Gibbons amendment;
Deduction for the Self- Waives all points of order;
Employed. Contains self-executing
provision.
H.R. 830*.............. The Paperwork Reduction H. Res. 91 Open........................ N/A.
Act.
H.R. 889............... Emergency Supplemental/ H. Res. 92 Restrictive; makes in order 1D.
Rescinding Certain only the Obey substitute.
Budget Authority.
H.R. 450*.............. Regulatory Moratorium.. H. Res. 93 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
on amendments; Pre-printing
gets preference.
H.R. 1022*............. Risk Assessment........ H. Res. 96 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
on amendments.
H.R. 926*.............. Regulatory Flexibility. H. Res. 100 Open........................ N/A.
H.R. 925*.............. Private Property H. Res. 101 Restrictive; 12 hr. time cap 1D.
Protection Act. on amendments; Requires
Members to pre-print their
amendments in the Record
prior to the bill's
consideration for
amendment, waives
germaneness and budget act
points of order as well as
points of order concerning
appropriating on a
legislative bill against
the committee substitute
used as base text.
H.R. 1058*............. Securities Litigation H. Res. 105 Restrictive; 8 hr. time cap 1D.
Reform Act. on amendments; Pre-printing
gets preference; Makes in
order the Wyden amendment
and waives germaneness
against it.
H.R. 988*.............. The Attorney H. Res. 104 Restrictive; 7 hr. time cap N/A.
Accountability Act of on amendments; Pre-printing
1995. gets preference.
[[Page H 8562]]
H.R. 956*.............. Product Liability and H. Res. 109 Restrictive; makes in order 8D; 7R.
Legal Reform Act. only 15 germane amendments
and denies 64 germane
amendments from being
considered.
H.R. 1158.............. Making Emergency H. Res. 115 Restrictive; Combines N/A.
Supplemental emergency H.R. 1158 &
Appropriations and nonemergency 1159 and
Rescissions. strikes the abortion
provision; makes in order
only pre-printed amendments
that include offsets within
the same chapter (deeper
cuts in programs already
cut); waives points of
order against three
amendments; waives cl 2 of
rule XXI against the bill,
cl 2, XXI and cl 7 of rule
XVI against the substitute;
waives cl 2(e) od rule XXI
against the amendments in
the Record; 10 hr time cap
on amendments. 30 minutes
debate on each amendment.
H.J. Res. 73*.......... Term Limits............ H. Res. 116 Restrictive; Makes in order 1D; 3R
only 4 amendments
considered under a ``Queen
of the Hill'' procedure and
denies 21 germane
amendments from being
considered.
H.R. 4*................ Welfare Reform......... H. Res. 119 Restrictive; Makes in order 5D; 26R.
only 31 perfecting
amendments and two
substitutes; Denies 130
germane amendments from
being considered; The
substitutes are to be
considered under a ``Queen
of the Hill'' procedure;
All points of order are
waived against the
amendments.
H.R. 1271*............. Family Privacy Act..... H. Res. 125 Open........................ N/A.
H.R. 660*.............. Housing for Older H. Res. 126 Open........................ N/A.
Persons Act.
H.R. 1215*............. The Contract With H. Res. 129 Restrictive; Self Executes 1D.
America Tax Relief Act language that makes tax
of 1995. cuts contingent on the
adoption of a balanced
budget plan and strikes
section 3006. Makes in
order only one substitute.
Waives all points of order
against the bill,
substitute made in order as
original text and Gephardt
substitute.
H.R. 483............... Medicare Select H. Res. 130 Restrictive; waives cl 1D.
Extension. 2(1)(6) of rule XI against
the bill; makes H.R. 1391
in order as original text;
makes in order only the
Dingell substitute; allows
Commerce Committee to file
a report on the bill at any
time.
H.R. 655............... Hydrogen Future Act.... H. Res. 136 Open........................ N/A.
H.R. 1361.............. Coast Guard H. Res. 139 Open; waives sections 302(f) N/A.
Authorization. and 308(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act
against the bill's
consideration and the
committee substitute;
waives cl 5(a) of rule XXI
against the committee
substitute.
H.R. 961............... Clean Water Act........ H. Res. 140 Open; pre-printing gets N/A.
preference; waives sections
302(f) and 602(b) of the
Budget Act against the
bill's consideration;
waives cl 7 of rule XVI, cl
5(a) of rule XXI and
section 302(f) of the
Budget Act against the
committee substitute. Makes
in order Shuster substitute
as first order of business.
H.R. 535............... Corning National Fish H. Res. 144 Open........................ N/A.
Hatchery Conveyance
Act.
H.R. 584............... Conveyance of the H. Res. 145 Open........................ N/A.
Fairport National Fish
Hatchery to the State
of Iowa.
H.R. 614............... Conveyance of the New H. Res. 146 Open........................ N/A.
London National Fish
Hatchery Production
Facility.
H. Con. Res. 67........ Budget Resolution...... H. Res. 149 Restrictive; Makes in order 3D; 1R.
4 substitutes under regular
order; Gephardt, Neumann/
Solomon, Payne/Owens,
President's Budget if
printed in Record on 5/17/
95; waives all points of
order against substitutes
and concurrent resolution;
suspends application of
Rule XLIX with respect to
the resolution; self-
executes Agriculture
language.
H.R. 1561.............. American Overseas H. Res. 155 Restrictive; Requires N/A.
Interests Act of 1995. amendments to be printed in
the Record prior to their
consideration; 10 hr. time
cap; waives cl 2(1)(6) of
rule XI against the bill's
consideration; Also waives
sections 302(f), 303(a),
308(a) and 402(a) against
the bill's consideration
and the committee amendment
in order as original text;
waives cl 5(a) of rule XXI
against the amendment;
amendment consideration is
closed at 2:30 p.m. on May
25, 1995. Self-executes
provision which removes
section 2210 from the bill.
This was done at the
request of the Budget
Committee.
H.R. 1530.............. National Defense H. Res. 164 Restrictive; Makes in order 36R; 18D; 2
Authorization Act FY only the amendments printed Bipartisan.
1996. in the report; waives all
points of order against the
bill, substitute and
amendments printed in the
report. Gives the Chairman
en bloc authority. Self-
executes a provision which
strikes section 807 of the
bill; provides for an
additional 30 min. of
debate on Nunn-Lugar
section; Allows Mr. Clinger
to offer a modification of
his amendment with the
concurrence of Ms. Collins.
H.R. 1817.............. Military Construction H. Res. 167 Open; waives cl. 2 and cl. 6 N/A.
Appropriations; FY of rule XXI against the
1996. bill; 1 hr. general debate;
Uses House passed budget
numbers as threshold for
spending amounts pending
passage of Budget.
H.R. 1854.............. Legislative Branch H. Res. 169 Restrictive; Makes in order 5R; 4D; 2
Appropriations. only 11 amendments; waives Bipartisan.
sections 302(f) and 308(a)
of the Budget Act against
the bill and cl. 2 and cl.
6 of rule XXI against the
bill. All points of order
are waived against the
amendments.
H.R. 1868.............. Foreign Operations H. Res. 170 Open; waives cl. 2, cl. N/A.
Appropriations. 5(b), and cl. 6 of rule XXI
against the bill; makes in
order the Gilman amendments
as first order of business;
waives all points of order
against the amendments; if
adopted they will be
considered as original
text; waives cl. 2 of rule
XXI against the amendments
printed in the report. Pre-
printing gets priority
(Hall) (Menendez) (Goss)
(Smith, NJ).
H.R. 1905.............. Energy & Water H. Res. 171 Open; waives cl. 2 and cl. 6 N/A.
Appropriations. of rule XXI against the
bill; makes in order the
Shuster amendment as the
first order of business;
waives all points of order
against the amendment; if
adopted it will be
considered as original
text. Pre-printing gets
priority.
H.J. Res. 79........... Constitutional H. Res. 173 Closed; provides one hour of N/A.
Amendment to Permit general debate and one
Congress and States to motion to recommit with or
Prohibit the Physical without instructions; if
Desecration of the there are instructions, the
American Flag. MO is debatable for 1 hr.
H.R. 1944.............. Recissions Bill........ H. Res. 175 Restrictive; Provides for N/A.
consideration of the bill
in the House; Permits the
Chairman of the
Appropriations Committee to
offer one amendment which
is unamendable; waives all
points of order against the
amendment.
H.R. 1868 (2nd rule)... Foreign Operations H. Res. 177 Restrictive; Provides for N/A.
Appropriations. further consideration of
the bill; makes in order
only the four amendments
printed in the rules report
(20 min each). Waives all
points of order against the
amendments; Prohibits
intervening motions in the
Committee of the Whole;
Provides for an automatic
rise and report following
the disposition of the
amendments.
H.R. 70................ Exports of Alaskan H. Res. 197 Open; Makes in order the N/A.
North Slope Oil. Resources Committee
amendment in the nature of
a substitute as original
text; Pre-printing gets
priority; Provides a Senate
hook-up with S. 395.
H.R. 2076.............. Commerce, Justice H. Res. 198 Open; waives cl. 2 and cl. 6 N/A.
Appropriations. of rule XXI against
provisions in the bill; Pre-
printing gets priority;
provides the bill be read
by title..
H.R. 2099.............. VA/HUD Appropriations.. H. Res. 201 Open; waives cl. 2 and cl. 6 N/A.
of rule XXI against
provisions in the bill;
Provides that the amendment
in part 1 of the report is
the first business, if
adopted it will be
considered as base text (30
min); waives all points of
order against the Klug and
Davis amendments; Pre-
printing gets priority;
Provides that the bill be
read by title.
S. 21.................. Termination of U.S. H. Res. 204 Restrictive; 3 hours of ID.
Arms Embargo on Bosnia. general debate; Makes in
order an amendment to be
offered by the Minority
Leader or a designee (1
hr); If motion to recommit
has instructions it can
only be offered by the
Minority Leader or a
designee.
H.R. 2126.............. Defense Appropriations. H. Res. 205 Open; waives cl. 2(l)(6) of N/A.
rule XI and section 306 of
the Congressional Budget
Act against consideration
of the bill; waives cl. 2
and cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in the
bill; self-executes a
strike of sections 8021 and
8024 of the bill as
requested by the Budget
Committee; Pre-printing
gets priority; Provides the
bill be read by title.
H.R. 1555.............. Communications Act of H. Res. 207 Restrictive; waives sec. 2R/3D/3 Bi-
1995. 302(f) of the Budget Act partisan.
against consideration of
the bill; Makes in order
the Commerce Committee
amendment as original text
and waives sec. 302(f) of
the Budget Act and cl. 5(a)
of rule XXI against the
amendment; Makes in order
the Bliely amendment (30
min) as the first order of
business, if adopted it
will be original text;
makes in order only the
amendments printed in the
report and waives all
points of order against the
amendments; provides a
Senate hook-up with S. 652.
H.R. 1977 *Rule Interior Appropriations H. Res. 185 Open; waives sections 302(f) N/A.
Defeated*. and 308(a) of the Budget
Act and cl 2 and cl 6 of
rule XXI; provides that the
bill be read by title;
waives all points of order
against the Tauzin
amendment; self-executes
Budget Committee amendment;
waives cl 2(e) of rule XXI
against amendments to the
bill; Pre-printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1977.............. Interior Appropriations H.Res. 187 Open; waives sections N/A.
302(f), 306 and 308(a) of
the Budget Act; waives
clauses 2 and 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in the
bill; waives all points of
order against the Tauzin
amendment; provides that
the bill be read by title;
self-executes Budget
Committee amendment and
makes NEA funding subject
to House passed
authorization; waives cl
2(e) of rule XXI against
the amendments to the bill;
Pre-printing gets priority.
H.R. 1976.............. Agriculture H. Res. 188 Open; waives clauses 2 and 6 N/A.
Appropriations. of rule XXI against
provisions in the bill;
provides that the bill be
read by title; Makes Skeen
amendment first order of
business, if adopted the
amendment will be
considered as base text (10
min.); Pre-printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1977 (3rd rule)... Interior Appropriations H. Res. 189 Restrictive; provides for N/A.
the further consideration
of the bill; allows only
amendments pre-printed
before July 14th to be
considered; limits motions
to rise.
H.R. 2020.............. Treasury Postal H. Res. 190 Open; waives cl. 2 and cl. 6 N/A.
Appropriations. of rule XXI against
provisions in the bill;
provides the bill be read
by title; Pre-printing gets
priority.
[[Page H 8563]]
H.J. Res. 96........... Disapproving MFN for H. Res. 193 Restrictive; provides for N/A.
China. consideration in the House
of H.R. 2058 (90 min.) And
H.J. Res. 96 (1 hr). Waives
certain provisions of the
Trade Act.
H.R. 2002.............. Transportation H. Res. 194 Open; waives cl. 3 0f rule N/A.
Appropriations. XIII and section 401 (a) of
the CBA against
consideration of the bill;
waives cl. 6 and cl. 2 of
rule XXI against provisions
in the bill; Makes in order
the Clinger/Solomon
amendment waives all points
of order against the
amendment (Line Item Veto);
provides the bill be read
by title; Pre-printing gets
priority..
*RULE AMENDED*
H.R. 2127.............. Labor/HHS H. Res. 208 Open; Provides that the ..............
Appropriations Act. first order of business
will be the managers
amendments (10 min), if
adopted they will be
considered as base text;
waives cl. 2 and cl. 6 of
rule XXI against provisions
in the bill; waives all
points of order against
certain amendments printed
in the report; Pre-printing
gets priority; Provides the
bill be read by title.
* Contract Bills, 67% restrictive; 33% open. ** All legislation, 58% restrictive; 42% open. *** Restrictive
rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so called modified open
and modified closed rules as well as completely closed rules and rules providing for consideration in the
House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. This definition of restrictive rule is taken from the
Republican chart of resolutions reported from the Rules Committee in the 103rd Congress. **** Not included in
this chart are three bills which should have been placed on the Suspension Calendar. H.R. 101, H.R. 400, H.R.
440.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of
the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Miami, FL for
yielding me this time. Ordinarily I would not take the time of this
House to speak on a rather routine rule that simply allows us to
consider a conference report.
However, I feel compelled to do so because the minority is trying to
convert this rule debate into something that it is not, should not be,
and cannot be under the rules of this House.
What the minority is proposing is that we defeat the previous
question so that we can consider a nongermane substitute rule.
It is just that simple, it is just that ridiculous, it is just that
outrageous, and it is just that futile.
The rule before us simply waives points of order against the
conference report on the legislative branch appropriations bill.
The rule the minority Democrats would like to offer if they defeat
the previous question would do much more than that. It would deem the
conference report to be rejected and would then make it in order to
take the House-passed bill from the Speaker's table with Senate
amendments thereto, and substitute the conference language with further
amendments--one of which is completely nongermane to that conference
language.
But even if the additional language were germane to the conference
report, the substitute rule itself is non-germane to the reported rule
because it goes beyond waiving points of order on the conference
report--it attempts to provide for the consideration of another matter
by another procedure.
In other words, even if the minority were to succeed in defeating the
previous question, there substitute rule would be ruled out of order on
a germaneness point or order.
It is not germane to a rule waiving points of order to provide for
the consideration of another matter using another procedure.
And here I cite Cannon's Precedents, volume 8, section 2956; Hinds'
Precedents, volume 5, sections 5834-36; and Deschler-Brown's
Precedents, volume 10, chapter 28, section 17.3, 17.4, and 17.5.
The precedents are clear on this. The minority knows this is the
case. They tried this same ploy back on March 30th of this year on H.R.
831, the bill providing a health insurance tax deduction for the self-
employed.
We got an advisory reading from the Parliamentarians at that time,
just as we have on this occasion. That reading is that this is a
nongermane substitute rule--plain and simple.
And yet the minority Democrats still insist on going through these
meaningless procedural hoops that will get them absolutely nowhere.
This is not just an exercise in futility. It is a political sham, a
partisan charade, and a hollow gesture--all signifying nothing.
Moreover, by pursuing a procedural strategy that is clearly in
violation of House rules and therefore cannot succeed under any
circumstances, the minority Democrats are engaging in a cynical ploy by
pretending to do something they know they cannot do.
Mr. Speaker, it is high time that we blew that whistle on such
tactics as knowingly and willfully attempting to mislead the American
people.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the proposed substitute rule the minority
would like to offer is nongermane on two counts. First, it attempts to
make in order a nongermane procedure; and second, it attempts to make
in order a nongermane amendment under that nongermane procedure.
Being knowingly guilty on one count is shameful; being knowingly
guilty on two counts is downright sham-ful and deserves to be punished
by the overwhelming adoption of the previous question on this rule.
I just want to commend the chairman and the subcommittee chairman of
the Committee on Appropriations for bringing this bill to the floor
because it does set the example for this Congress with all the other
agencies, bureaus, departments of the Federal Government that are going
to have to tighten their belt. We are doing it. With our help we expect
the rest of the agencies to live up to the same thing so we can deal
with the most important problem facing this Nation, and that is the
terrible deficit that is literally turning this Nation into a bankrupt
debtor nation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the previous question and the rule.
{time} 1615
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, some people viewing this proceeding, Members listening
in the Chamber, certainly are aware that the United We Stand
organization had a meeting during the break in my hometown of Dallas,
TX. I went to that meeting and I had to regretfully tell the members of
that organization that the majority leadership in the House of
Representatives was stonewalling on the lobby reform issue, would not
let us bring it up for a vote. I regretted that I had to communicate
that to them.
We tried to offer this on the first day of the session, and we were
prevented from offering this in January. I tried to offer this in the
Committee on Rules, waiving points of order, so that it clearly would
have been in order, and I was voted down on a strict partisan vote in
the Committee on Rules.
Mr. Speaker, my only point is that the majority leadership in the
House does not want this issue to come up, will not permit the lobbying
gift ban to come up, and it is very unfortunate and I regretted that I
had to inform the United We Stand organization of that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Packard], the distinguished subcommittee chairman.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida
for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I will take time during the debate on the conference
report itself to explain the bill, so I do not intend to do that at
this time. I simply want to respond to the effort that is being made to
put the gift ban issue onto this conference report.
Mr. Speaker, the gift ban issue is a very serious issue. It certainly
demands and deserves a great deal of debate. To put anything of this
consequence, which consists of 51 pages of legislation into the
confines of a very limited debate during this conference report would
be an absolute mistake. It ought to stand on its own; it ought to be
debated on its own. It certainly should not be put on as a rider to a
conference report that has 1 hour of debate on the rule and 1 hour of
debate on the report itself. It is an issue of such great consequence
that it ought to
[[Page H 8564]]
have much more than that. So I would strongly urge the Members to not
vote to allow this to go onto this conference report without the
opportunity to have extensive debate and extensive review.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the ranking
member of this subcommittee.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from
Texas for yielding me this time and indicate my congratulations to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], who brings this conference
report to the floor, for the fine job that he has done in general
during his first year as chairman of this subcommittee. But I regret
that I have to stand in opposition to the previous question, in hopes
that this body will take the opportunity when it deals with the budget
of the legislative branch to deal with something that we have far too
long neglected, certainly in this Congress, and frankly, in prior
Congresses, to deal with, and that is the need to adopt strong lobby
reform and gift ban legislation.
The House twice approved strong lobby reform and gift reform in the
103d Congress by 3-to-1 bipartisan majorities. The Republicans sadly
filibustered it in the Senate at the end of the last session of
Congress in order to deprive the President and the Democratic majority
of having a political victory on something that had been worked out in
great detail.
Regrettably, as the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] has already
indicated, despite the effort to speak to the Perot movement in this
country, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] and the Speaker have
stonewalled lobbying and gift reform for the 7 months we have been
here. There was no willingness to deal with it during the reforms that
were engaged in, far less significant reforms, on the first day of this
session. And now, despite our efforts to speak to this group of people
in our society, we continue to avoid dealing with the responsibility of
having to reform the way we go about dealing with lobbyists, the way we
go about dealing in our interrelationships with those who would lobby
us or give us gifts.
Mr. Speaker, the Senate has passed lobby reform and a gift ban
unanimously, something I never thought could possibly occur. The House
should now join the executive branch and the Senate and do the same.
Mr. Speaker, the issues are well known. This conference report
provides an excellent opportunity to deal legislatively with both of
these issues in an expeditious fashion.
Lobby provisions that are included in this motion are identical to
what the Senate has done, and that is appropriate. We need a commonly
understood statute that would affect the enormous loopholes that have
existed in the 1946 Lobbying Act that have permitted a situation in
which fewer than 4,000 of the estimated 13,500 known Washington
lobbyists are registered with this Congress. We need to close that
loophole. We need to make sure, on the other hand, that the unpaid
grassroots activities are completely exempt from this new requirement,
and so those who opposed this bill last year because of opposition from
the so-called Christian coalition should be comfortable to understand
that advocacy by churches and religious groups are exempted in this
bill that the Senate has adopted.
The gift restrictions are identical to the Senate-passed provisions
and mirror restrictions that now apply to Members of the executive
branch. Any gift over $10 counts toward a $100 annual limit per Member,
or per staff, per lobbyists. We ought to have the same provisions apply
to us that now apply to the Senate. It is appropriate we deal with it
now so it can be effective in the next year.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind words that the chairman of the
Legislative Appropriations Subcommittee, Ron Packard, spoke at Rules
Committee--that the reductions in this conference report build on the
progress started under my chairmanship.
The conference report improves the House bill in several ways.
But the thoughtful treatment of many issues in this conference
report, and the successful defense of the House position at conference
on several important items, unfortunately emphasizes the two major
issues where the conference has fallen far short:
General Accounting Office--the conference chose the lower Senate
number, $374 million, nearly $20 million less than the House--more than
a 15-percent cut below last year.
Office of Technology Assessment--despite two strong votes in the
House and a near-majority in the Senate, the conference gave in to the
Senate in mandating a close-down of OTA.
Accordingly, I reluctantly oppose the conference report.
The shut-down of OTA is particularly thoughtless. Restoring OTA did
not need to come at the expense of GAO or the Library of Congress, who
are struggling with flat budgets or budget cuts.
There are different ways to accomplish it:
An across-the-board cut--the Congressional Budget Office says less
than a .03 percent--three one-hundredths of a percent--would be
required to provide another $6.5 million for OTA.
Use existing budget authority. The bill is $114 million below the
House 602b allocation and $20 million below in outlays--there is plenty
of room to provide these funds.
In fact, there was plenty of room to provide funds and stay close to
the $200 million in cuts that seem to be the goal of the Republicans.
But it is clear that the Republican fight to close OTA has been a
symbolic fight.
It is clear this has nothing to do with budget cuts. The public is
unlikely to be more impressed that we cut $205 million instead of $200
million.
At conference, Chairman Packard and Chairman Livingston opposed $6.5
million to keep OTA alive--yet pleaded vigorously for $7 million to
renovate the Botanic Garden.
So this is a symbolic victory for the Republicans--but it is a
victory that will be very expensive in the long run.
Policy issues across the spectrum are increasingly complex and
technical.
OTA helps us sort out the facts from the fiction.
The need won't go away in the future--but we will be ill-equipped to
deal with it.
The issues in the last few days before we adjourned for the August
recess--environmental risk assessment and telecommunications--are just
two examples of complicated policy issues that confront Congress each
year.
I have examples of OTA reports issued in just the past few days:
Information Security and Privacy in Network
Environments--this was produced as a followon report for the Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs on the heels of a 1994 report, and it
was used to prepare for hearings and legislation in this Congress.
This report points out the necessity of a standing agency. Some
opponents have said we can contract for such reports, but where do we
get the followup assistance if we paid a private contractor to do the
first report?
Electronic Surveillance in a Digital Age--this is a background paper
requested by our colleague, Mike Oxley, last September when he was
still a member of the minority.
But the Technology Board thought Mr. Oxley had a great idea--to
consider the technical aspects of implementing the Communications
Assistance for Law Enforcement Act--so the background paper was
authorized.
This report is perhaps the best indicator of the bipartisan nature of
OTA and the fair-handed manner that the Technology Board operates.
International Partnerships in Large Science Projects--the budget
implications of international collaboration in research and science
projects are huge.
When does international collaboration make sense? When is it not in
our national interest?
Research into such sweeping questions is what OTA does best--neither
CRS or GAO is prepared to pick up analyses of such scope.
In short, I find it particularly ironic that the Speaker has termed
this the cyber-Congress--yet has instructed his whips to destroy OTA.
Amo Houghton has made a convincing case. He speaks with the best
outside-the-beltway experience of any Member.
The House agreed with Amo, and spoke strongly in two votes, but the
conferees did not insist on House position.
There were 46 votes in the Senate to sustain OTA including eight
Republicans.
We believe there were other OTA supporters who were concerned about
offsets from Library and GAO.
Since this ill-considered action by the conference, the outpouring of
editorial comment has been astounding:
The Washington Post--``Congress should think this one over again.
Thrift in Government operations holds a high priority in today's
politics. But the information and insights provided by OTA's studies
are important ingredients of wise legislating, and worth far more than
the few millions needed to keep OTA alive.''
The Economist--``What do you do with an institution that offers you
impartial technical advice? If you are America's Congress, you close it
down.''
[[Page H 8565]]
The Christian Science Monitor--``It would be a costly mistake.''
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette--``Through a comedy of errors, oversight
and political machismo, Congress has chosen ignorance, and ended the
23-year history of its best and smallest agency.''
The Minneapolis Star-Tribune--``The majority acts as though it wants
to be a 20th century Know Nothing Party.''
The International Association for Technology Assessment and
Forecasting Institutions--``It would be a serious loss to the world
community if OTA should be terminated. We see OTA as a flagship for all
countries interested in adapting wisely to the ever increasing rate of
technological change.''
To summarize: OTA is a bipartisan organization--overseen by
bipartisan House-Senate Technology Board.
OTA goes outside-the-beltway--5000 specialists from business,
industry, and academia have contributed to its reports and policy
recommendations.
OTA is a lean organization--since 1993, OTA voluntarily has reduced
its middle and senior management by almost 40 percent. The funds we are
seeking would represent a 40 percent cut below last year.
But the bottom line--OTA saves taxpayer dollars.
In looking at the Defense appropriations bill we'll take up soon, I'm
struck by what Curt Weldon and John Spratt said in a ``Dear Colleague''
about OTA--``The type of work they perform is just not available from
other congressional agencies.''
It is imperative that Congress retain an independent analytical
function, but that function is missing from this conference report.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Goss], my distinguished colleague on the Committee on
Rules.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Florida for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, this is the first of the appropriations bills to make it
through the conference process, and I wish to commend the bill's
managers, the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], as well as the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the full
committee who is here, for making sure that the legislative branch
leads the way in the belt tightening that we know is going to be done.
This conference report, which obviously funds the conference, comes
in at $200 million below the actual amount spent for the current fiscal
year. That is a real cut. That is real savings and one we can all be
proud of, I think, in these tight budgetary times.
Mr. Speaker, the issue has been raised today that somehow the
conferees of this spending bill failed because they did not include
provisions reforming the gift rule for Members of this House. Well, the
first point here is that reform of the gift rule, although it is a
matter of great importance and very significant interest to many
people, is not within the scope of the legislative branch funding bill.
It is an apples and oranges problem. No matter how big an apple gift
reform is, it just cannot become an orange because somebody wants to
declare it so. It would be a little bit like Cal Ripken showing up at
Fenway Park tonight. Wrong place. So from a procedural point of view,
raising this issue as part of today's debate I think is way off the
mark.
Mr. Speaker, after the substance of reforming the gift rules, I do
share the interests of many of our colleagues on both sides of the
aisle of reviewing our gift rules and for the action recently taken in
the other body reforming our House rules. I would point out I believe
tomorrow there are going to be hearings in the Committee on the
Judiciary; our colleague, the gentleman from Florida, Charles Canady, I
believe is chairing a subcommittee hearing on the bill of the gentleman
from Connecticut, Mr. Shays, which actually was the forerunner of all
of these, which is what got it started, and I believe that we are
proceeding apace. I understand the Speaker has made a public statement
today committing that we will take this up in due course. In my office
we have a strict policy.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, in
due course?
Mr. GOSS. I think due course is coming a lot
sooner than you think.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Something like deliberate speed?
Mr. GOSS. Deliberate speed means different things of course on
different sides of the aisle, but I think at this point we have a
promise to go by early next year on this, and we are going to start the
hearings tomorrow.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Would this be effective in the next calendar
year?
Mr. GOSS. I do not know what the effective date is. I think it
remains to be seen, but I think it is very clear that we can start the
hearings tomorrow.
Along those lines, I have to point out that others have offered all
kinds of bills. I have a lobbyist-paid travel bill that is in. It has a
handful of Members' bipartisan support. Unfortunately, some of the
colleagues I hear discussing this issue today are not on that bill. I
hope they will take a good long look at it. I think efforts are
underway to tighten the disclosure requirements to bring sunshine and
accountability into our process.
Certainly as Members know, these principles sound easy, but they are
not as easy when you start applying them, because you have to define
what a gift is. If somebody gives you a memento, it is hard to make
that distinction occasionally. I think most Members agree that we have
to be wise and judicious in what we do, and I think it is very clear
that both the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and the
Committee on Rules, both of which I am on, are interested in this along
with the Committee on the Judiciary.
It has a terrific amount of interest, it is underway, it is going
forward. To somehow say that we are off on the wrong track here because
the appropriations process, which we all know is on a very tight
timetable which needs to go forward, to suddenly now throw a monkey
wrench on that process because it does not have what is clearly a
nongermane, inappropriate, out of scope issue in it, does not do us a
service here at all. We need to get on with this rule, we need to get
on with the conference, let things happen, and we need to take up the
gift reform and the lobby reform and campaign reform as we have
promised we would do in the right season when their time comes, and
that season apparently starts tomorrow.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, last night in Fort Worth, TX, the local United We Stand
organization had another meeting, and once again I informed them that I
was going to attempt to bring this up today and once again the
Republican leadership would steamroll this issue and not permit it to
be brought up.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Bryant].
(Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be simpler in the
legislative business of this House than what we are doing today. It is
a simple question for Members. Do you think that we should be able to
continue to play golf for free, play tennis for free, go skiing for
free, fly around the country on these recreational outings that are
thinly disguised vacations, or do you think we ought to impose the same
limits on this House that the U.S. Senate imposed on itself 4 weeks
ago?
It is that simple. We ask you to vote against the previous question
so that the amended rule of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] may
come forward so that we can simply offer the same provisions which the
Senate has applied to itself as applicable to the House. That is all
there is to it. All of this gobbledegook about procedures and all the
tough talk about Deschler's Rules and so forth, all of it is
meaningless. It is a very simple question.
There are those who believe Members of the House of Representatives
ought to be able to play golf for free, who do not want to pay for
their own golf or their own ski trips or their own tennis. They think
the lobbyists ought to pay for it, and there are those who think it
ought not to be allowed, that it ought to stop, that it is an
embarrassment to the institution. There are those of us who have worked
for 2\1/2\ years to pass legislation to stop this outrage, and there
are those who spent 2\1/2\ years trying to prevent that legislation
from passing. We have heard from some of those this afternoon just a
few moments ago. They jump up and holler regular order. They are ready
to fight for their right to have free golf and free tennis.
[[Page H 8566]]
Mr. Speaker, I would just say that I wish we could get the same
interest for some other issues as we seem to get for protecting free
golf for Members of the House of Representatives. All of this would
have the same rules that the Senate passed which, by the way, are quite
moderate; they do not go as far as I would like to go. We want those
rules applied to the House of Representatives. We do not have to wait
for January, or more hearings; we can do it in the next 1\1/2\ hours.
That is all we are asking for. We ask you to vote down the previous
question so that we can offer this amendment to the legislative
appropriation bill.
What are we doing? We are simply saying that there is a limit of $50
on all gifts, meals and entertainment to Members of the House of
Representatives. Fifty bucks is probably too much. I do not think most
folks watching this debate think we even ought to get 50 bucks. But
that limit is on there, and for those Members who want to keep on
accepting it, they can keep on accepting it. But for goodness sakes,
the same rules ought to apply to the House of Representatives.
We are saying that there is a $100 limit from a single source. Pay
for your own meals and golf and ski trips, but let the rest of us
impose this rule upon the House so that we can regain the confidence of
the American people and this institution.
I would point out to you that the bitterest attacks on this
institution have come from some of the same people who stand up here
every time we have this debate and defend the status quo. And where
does the status quo get us? it just gets us greater and greater in debt
to the American people with regard to credibility.
Why do we not go ahead and do this? Two-and-a-half years ago we
embarked on an effort to do it. This House passed it two times by
overwhelming margins. It would be law today except for a filibuster in
the Senate that killed it. Why not get it done right now, impose
reasonable restraints on the behavior of Members of the House with
regard to gifts from lobbyists and be done with it. Why not?
Nobody wants to rise and answer that question. The defense over here
today will be all over the board. Now we hear there is going to be more
hearings. We had hearings on this 3 months ago. We were told there
would be a markup in due course, very soon, do not worry about it. Here
we are, September, 3 months before the end of the year, no markup. All
we have had is an announcement that as a result of what we are trying
to do here today, my goodness, there will be another hearing tomorrow.
{time} 1630
Well, let us stop beating around the bush and putting the American
people off and stop playing games. Lobbyists should not be able to buy
meals and so forth for Members of the House of Representatives. It is
as simple as that. There is not a single person in this House who has
served here or who has served in State and local government who has not
behaved in the same fashion we are trying to prohibit today.
Mr. Speaker, I do not hold myself out as a paragon of virtue either,
but it is clear some years ago it was necessary to make this change. We
began trying to make the change, and I would encourage the Members of
the House to vote down the previous question and given us an
opportunity to amend this law to pass the same rules to apply to the
House as apply to the Senate and be done with this issue once and for
all, and say if you are going to play golf, gentlemen, pay for it
yourself. If you are going to go on a ski trip, pay for it yourself. If
you are going to go out and have a big fancy meal, pay for it yourself.
That is all we are saying today. Vote down the question.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress who has never
played golf nor has any intention to, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that my
colleagues appear to be so sanctimonious and self-righteous about
somebody going out and having a hamburger or dinner with somebody
saying that is buying influence when the same Members that are making
these statements and trying to make the American people feel like we
are doing something wrong by playing golf with somebody or tennis with
somebody or having dinner with somebody are accepting thousands of
dollars in campaign contributions.
The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], according to the information
on his FEC report, got 52, count them, 52 $5,000 contributions from
PAC's. I would not accuse him of wrongdoing, but if there is any
influence peddling, if the appearance of influence peddling is
something we are talking about, I would think 52 $5,000 contributions
would have more of an impact on the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Bryant],
than somebody buying me a sandwich, or somebody playing tennis with
someone, or someone playing golf with someone; 52 $5,000 contributions.
In 1994, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] got $273,689.51, and
over half of those were from special interest PAC's, but he does not
want to talk about that.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] got $196,400, and 69
percent, over two-thirds, came from PAC's. He got contributions from
the American Federation of State, county and municipal people. He got
the cable industry, human rights campaign, Democrat, Republican,
Independent Voters Educational Political Action Fund, and a lot of
labor unions. But those do not have influence, folks, those $5,000
contributions to him does not have any influence. I believe that. But
if I have a hamburger with somebody I am breaking the law? That is
buying influence? I think my colleagues have their priorities kind of
skewed.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that many of these functions
that we are talking about raises money for charitable contributions,
like leukemia research and cancer research. I say to my colleagues, I
think that is very important. I would rather have these private
individuals do this and private groups do this than the taxpayers.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Bryant] if he would like to respond to the gentleman who just
spoke.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
I would like to ask the gentleman from Indiana if he would engage in a
colloquy with me.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, since we are talking about
political action committee contributions, did the gentleman vote for
the campaign finance bill that passed the House last year?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I do not know which the gentleman
is talking about. We had several.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Did the gentleman vote for any of them?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I would have to check.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I do not have to check.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman a
question? I will limit the campaign contributions to $1,000. Will he
vote for that?
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Regular order, Mr. Speaker. I have the time.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, then let me respond.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. The gentleman had political action committee
contributions when most of us voted to limit those and the gentleman
did not.
Let me ask a second question. Has the gentleman played golf at any
time in the last year at the expense of a lobbyist?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I have played golf at the expense of people
raising money for leukemia research and for cancer research so the
taxpayers do not have to.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Did those people happen to be lobbyists?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. No.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Is the gentleman going to tell Members of the
House that you have not played golf this year at the expense of a
lobbyist?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. No.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. How about last year?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. No. The people who put on fundraisers for
cancer research are organizations, not lobbyists.
[[Page H 8567]]
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am not even
talking about these sham vacations that come in the guise of----
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to
yield, will you let me answer? Do not ask me a question if----
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. The gentleman's answer was no, I think. And what
I am saying is, I am not even talking about these sham vacations that
come in the guise of some fundraising scheme for some charity. I am
talking about just taking you out on the golf course and letting you
play golf for free? The gentleman is going to say you have not done
that?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. No. I said no. Did the gentleman hear me?
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Very well. I am just so surprised, Mr. Burton.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Will the gentleman vote for an amendment to
your bill to limit campaign contributions from PACs to $1,000? Because
I am going to introduce it, and I want to see if the gentleman will
vote for it because you are getting all these $5,000 contributions.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I would ask the gentleman if he will vote for a
bill that says Members do not get to play golf for free and they have
to pay for their own green fees? That is what we have before the House
today.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Of course.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. The gentleman will vote for a bill that says a
lobbyist cannot pay for a Member's golf green fees?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Of course.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. It is before us. Vote with us.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The fact of the matter is, will the gentleman
vote to limit your campaign contributions to $1,000?
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I have already voted for political action
committee reform.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The gentleman is going to get that chance,
because we are going to propose that amendment to your bill.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. I will say one
more time. Mr. Burton protests against circumstances against which he
had a chance to change and he refused to vote to change it.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Did you get 52 $5,000 contributions?
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the majority whip.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support
this rule. This is a fair rule which provides for the consideration of
the legislative branch appropriations bill. This appropriations bill is
the first shot across the bow for those last defenders of the status
quo. It cuts spending first, it cuts spending fast, and it cuts
spending fairly.
In fact, this bill spends $205 million less than we spent last year
on the legislative branch. These are real cuts, not the mythical
decreases in the rate of spending made popular by the former majority.
Mr. Speaker, we have kept our promises with this legislation and we
will continue to keep these promises all during the fall. Let us not be
confused by the rhetoric from the other side of the aisle. They keep
trying to confuse the issue.The issue here is spending. They do not
have a plan to cut spending so they go into gift bans and all this
other stuff.
A vote to defeat the previous question will kill this conference
report. It will not reform campaign finance, it will not reform our
lobby laws. Any claims to the contrary are simply not accurate. The
minority seeks to defeat the previous question so they can stop this
first spending reduction bill in its tracks. That is not why the
American people sent us here. They sent us here to change the way the
government operates.
I want to commend the gentleman from California, Ron Packard, my good
friend, for his excellent work on this conference report. It is truly
the first step to a balanced budget. So I urge my colleagues to think
before you vote to vote for real reform and to vote to cut spending
first by voting for the previous question for the rule and for this
conference report.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I asked earlier of the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] if he could indicate when we would
deal with gift reform and lobby reform if it were not possible to do it
on this bill at this time, which, by the way, does nothing to disturb
any of the other work that Mr. Packard and his committee have done, as
I have indicated. But when will that be brought to the floor if we do
not bring it up tonight and try to resolve it before we go to
Baltimore?
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the best I can tell the gentleman is before
we adjourn sine die.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, does that mean it will be effective in the next Congress?
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding time to me.
This is an incredible debate to have on our first day back. It is
absolutely no wonder the American people are very tired of listening to
the wrangling in this body. It is like we have not been away.
Now, let me talk about some of the things that I think do not pass
the straight-face test. Yes, this is the first of the 13 bills we have
to pass to keep the Government going before September 30. September 30
has been the deadline forever and ever. It is not a secret date. We
know it. And we have never been so late in getting these bills done. So
there is a possibility that many people are going to be furloughed, all
sorts of awful things are going to happen, the Government may close
down, or whatever, but we are going to step up to the plate today, if
this passes, and we are going to pass ours first. That means if we get
to the 30th and you have not passed the others, we will not be hurt.
It is interesting because we are putting it in the name of ``we are
belt tightening,'' which is true, we are belt tightening, so we are
setting an example and we just hope that we will be able to get the
other people's bills through. If they are not, they will be furloughed,
have a nice day, or their programs will be cut or whatever, but we will
not be hurt. We will not be tied to the track as this train wreck is
coming. That is No. 1.
Listen to this and say wait a minute. Wait a minute. This bill ought
to be last, not first. If the Congress has not gotten its business
done, they certainly should not make sure that they are held harmless
by the fact they have not done their business. That is what the
President is talking about when he says he will not sign this. I salute
him. He is right.
Now, No. 2, we have been trying to get a gift bill cleaned up since
President Truman was here. President Truman was the first President to
come down and say that there were lobbying loopholes, and we have
worked away at trying to tinker and figure it out. Last year this body
passed it, the other body filibustered it. This year the other body
passed it and we are trying to say let us put exactly the same thing on
and be done with it.
Mr. Speaker, I love the golf conversation. Now, the way I understand
these things, and maybe the gentleman from Texas can explain it to me,
people come to play golf to raise money for these wonderful causes, and
they are wonderful causes, but they come because they think they are
going to get to play with a Congressman and they may have some words
with them as they ride around in the cart.
Now, first of all, if we cared so much about the cause, I would think
we would be willing to donate our time, would we not, and pay for our
own green fees and have a little more money for whatever we are doing?
And, second, to pretend like these are just citizens who walked in and
were willing to donate so some Congressman could play free, that does
not make sense. We know what this is all about and it is not passing
the straight-face test.
We should pass this gift ban. It would make people feel much better
about what is going on here. We also should not be rushing out here to
pass our bill first so ourselves and our staff and the Senate, boy, no
matter how bad we mess up, we will not be hurt. We will
[[Page H 8568]]
get our paycheck through all of this and we just hope some of those GS-
7's or some people relying on Government checks or whatever, that they
do not get hurt too bad, and we hope we get their bills through before
the 30th or whatever.
Now, that just looks like the same old same old. In fact, worse than
that, because I think that the people on this side of the aisle, who
have been on the appropriations and in a leadership position can tell
you we had these bills in this body passed every single time in July,
at the latest. Never have we come back and had more than one or two
bills hanging out there with some kind of disagreement. But now to have
all 13, and run forth and say we will take care of ourselves first, as
this great example that we belt tightened, yeah, we belt tightened, and
we should have, but we are not hurt, and we are not going to do the
gift bill because we are hiding behind the legalism of nonegermane,
baloney. People are tired of it. Vote it down.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the distinguished chairman of the Committee
on Appropriations.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Committee on Rules
for recommending a good rule. This is an excellent conference
agreement, and I urge the adoption of this conference agreement and the
ordering as well of the previous question.
Frankly, I am astounded at hearing all of this revisionist history,
about how in 40 years of Democratic control of the House of
Representatives you could not pass a gift ban bill, so now all of a
sudden it is imperative we defeat the previous question on a rule so we
can add a gift ban bill to a conference report that has nothing
whatsoever to do with a gift ban bill.
Now, you had 40 years to do it and yet you want to do it today? How
about next year? That is when we are going to take it up. The Speaker
has indicated we are going to take it up next year. Let us take it up
then.
{time} 1645
This is a good conference agreement. The gentlewoman says, ``We are
helping ourselves first.'' First of all, this conference agreement cuts
$206 million below 1995, when the Democrats were in control of the
House. It cuts $114.7 million below the budget authority allocation for
this bill. It cuts $20.4 million below the outlay allocation, and it
cuts, this is what they do not like to hear, 2,614 full-time Federal
employees, a 9,5 percent reduction. They do not like to hear that, so
they want to tack on all this extraneous stuff to overlook the fact
that we are actually accomplishing a great deal.
The gentlewoman says, ``We have never approached this bill first.''
Let me suggest to the gentlewoman she is entirely wrong. In fact, for
fiscal year 1995, in which the Democrats were the majority party, this
was the first bill to be signed by the President of the United States
on July 22, 1994. For fiscal 1994 it was the first bill to be signed on
August 11, 1993. For fiscal 1992 it was the first bill to be signed, on
August 14, 1991, and for the point that the gentlewoman made about it
never being so late, never been passed late, this bill was signed with
all 13 bills on November 5, 1990. It was signed with all 13 bills on
December 22, 1987, and it was signed with all 13 bills in an omnibus
C.R. on October 18, 1986.
The point is that these arguments are fallacious. They are red
herrings. They are trying to get around the fact that this is a good
conference agreement. We cut our budget, we bring it to the President
and say, ``It cuts money out of the legislative budget, the budget that
governs the conduct of this House and the other body.'' It is a decent
conference report, and it is foolish, foolish to say, after they could
not pass a gift ban in 40 years, therefore we ought to disrupt this
good bill and pass a gift ban with it today. I say to the Members,
reject what they are trying to do, order the previous question, pass
the rule, pass the bill, and let us get on with the business, because
we are running out of time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston], who is a very fine Member, before he leaves the Chamber I
am afraid had a little case of selective amnesia a moment ago. He said
that we had never passed this. I know he did not intend that. We did
pass this bill last year. It was passed when the Democrats controlled
the Congress last year, it passed the House of Representatives, went
over to the Senate, was filibustered by Republicans in the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I take the time to simply inform Members what
I plan to do on the motion to recommit, and also to urge opposition to
the previous question on the rule. As the gentlewoman from Colorado has
indicated, I think it is extremely unseemly, when it appears that we
are headed into a train wreck with the Government shutting down because
of the nonpassage of various appropriations bills, I think it is
unseemly that the one bill which would be released from the track so it
will not participate in that train wreck is the bill that funds the
legislative branch of Government. I do not think the public will
understand that, I do not think we would want to have to go home and
explain that.
If other groups in this society are going to be held hostage, so
should we. That is why I will offer a motion to recommit, which would
require that the bill be recommitted to the committee on conference
with instructions that the conferees not meet until they are
subsequently instructed to do so by the House, so we can in fact pass
our other business before we take care of our own.
Second, with respect to the previous question, I simply want to say
that I find it amazing that the majority party cannot object at all
when 17 separate legislative riders were attached to the EPA
appropriation bill, virtually all of which were special interest deals.
Yet, they somehow are morally offended when we try to attach an
amendment to the legislative appropriations bill which cleans up the
relationship between Members of Congress and lobbyists.
I for one am tired of seeing network news programs run stories about
Members of Congress schmoozing with lobbyists on beaches or on golf
courses. We all understand the special advantage that gives them. We
think it is a special advantage that ought to be taken away. That is
why the Bryant amendment ought to pass.
With respect to the equation of PAC contributions, let me simply say
this. I myself make no apologies whatsoever for any PAC contributions I
have ever received. They are fully aboveboard, they are reported, and I
have no objection to having a bunch of workers in the back of the shop
being able to unite to contribute collectively as much as four chief
executives in the front office can contribute to the other side in any
corporation.
I would also say that I frankly find it a joke to have Members of the
majority party concerned about a $5,000 PAC contribution and the damage
that may do to the legislative process, but they have no objection
whatsoever to one family in Wisconsin contributing $1 million to the
empire of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], GOPAC, and the
other pieces. If we want to get worried about buying special
privileges, I would say that is what we ought to start looking at.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Washington [Mrs. Smith], a distinguished and effective freshman
Member of this Congress.
Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I just returned from a
conference in Dallas that I heard referred to earlier. It was United We
Stand America. I have spoken in 2 weeks to over 20,000 people at
conventions. There is now a national group called the Clean Congress
Foundation that is now bigger than all of the individual groups.
I will tell the Members, America is disgusted as much by the partisan
bickering, posturing, with no intent to go anywhere, as they are with
anything. Dallas was about a lot of people tired of partisan politics,
disgusted by people that have held power for 42 years that could have
cleaned up the system, who are now standing pure as the driven snow,
disgusted; disgusted by the Republicans that used to do the
[[Page H 8569]]
same thing, all of us, them and us, on both sides of the aisle.
I want to tell the Members that what is most disturbing today to
Middle America is what they are seeing on the floor today. I checked
out to see if this amendment could actually do anything. No. Members
know it cannot do anything. The Parliamentarian stands and says it is
not germane. It is not even debatable. They knew when they took up this
time on the floor that there was not a chance of a cold day in hell of
getting it through, and they were playing with the American people
again, and they are mad. They are mad.
I tell the Members today, we have a bill, the Clean Congress Act,
2072, and it stops playing around like this bill that still allows
trips, trips that fly you all over the world as gifts, still allows
things that people do not want. They do not want a $50 gift, they do
not want a $100 gift, they do not want any gift. They want no money
flowing here in Washington, DC. 2072 is the bill that we want to pass,
and we ask Members to stop quibbling and support it. Please approve the
previous question.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the gentlewoman, who is a
new Member, that I offered a motion in the Committee on Rules to waive
germaneness so this could be brought up on the floor today, and that
motion was voted down on a straight party line vote. The Republican
members of the Committee on Rules refused to waive germaneness in the
Committee on Rules so we could address this issue today. The Democratic
members asked that it be waived in the Committee on Rules.
If the Republican Members had been willing to do that in the
Committee on Rules, there would be no argument on the floor today about
whether it is germane or not germane. This is all a game. This is all a
sham on the other side of the aisle. This could be brought up. This
could have been on the floor today if the Republican Members of the
Committee on Rules would have permitted it to be on the floor today.
It is 9 months now. We passed this last year. I want to make that
point again, because the gentlewoman made the same point that the
gentleman from Louisiana made: Why did the Democrats not pass this? The
Democratically controlled House of Representatives did pass this last
year, and it was blocked by the Republican Members of the U.S. Senate
in a filibuster.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
[Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the
previous question, and I urge my colleague to vote against the previous
question so that the gift and lobbying reform language can be added to
this legislation. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are very
fond these days of talking about how responsive they are to the
American public. I will tell the Members, go to any town hall, go to
any group of Americans these days, working middle-class families. The
American public strongly favors banning gifts from lobbyists to Members
of Congress, and they are right, because it is the perks and the
privileges that demean this institution, and every single person who
serves here.
That is not what we were elected to do, or why we were elected to
this body. We are here to do the people's business, and we are well
compensated for that. We do not need free vacations, free frequent
flier miles, free gifts, or free meals to sweeten the deal.
Let me say that working middle-class families are getting nothing for
free. They are paying every single day for everything, and they are
working darned hard for it. Let us understand what their lives are
about. They are getting a glimpse of what some Members of this body's
lives are about in accepting free gifts from lobbyists and their
influence every single day.
We do need to enforce disclosure by the lobbyists. The American
people have a right to know how much these groups are spending in order
to influence legislation in this body. It is high time that we tackled
these issues and join our colleagues in the other body in implementing
serious gift and lobby reform.
The Republican leadership has repeatedly told us that the schedule
for this session is full, so that the vote today, Mr. Speaker, is
probably our last chance to pass lobby and gift reform this year. Let
us seize the opportunity to limit the influence of special interests.
Let us defeat the previous question. Let us once and for all tell the
American people that we are serious about reform. Let this body reflect
the interests of the people and not the special interests.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of debates where you wonder whether
you should weigh in, because a lot of people are angry and there is a
lot of partisan debate. Then you say, ``Is this something you want to
be a part of, this debate?'' I do not know if I want to be a part of
this debate, but I do want to say that I believe with all my heart and
soul that I have waited 40 years for the opportunity to have a leading
role as a majority Member. I have only been in office 8 months in the
majority. I would like to give my Republicans an opportunity to do in 2
years this issue, which my colleagues on that side had an opportunity
to do for 40 years.
When I listen to the gentlewoman from Colorado, Pat Schroeder, saying
that ``I am voting for the legislative appropriation because I want to
increase or make sure that I am paid,'' in this code, by statute,
Members of Congress and the President of the United States are under
permanent appropriation. The Democrats voted in 1980, and Republicans
as well, to make sure that we were paid under permanent appropriation,
so I just do not think it carries any weight to say a Member of
Congress wants to vote for the legislative appropriation to be paid. We
are, for whatever reason, in this book, permanent.
In terms of the issue of gift ban or lobby disclosure, I will say
something I would never say if I did not mean it. I would not run again
if gift ban and lobby disclosure are not passed. I would say to my
colleagues, this issue is going to be taken up by Republicans. If it is
not taken up, I will not run again. That is how strongly I believe in
my leadership and in my fellow Republicans taking up gift ban and lobby
disclosure.
I happen to agree with what the Senate has done. I do not think it is
monumental, but I think it gets us a long way. I do not criticize that
side for bringing this issue up. If it puts it on the antenna of some
of our leadership, then so be it. However, there are very important
Members of this Congress who have gotten elected on this issue.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have to say this. I think there are some
Members on the other side who feel if they repeat something often
enough that is not true, people will believe it, so I feel an
obligation to repeat what is true. The previous speaker just said the
Democrats did not pass this legislation. We passed this legislation
last year. The gift ban was passed by the Democratically controlled
House of Representatives. It is not true to say that the Democratic
Party would not and could not pass this piece of legislation.
{time} 1700
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, the Senate of the United States has acted on this issue
and they achieved a good result because they had some bipartisan
support. It is unfortunate today that there appears to be no
bipartisanship on this question of how we can cut the ties that have
bound legislators and lobbyists, because it definitely needs to be
attended to.
I think that all that this will accomplish is to take an imperfect
compromise from the Senate and put it in place here in the House. If
anyone needs a reason as to why this ought to occur, let me reflect on
my own experience in this regard, because when this measure was up
before, I spoke on it here on the floor of the House. I addressed the
issue on the floor of the House in the motion to recommit, and
[[Page H 8570]]
I did so without making any reference to either Democrats or
Republicans, but suggested there was a need to end these freebies.
What I got from that in response was a member of the Republican
Committee on Appropriations, one of the great cardinals who is here on
the floor today, to tell me that he had told his staff to go out and
look for a project to cut in my district. They found one to the tune of
$90 million, a project in my district to whittle out because I had the
audacity as a new Member to stand up and say we need to do something
about a gift ban.
Well, I am here today to say I am not going to be intimidated on that
issue because I think it goes to the core of what this Congress is
about and the demand of people to see this place cleaned up. My
objection to the Republicans is not that they have done too much to
change the way this Congress operates, but they have done too little,
and they know it.
In Texas when you shake hands on something like Speaker Gingrich did
up in New Hampshire, it means something. It is an agreement. You lend
your word. But all we got was a promise and a lot of talk and whistling
in the background. Someday over the rainbow we will get around to
dealing with this.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOGGETT. I will yield on your time as long as you want to talk
about this act of intimidation right here on the floor of the Congress.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Packard].
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to take time to clarify two
issues that have been mentioned several times.
Last year we did pass a gift ban bill. It was not this gift ban that
is being proposed. Totally different. This one is 51 pages long. I have
not read a single page of that 51 pages. I do not think any Member of
Congress except those that have proposed it have read the 51 pages.
This is not the time to pass a 51-page amendment to this conference
report. That is the point I wanted to make.
The second point: We have worked very carefully for several years and
certainly this year to make this a bipartisan bill. I want to commend
the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] who is the ranking member of
the subcommittee. We have worked in a bipartisan way.
Unfortunately, this is turning into a very partisan vote on the rule.
Frankly, that is probably the way it is going to go, along a straight
partisan vote. That is unfortunate when we have worked together on a
nonpartisan bill that has done a lot of good work for restructuring
Congress.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Then I will be yielding to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].
Mr. Speaker, last night at the United We Stand meeting in Fort Worth,
I informed the United We Stand members that the Republicans would
unanimously vote against the gift ban today. That appears to be the
case, based on what I have just heard. I think that is unfortunate. We
have a chance to lay this issue to rest once and for all, but the
Republicans will not permit us to bring it up.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Bryant], the author of the gift ban.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from Texas is recognized for 2 minutes.
(Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] yielding me the time.
Let me simply say that we have heard a number of statements on the
floor today that once again, as the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost]
said, need to be corrected very clearly. First, the repeated refrain
from the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and a few others,
why did the Democrats not pass this legislation in the past when they
had control of the House?
The answer, of course, is we did pass it. We did not just pass it
once, we passed it twice. It was filibustered to death by the then
Republican minority in the Senate.
Second, we heard the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith] say a
moment ago that somehow or another what we are trying to do will have
no effect, it cannot happen, it is against the rules.
The fact of the matter is that notwithstanding what the gentlewoman
from Washington [Mrs. Smith] was told, I am sure by some Members on her
side, we can pass this gift ban in the next hour and a half simply by
voting down the previous question. That is all we are asking that this
House do.
This is about the third time we have asked that this be done this
year. We did it last year. We are simply asking that we go ahead and
make the same rules that apply to the Senate as of 5 weeks ago also
apply to the House. It is not complicated. It is a simple question of
whether or not you want to do it. It is just that simple.
Does it make sense, particularly in light of all of the legislatures
around the country who have already applied these kind of rules or more
strict rules to themselves, does it make any sense that the House of
Representatives would be the last bastion of free golf and free tennis
and free ski trips for legislators? I think it does not make any sense.
We have moved into a new era. Nobody is perfect.
We began this process, by the way, in a very bipartisan fashion 2\1/
2\ years ago. We actually got it out of the subcommittee which I was
the chairman of at the time with a unanimous vote of both parties. But
at some point along the way, one side of the House decided it was not
in their interest to see it passed and it was filibustered to death in
the Senate.
Look, let us just take it up and pass it today and not hear of it any
more. If you want to go further than the Senate has gone, and I would
sure like to because I do not think they went far enough, but if you
want to go further than the Senate has gone, you can do so. This does
not raise any obstacles to that. Certainly you can do so. But today let
us pass the Senate rule that says Members of the Senate cannot get free
gifts from lobbyists, and make it apply to the House of
Representatives, and be done with this issue and do the American people
a favor.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to
that distinguished member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier].
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 3 minutes.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Miami, the
vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the
House, for yielding me this time.
I would like to bring us back to the issue that we are debating here.
It happens to be the legislative branch appropriations bill.
If we are going to simply comply with the standing rules of the House
which is what we try desperately to do on a regular basis, we will not
waive germaneness. With the exception of the conference report itself,
there are not waivers on this bill, and so it seems to me that the
responsible thing for us to do is to recognize that a measure which is
going to cut $205 million, a real cut of $205 million, should have the
chance to be voted on here on the House floor.
We have been debating during this legislative branch appropriations
debate the issue of lobbying reform. The fact of the matter is that is
going to come up. As my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut, has
pointed out, an opportunity has existed for four long, uninterrupted
decades on the other side of the aisle to deal with this issue. The
104th Congress has met for 8 months. We have had 8 months to deal with
a wide range of things.
I would hasten to say to my friends from Texas, Mr. Doggett
especially whom I asked to yield earlier, when he said that we have not
brought about reforms, I have to take that as a personal insult,
because on January 4, we passed the largest, most sweeping reforms that
the U.S. Congress has seen in over half a century. Not since the 1946
Legislative Reorganization Act have we done very important things that
gained bipartisan support, like eliminating proxy voting; dramatically
reducing the number of committees and subcommittees, by 25 percent;
reducing by
[[Page H 8571]]
a third committee staff; and something that my friend from Connecticut
also worked long and hard on, having Congress comply with the laws
imposed on other Americans.
The fact of the matter is we brought about major sweeping reforms and
it has not come to an end. But this bill is not where we should be
debating this. We are simply trying to cut the level of appropriations
for this institution, and I hope very much that we will be able to pass
the previous question, and pass this rule.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to defeat
the previous question in order to add the gift and lobbying reform
provisions passed by the other body to the conference report now before
the House. Unless we act now, the House will have no opportunity this
year to vote on lobbying and gift reform.
Throughout the 104th Congress, the House Republican leadership has
refused to schedule consideration of lobbying and gift reform
legislation. In fact, they have made it clear that such measures will
not be considered by the House this year. From the first day of the
104th Congress, the Republican leadership has allowed corporate
lobbyists unprecedented access to the legislative drafting process.
This access has resulted in weakened environmental and health
protections, crippled worker safety standards, and special tax benefits
for the wealthiest Americans. Nowhere in the much-heralded Contract
With America did the Republican leadership address gift and lobbying
reform. Nowhere in the Rules of the House reform package did these
provisions appear. My colleagues, the silence of the House Republican
leadership on this issue has been deafening.
Mr. Speaker, twice during the 103d Congress, the House approved
similar lobbying reform and gift legislation by solid bipartisan
majorities only to see these measures stalled by filibusters in the
other body. Now that they have finally passed these reforms, we in the
House must also act.
The lobbying reform provisions would correct the enormous loopholes
in current law that allow more than 70 percent of Washington's
lobbyists to lobby congressional offices without registering. Under
these provisions, unpaid grass-roots lobbying activities would be
completely exempt from the new requirements, as would advocacy by
churches and religious groups.
My colleagues, the issue of lobbying and gift reform has been
thoroughly debated by Congress. The time to act is now. I urge defeat
of the previous question so that we may add these important provisions
to H.R. 1854, the conference report on legislative branch
appropriations for fiscal year 1996.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous
question on the rule for the legislative branch appropriations
conference report.
First, let me commend my colleagues, Vic Fazio, Marty Meehan, and
John Bryant for bringing this important issue to the floor.
My friends, let's not pass the bill which funds our daily business
until we reform the political business-as-usual in this city.
It has been 87 days since our Speaker shoot hands with the President
in New Hampshire, pledging to act on campaign finance and political
reform.
I praised the Speaker for that handshake.
In fact, I asked the Speaker to consider a bill I introduced with
Marty Meehan, Tim Johnson and others that would establish the kind of
independent commission that the Speaker shook hands on.
But since then, the Speaker argued against a rush to judgment.
Eighty-seven days later, it's safe to say the Republican leadership
of the House is in no rush to clean up our political system.
And that's a shame.
We're the only House in this city that is dragging its feet on
reform.
At the White House, the President has twice laid out his detailed
plan to the Speaker. He's even named possible commissioners.
The other body--not known for its zest for reform--held 2 days of
debate and passed solid lobbying and gift ban reform bills.
During the first 100 days of this Congress, we passed numerous items
of the Contract With America which will do great harm to our cities,
our families, and our environment.
During the second 100 days, we passed appropriations bills that slash
so many of the programs which benefit ordinary Americans, while at the
same time leaving policies that help rich and powerful corporations
untouched.
So before another 100 days go by since the historic handshake in New
Hampshire, let's at least take one small step to try to convince the
American people that this institutions is not for sale to the highest
bidder.
Defeat the previous question. Adopt these critical gift and lobbying
reforms.
Don't wait another day.
Pass reform now.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. 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.
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be
taken on the question of agreeing to the resolution.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 179, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 636]
YEAS--228
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--179
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chabot
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
LaFalce
[[Page H 8572]]
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Montgomery
Moran
Nadler
Neal
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--27
Bishop
Brown (FL)
Deal
Fattah
Foley
Geren
Green
Harman
Lincoln
Maloney
McDade
McKinney
Mfume
Moakley
Mollohan
Morella
Oberstar
Ortiz
Reynolds
Riggs
Sanford
Serrano
Sisisky
Smith (NJ)
Tucker
Waldholtz
Wilson
{time} 1731
Ms. SLAUGHTER and Mr. MANTON changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I, reluctantly voted for the previous
question in spite of my desire to support the Senate gift ban. I
personally have implemented the Senate gift ban in my office. While the
golf and tennis trips worth thousands of dollars to Members usually
benefit charity as well as the Members, there is no question in my mind
that these primarily recreational trips should be eliminated as a
Member's perk. The American people are demanding that we reform this
system of expensive dinners, gifts, and trips. The question is not
whether or not people believe the other party. They don't trust them
either. Citizens are fed up with both parties because they believe we
work too closely with those who give us financial benefits--personal
and political. Our large freshman Republican class was elected largely
on Government reform. We are not likely to remain if we don't progress
on real reform--of Congress itself, or PACS, of gifts, of term limits.
I will continue to sponsor legislation on these issues, as well as
voluntarily implement them in my office. While ultimately this is a
question of integrity and character, I sincerely hope that our
leadership will begin voting on these issues soon because previous
Congresses have spent the public's full measure of trust.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question
is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
____________________