[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 182 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13095-H13098]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2564, LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT 
                                OF 1995

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 269 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 269

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2564) to provide for the disclosure of 
     lobbying activities to influence the Federal Government, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the 
     bill of failure to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI are 
     waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed two hours equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five minute rule. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against any 
     amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except on motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. If H.R. 2564 is passed by the House in a form that 
     is identical to S. 1060, as passed by the Senate, then at any 
     time thereafter it shall be in order without intervention of 
     any point of order to consider the Senate bill in the House. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     Senate bill to final passage without intervening motion 
     except one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.


                             general leave

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the resolution (H. Res. 269) providing for the consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2564) to provide for the disclosure of lobbying activities 
to influence the Federal Government, and for other purposes, and that I 
may include extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, with this rule, the House begins important 
discussions of reform that will, I hope, assist in restoring the public 
confidence in this institution and its practices. With this rule we 
embark on the first of the triumvirate of issues that concern Americans 
most about the mechanics of how this democracy functions: Lobby reform, 
gift reform and campaign finance reform. Beginning now with lobby 
reform, we will work to rewrite an outdated, inadequate and exceedingly 
vague series of rules pertaining to registered lobbyists and, 
specifically, public disclosure of their activities.
  I am generally an ardent supporter of open rules, and today I bring 
to the House an open rule for consideration of this lobby reform bill--
a rule that should have the support of all members. I should note, 
however, that in this special case, I have some reservations about what 
will happen if amendments are adopted to this bill. The reason for my 
concern is that this issue--lobby reform--has been bottled up in the 
Congress for years. This year, we have a real chance to break the 
logjam and send a good bill to the President for signature. The other 
body has already passed the identical measure we begin with today--and 
if the House passes the same bill without amendment, the measure could 
head straight to the White House without further delay. In my view, 
that would be the optimal result. Although I believe very strongly in 
the merit of several of the amendments members will hear today--most 
notably a proposal to restrict lobbying with taxpayer funds by 
executive branch officials and a proposal to restrict lobbying by 
organizations that are taxpayer-funded through grants--I intend to vote 
against all amendments to this bill because of my overriding belief 
that we've got to get the essence of lobby reform passed and signed 
into law now. I have learned from past efforts on this and other 
difficult subjects that, if you load up these bills with new ideas, 
late in the process, you become spoilers of the good in pursuit of the 
perfect. I hope my colleagues will consider that as they cast their 
votes today.

  Mr. Speaker, that being said, Members should know that this is a wide 
open rule, providing that any Member may offer an amendment to H.R. 
2564 if that amendment conforms to the standing rules of the House. The 
rule provides two hours of general debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary 
Committee. The rule waives clause 2(1)(6) of rule XI--the 3-day layover 
rule--against consideration of the bill and it waives all points of 
order 

[[Page H 13096]]
against two amendments printed in the Rules Committee report.
  Mr. Speaker, those amendments-- one offered by Mr. McIntosh and the 
other offered by Mr. Istook--pertain to disclosure by non-profit 
organizations that lobby and restrictions on the lobbying activities of 
federal grantees. It is my understanding that the sponsors of these 
amendments have received some conflicting advice from the 
Parliamentarian as to whether or not waivers are actually necessary. 
However, given the great interest among members in these issues, the 
majority on the rules committee felt that we should provide these 
waivers just to be sure. The rule further provides one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions and a procedure to allow for a 
hook-up with the bill from the other body, should the house pass H.R. 
2564 without amendment. Finally, if that hook-up happens, the rule 
provides one motion to recommit for the bill from the other body.

  Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me commend my colleague from Florida, 
Mr. Canady, for his hard work on this subject--and for his efforts to 
reach across party lines and make this a truly bi-partisan effort. I 
think most members are agreed that lobby reform is not--and should not 
be--a partisan issue, and it is my hope that we will act with dispatch 
today to get this matter onto the President's desk. Support this rule 
and the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague 
from Florida, Mr. Goss, as well as my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle for bringing this resolution to the floor.
  House Resolution 269 is an open rule which will allow full and fair 
debate on H.R. 2564, a bill which strengthens reporting requirements 
for lobbyists who contact executive and legislative branch officials 
and their staff.
  As my colleague from Florida has described, this rule provides 2 
hours of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Under this rule, amendments will be allowed under the 5-minute rule, 
the normal amending process in the House. All Members, on both sides of 
the aisle, will have the opportunity to offer amendments.
  The rule waives all points of order against two amendments. One, by 
Mr. Istook, would restrict lobbying activities of organizations that 
receive Federal grants. This amendment is similar to other recent 
Istook amendments that have been attached to appropriations bills.
  The second amendment which receives a waiver is by Mr. McIntosh. This 
amendment establishes new and detailed reporting requirements for 
nonprofit organizations that lobby Federal, State, or local 
governments.
  The bill is a fair proposal that will give the American people more 
information about the influences of the legislative process.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect rule. I am disappointed that Rules 
Committee waived points of order against the two amendments. I believe 
that these two amendments should be subject to the same requirement for 
germaneness that all other amendments must meet.
  During committee, Mr. Moakley made a motion to strike the waiver for 
these two floor amendments. Mr. Moakley's motion was defeated along 
nearly a straight party line vote.
  However, it is better to be inclusive than too restrictive. 
Therefore, I urge adoption of this open rule which will permit full 
debate on this bill and allow Members an opportunity to offer 
amendments.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], an extremely valued 
member of the Committee on Rules.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague from 
Sanibel, Florida, Mr. Goss, in supporting this wide-open rule providing 
for the consideration of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. Requiring 
greater disclosure of lobbying activities in Congress on the executive 
branch is one of the most important elements of our bipartisan reform 
agenda, and I congratulate my chairman and colleagues on the Committee 
on Rules for bringing this bill to the floor under an open amendment 
process.
  I also want to congratulate our leadership for allowing the House to 
consider lobby reform legislation while we are working very hard to 
resolve differences over the budget and annual appropriations process. 
It should be very clear to the American people and to the guardians of 
the status quo that this Congress is firmly committed to changing the 
institution.
  Under the terms of this fair resolution, any Member can be heard on 
any germane amendment to the bill at the appropriate time. Almost all 
of the amendments we discussed in the Committee on Rules yesterday 
appeared to be germane to this debate and can be offered while the bill 
is open to amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  Mr. Speaker, for nearly 40 years of being in the minority and having 
very little control over the agenda, Republicans in the House are 
understandably anxious to press ahead with our agenda. Last year the 
Republican freshman class put together a bold comprehensive list of 
congressional reforms, and, despite being in the minority at that time, 
we were successful in many of our commonsense proposals. This year 
sophomore Members, as we are, together with the very active reform 
minded freshman class and with the help of many of our Democratic 
colleagues we have continued to fight for real change and reform.
  As our colleagues will recall, in the first day of the new Congress 
the House passed a sweeping set of reforms that included everything 
from banning proxy voting, cutting committee staffs and overhauling the 
committee system. Following that, we had the first-ever vote on 
congressional term limits. We passed two very important budget process 
reform items, a balanced budget constitutional amendment and a workable 
line-item veto proposal. Today we are about to add to our list of 
promises kept by passing legislation which requires the full disclosure 
of efforts by paid lobbyists to influence the decisionmaking process of 
both executive and legislative branches of government.

  Disclosing the activities of those who want to influence the Federal 
Government is simply a public right-to-know issue. Our constituents 
want nothing more than to know who is getting paid to lobby their 
elected Members, how much they are receiving in compensation and who 
the clients are.
  Mr. Speaker, a lot of bipartisan work has gone into crafting this 
bill. The fact that the Committee on the Judiciary reported it by an 
overwhelming vote of 30 to zero reflects strong support on both sides 
of the aisle for enacting meaningful lobby reform this year.
  We should not miss the opportunity to give the American people what 
they want, what they deserve and what they are entitled to. That is 
more openness and accountability in government. Together with the new 
gift restrictions that the House overwhelmingly adopted bipartisanly 
today, this legislation will help reassure the American people that 
their leaders in Congress are getting the job done without undue 
influence from special interests.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that all of us here would like to 
improve public confidence in government and their elected officials and 
representatives. The bill soon to come before us will give us the 
opportunity to do just that by increasing Congress's accountability to 
the people that we serve. I urge my colleagues to adopt this fair and 
open rule and pass this legislation.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the majority party for 
bringing the issue. I also want to say that, when we are talking about 
lobbying, the issue that I would like to 

[[Page H 13097]]
address are the foreign lobbyists that lobby our Government on behalf 
of foreign interests. This issue has been covered under the Foreign 
Agents Registration Act of 1938 which was promulgated initially to deal 
with undercover spy operations of Nazi propaganda. Since then, this has 
changed, folks. Now we have very slick operators who represent trade, 
industrial and competitive issues. They have been able to avoid the 
registration, and the law is so archaic, it will not bring it around.
  This bill, and I want to give credit to the chairman, does address 
some of those issues. But it does not go far enough. I give a lot of 
credit to it, but I am hearing, we are for this, Jim, we are for it for 
4 years but not now.
  Let me say this. Right now the penalties are so great under this 
provision, it is like taking a bazooka to kill a gnat, a flee. As a 
result, the Department of Justice is not pursuing cases where people, 
literally, do not register. We have had GAO report after GAO report 
saying that we are just not getting individuals to file and identify 
themselves. The Traficant bill in essence takes the Foreign Agents 
Registration Act and technically changes it to the Foreign Interest 
Registration Act. There are no exemptions. If you represent the 
interests of a trade issue, you represent a commercial issue, you must 
register.
  The GAO said out of 3,000 possible who should register in their last 
report, only 775 did register. The Traficant amendment brings about 
common sense civil penalties for minor infractions. the penalty could 
be as low as $2,000 for failure to in fact register. But for serious 
violations and other complications, the Department of Justice can throw 
the book at them.
  We have been offering these exemptions. Let me say this to the 
majority party. You want to do something about lobbying, Democrats have 
supported you, but let me tell you what you are doing. If you do not 
come down tough on those high-powered people that lobby our Government 
on behalf of foreign governments, we will have failed with the 
integrity of this particular legislative initiative.
  I am asking that my colleagues review my amendment. The leaders are 
saying, we do not want to complicate this, and the other body, we do 
not want to get it beat. We like your stuff. If other amendments pass 
to this bill, this bill is going to carry some different changes. The 
Traficant amendment should be incorporated without a fight because, my 
colleagues, we have allowed some powerful lobbyists to influence 
legislative and government decisions, and they do not even, have not 
even been registering under our law.
  So with that, I would appreciate that any Member who wants 
information on this to contact my office.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the gentleman from Ohio 
needed a waiver or not. I think in an open rule he would be able to 
proceed.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to first thank the majority 
leader for scheduling a vote on this very important bill of lobby 
disclosure and to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] and the other members of the 
Committee on Rules for having an open vote.
  I am hoping at the end that this bill will remain as it is, unamended 
and sent directly to the President instead of sent to the Senate where 
it could likely die. I particularly want to thank the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Canady] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] 
for keeping this bill clean in subcommittee and in the full committee.
  I just want to weigh in as strongly as I can that lobby disclosure 
has basically not changed since the late 1940s. In 1946 we passed a 
lobby disclosure bill. The courts basically gutted that law in the 
early 1950s. We have, it is estimated, 40- to 60,000 lobbyists in 
Washington. Only about 4,000 or so are registered. This bill is 
necessary. The President supports it. The President deserves for us to 
send it to him rather than back to the Senate. I am hopeful that the 
chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member, if there are 
logical amendments to this bill, are able to hold hearings on those 
amendments but not incorporate them in this bill.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  As we did in the last Congress, he and I worked together, and we have 
achieved some reform, and I believe we will go to achieve it now. I 
have spoken to the chairman of the subcommittee. I wish things were 
different and that we had more confidence that, if we sent something 
back to the other body, it would not just sink into the La Brea tar 
pits. But given the experience, I am committed and I know more 
importantly the people, the chairman of subcommittee is committed. 
There will be a number of amendments offered that many of us will think 
well of, and it will be our intention I hope to bring out a second 
bill. But we would like to keep this one free of amendment because that 
is the difference between simply sending it back to the Senate and 
having no hope of sending it for signature.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman from 
Connecticut is saying, I think we have agreement, those of us who have 
worked on this, we, many of us plan to vote against all amendments, 
even some that in other contexts we would favor because we want to get 
a bill to the President. That will then leave us, I think, with the job 
of having another round of hearings and markup and send a second bill 
over there.
  We do not want to jeopardize this bill. That is why many of us who 
have been working on this with all of the Perils of Pauline we have 
been through, we have a chance now to send the lobbying bill to become 
law before the end of year, and then we will start on the second round.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for the 
incredible work he did on congressional accountability when he was in 
the majority and also when he was in the minority. We can work on a 
bipartisan basis, I think, to pass this bill unamended and then to work 
for logical reform.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the 
gentleman, I agree with him; we can work on a bipartisan basis. It is 
just not as much fun.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale].
  Mr. McHALE. Mr. Speaker, it may not be as much fun, but it certainly 
is more productive. I for one welcome the bipartisan spirit that I am 
confident will surround this debate.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 2564, the Lobbying Disclosure Act. 
My words in many ways will echo the bipartisan comments previously made 
by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Hall], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and the gentlewoman 
from Ohio [Ms. Pryce].
  Last January I stood at this very microphone and fought with my 
colleague on behalf of the Congressional Accountability Act when the 
gentleman from Connecticut, [Mr. Shays] and I and others said that it 
was time that Members of Congress should be covered by the same laws 
that govern all other American citizens. Today's effort on behalf of 
2564 is very much in that tradition.
  Let me first of all indicate, Mr. Speaker, the quality of the current 
law. The current lobbying disclosure legislation originally passed in 
1946 as noted by my friend, Mr. Shays, is in my view totally 
inadequate. The current law is a piece of legislative Swiss cheese with 
more holes than substance. Again it has been noted briefly a couple of 
moments ago out of some 14,000 Washington lobbyists, only 4,000 have 
been required to register under the provisions of existing law, law 
that is woefully inadequate to the task at hand. Some 50 years after 
its enactment, we can do better.
  The legislative history of H.R. 2564 is straightforward. The language 
we are 

[[Page H 13098]]
considering today, if we are wise enough not to amend it, is identical 
to language that passed in the Senate on July 25 in an overwhelming 
unanimous bipartisan vote, 98 to 0. If we pass language today without 
amendment, the bill will go straight to the President's desk, and after 
50 years of inadequacy on the subject of lobbying disclosure, we will 
finally have a law that measures up to the task.
  The bill covers paid professional lobbyists, those who spend 20 
percent or more of their time lobbying and are paid more than $5,000 
during a 6-month period. It requires the semiannual report. Documents 
are to be filed with the Clerk of House and the Secretary of the Senate 
and shall be available for full public inspection. Grassroots lobbying 
activities are protected as they are under the Constitution, and we do 
not infringe upon those activities in any way.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me once again emphasize, this is the type 
of bipartisan action the American people have requested. Today's 
legislation reflects great credit on the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Canady], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], and the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  I urge an affirmative vote on the rule and the defeat of all 
amendments.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McHALE. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman. He introduced this bill identical 
to what the Senate did and then incorporated his bill and the committee 
bill. I just want to thank the gentleman for his leadership on this 
issue and to say that it has been a pleasure to work with him as well. 
I am sorry I left him out of my salutes because he deserves to be on 
the very top.
  Mr. McHALE. Mr. Speaker, I would note that the quality of the bill 
was much improved when the name of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Canady] was moved to the front.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the American people are sick and tired of 
wealthy special interests peddling influence through the halls of 
Congress. We need to change the way Washington works, and we need to do 
it now.

                              {time}  1945

  For too long, Congress has been held hostage by lobbyists trying to 
force their special interest agendas on the American public. And too 
often, they are successful.
  H.R. 2564 is the first truly comprehensive lobbying reform bill in 
almost 50 years. This bill will let the American people know who the 
lobbyists are and how much they are spending to influence Members of 
Congress.
  The Senate passed this important bill unanimously. We don't need to 
change it. We need to pass it and send it to the President right away. 
Let us not delay this much needed reform any longer.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to restore faith in American Government. Vote 
for honest government. Vote for this bill and vote for it without 
amendment.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I, contrary to published reports in the local newspaper 
this morning, will support this rule. I would add parenthetically that 
I have received an apology from the newspaper for making a mistake, and 
that started my day in a very pleasant way, but people have been asking 
me why I would not support this rule. I am supporting this rule. I urge 
others to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________