[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 182 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13099-H13123]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 269 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2564.

                              {time}  1951


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union 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, with Mr. Kolbe in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] will be 
recognized for 1 hour, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] 
will be recognized for 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today this House is presented with an historic 
opportunity to end 40 years of inaction on the issue of lobbying 
disclosure reform. H.R. 2564, the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, 
provides for the effective disclosure of those who lobby the executive 
and legislative branches of Government, what legislation they are 
attempting to influence, and how much they are being compensated to do 
so.
  An identical measure passed the Senate on July 25 by a vote of 98 to 
zero. However, the Senate vote should not be taken as a sign that 
lobbying disclosure reform legislation is a sure bet for even the 104th 
Congress, which has been far more reform-minded than those which came 
before. Indeed, for more than 40 years, there is only one word to 
describe the attempts at meaningful reform of the laws governing 
disclosure of lobbying activities--that word is ``gridlock.'' Over the 
years, Congress has tried again and again, but failed again and again, 
to pass meaningful lobbying disclosure legislation.
  The Supreme Court's narrow construction of the 1946 Regulation of 
Lobbying Act in U.S. versus Harriss unquestionably made the legislation 
virtually meaningless. But the Court in that same opinion also 
demonstrated that it was sympathetic to the need for lobbying 
disclosure. In fact, the Court made it plain that Congress needed to be 
aware of the activities of interest and pressure groups.
  As Chief Justice Earl Warren stated, ``The full realization of the 
American ideal of government by elected representatives depends to no 
small extent on their ability to properly evaluate * * *'' lobbying 
activities. ``Otherwise the voice of the people may all too easily be 
drowned out by the voice of special interest groups seeking favored 
treatment while masquerading as proponents of the public weal.''
  Ironically, in 1950 the staff director of the Joint Committee on the 
Organization of Congress, George Galloway, said in reference to the 
1946 act that ``after the lobbying law had been in operation for a few 
years, experience would reveal any defects in it which could be 
corrected by amending and strengthening the Act.'' Unfortunately, Mr. 
Galloway could not have been more wrong. Yes, the act has revealed its 
extensive defects. However, every attempt to strengthen the act has 
turned into an exercise in futility.
  The history of lobbying disclosure reform is a history of inaction 
and stalemate. From 1956 to 1959, major revisions to the Lobbying Act 
were proposed. No action was taken on those proposals.
  In 1965, the Senate's Committee on Rules and Administration issued a 
report recommending that administration of the Lobbying Act be assigned 
to the Comptroller General. No action was taken on this recommendation.
  In 1967, measures strengthening the Lobbying Act passed the Senate. 
President Johnson urged the House to take similar action, but the House 
failed to do so.
  In 1970, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, newly 
established in the wake of the Bobby Baker investigations, reported a 
complex lobbying disclosure bill titled the Legislative Activities 
Disclosure Act. This major effort at lobbying reform ultimately came to 
naught.
  In 1976, a bill was approved in the Senate, but the House did not act 
until the final day of the 94th Congress. There was no time to 
reconcile the different bills passed by each chamber of Congress. Once 
again nothing was accomplished.
  In 1977, the House Judiciary Committee and the full House passed 
lobbying disclosure legislation, but the Senate bill was held up in 
committee.
  In 1979, the House Judiciary Committee once again reported a measure, 
but the House leadership held up floor consideration until the Senate 
showed it could get a bill through committee. The bill never made it 
through the Senate Committee.
  In 1992, after years of study by the Senate Committee on Governmental 
Affairs, the first version of the Lobbying Disclosure Act was 
introduced. However, the Senate did not consider the bill in the 102d 
Congress.
  Just last year in the 103d Congress, this House passed a lobbying 
disclosure reform bill by an overwhelming majority. The Senate passed 
an identical bill last year, but cloture could not be obtained on the 
Conference Committee report in the Senate. Thus the effort failed.
  In some years as this history shows, one chamber passed lobbying 
reform and the other chamber then failed to act. In other years, the 
legislation died in conference between the House and the Senate. At 
other times, there was simply no movement forward.
  The bottom line was always the same: Gridlock. But today this House 
can end the gridlock. Today this House can pass the Lobbying Disclosure 
Act without amendment. Today this House can send the Senate-passed bill 
directly to the President's desk for his signature. This is an historic 
opportunity we cannot let slip away from us.
  The Committee on the Judiciary reported this legislation last week 
with no amendments and no dissenting votes. Today this House will 
consider a number of amendments to this bill. Some of the amendments 
have considerable merit; others have less merit; and a few are quite 
simply bad ideas.
  But all of the amendments have one thing in common: they threaten to 
derail this important reform bill. If this issue goes back to the 
Senate, and if history is any guide, we may very well hear nothing more 
about lobbying reform during this Congress. We should not forsake the 
good in order to achieve the ``perfect'' lobbying disclosure reform 
bill. The risk of derailing this bill is simply too great.
  Mr. Chairman, let me briefly describe what this bill does. H.R. 2564 
is designed to strengthen public confidence in Government by replacing 
the existing patchwork of lobbying disclosure laws with a single, 
uniform statute which covers the activities of paid, professional 
lobbyists. The Act streamlines disclosure requirements to ensure that 
meaningful information is provided and requires all paid, professional 
lobbyists to register and file regular, semiannual reports identifying 

[[Page H 13100]]
their clients, the issues on which they lobby, and the amount of their 
compensation.

                              {time}  2000

  It also creates a more effective and equitable system for 
administering and enforcing the disclosure requirements.
  Under the bill, a lobbyist is defined as any individual who is 
employed or retained for 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 6-month 
period.
  Lobbyists for hire are exempted from these disclosure requirements if 
their total income from a particular client does not exceed $5,000 in a 
semiannual period. ``In-house'' lobbyists are also exempted from 
registration if their total lobbying expenses do not exceed $20,000 in 
a semiannual period.
  If we are to succeed today, and as the House continues with 
consideration of this bill later this week, I urge my colleagues to 
defeat any and all amendments to this bill so we may send it directly 
to the President for his signature. If we amend this bill, I fear that 
history may repeat itself, and this Congress will become just another 
chapter in the 40-year history of failure to enact meaningful lobbying 
disclosure reform. Today we have a golden opportunity to move forward 
to end 40 years of gridlock on this issue. I urge all of my colleagues 
to support H.R. 2564 without amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would conclude by thanking a number of Members who 
have played a critical role in moving this legislation forward. First, 
I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], who 
is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the 
Committee on the Judiciary. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank] has played a key role in moving this legislation through the 
Committee on the Judiciary and bringing it to the floor today. I want 
to express my gratitude to him for his diligent efforts on behalf of 
this important legislation.
  I also want to thank my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary, 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant]. The gentleman from Texas has 
worked hard on this legislation for quite a while. In the last Congress 
he played the key role in moving the legislation forward. Ultimately, 
that effort failed, but the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] has made 
an invaluable contribution to this whole subject. I want to acknowledge 
him.
  Further, I should thank my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Shays]. Mr. Shays has been diligent in pursuing this issue of 
lobbying disclosure reform as he has pursued the issue of gift reform, 
and I am grateful to him for his assistance.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale] for 
his leadership on this issue, as the House has moved forward with the 
consideration of it.
  Mr. Chairman, this is truly a bipartisan issue. There is strong 
support for this effort on both the Democratic side of the House and 
the Republican side of the House. This is not an issue that should be 
viewed in a partisan way at all. This is an issue about making 
information available to the American people, so the American people 
can know what is going on in the corridors of power here in Washington. 
For too long, lobbying activities have not been disclosed. For too 
long, there have been questions about the propriety of certain 
activities. I believe that the best disinfectant is sunlight, and this 
sort of disclosure law will help eliminate many of the concerns that 
have been previously expressed.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the continued debate on this issue. I 
believe that this House will rise to the occasion and break the 40 
years of gridlock and give the American people the sort of disclosure 
that they deserve on this important issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the generous words of my colleague, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady]. The subcommittee on which we 
jointly serve, under his chairmanship, played a very important role in 
this. There was some resistance to that role when the bill that we are 
in effect dealing with now, the House version of a Senate bill, when 
the Senate bill came over it was held at the desk. The Speaker, for 
reasons that were never made explicit, did not want to refer it to us.
  I think it is fair to say that there have been people in this House 
who were not eager to see this bill become law, but their resistance 
was overcome by the persistence of a number of Members, and I think it 
is interesting that the reluctance never quite came out in public. The 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] is right when he said that sunlight 
can be the best disinfectant.
  It was, in fact, important in bringing this bill forward because 
there were people who wished it would go away, but it did not go away. 
They were not prepared to confront it.
  Legislation very similar to this passed the House in the previous 
Congress. I think the record that the former Speaker, Tom Foley, 
compiled in a number of areas has been insufficiently appreciated, 
particularly in the reform area. Under his Speakership the House did do 
a version of the Congressional Compliance Act, very close to what is 
now the law. The House did pass this bill. The two pieces of 
legislation, some other reforms, campaign finance reform, all ran into 
problems in the Senate. The procedures of the Senate are part of the 
problem. The Senate has very different rules than the House, and the 
filibuster and other rules interfered.
  That is why I join the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], the 
chairman of the subcommittee, as well as the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, the gentleman from Connecticut, the bipartisan group that 
has been actively advocating this, and my friend, the gentleman from 
Texas. All of us, Democratic and Republican, who have been advocates of 
this lobbying reform either through our committee position or through 
sponsorship of the bill, or both, believe that it is very important 
that Members join us in voting against amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the chairman of 
the Committee on Rules, to the chairman of the full Committee on the 
Judiciary, and the subcommittee, because they did the honorable thing. 
It is an open rule. I suppose it is unusual for supporters of a bill to 
come to the floor and say, ``One, we are glad to have an open rule; 
two, we hope none of the amendments are adopted.'' But I think that is 
a position which shows respect for democratic procedures and some 
confidence in the House.

  We do believe that the adoption of amendments, no matter how 
meritorious, bring this bill back into the kind of perilous back and 
forth that they have had before. We want to explain to people, people 
have said, ``You are being too cautious. After all, it passed 
overwhelmingly.''
  As the gentleman from Florida pointed out in his history, this 
legislation has the history of receiving more verbal support and less 
actual support than almost anything. Everybody is for this, but it 
still dies. Everybody is for it, but something happens to it, so the 
fact that it was not a close vote in the Senate does not mean that if 
we amend it and send it back, it will come merrily whispering back 
here.
  This is legislation that a lot of people do not like. If we give them 
opportunities to trip it up it will be tripped up. We now stand closer 
to changing the lobbying law in a direction that will improve it than 
in anybody's memory, because we now have a bill out of the Senate and 
it is here, and we have the power to send it to the President of the 
United States for his signature.
  Any amendment here, no matter how meritorious, will put this bill 
back into the Senate and cause the kind of problems that have happened 
before, because, as I said, it is a bill that has a lot of people 
laying in ambush for it. So what I want to repeat is what the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Canady] I know agrees with: We do not believe this is 
the end to lobbying legislation; indeed, we believe it is the 
beginning. We could actually pass a bill that makes reforms. We, I 
think, agree, and others agree with us, not that we have identical 
views, but we agree that further reform is necessary.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to a two-step process. We will send this 
bill 

[[Page H 13101]]
to the President and he will sign it, and it will become law. We will 
show people we can do something. Then we will deal with some of the 
other very worthwhile amendments that people have had.
  Finally, I just want to say that among those who should be given some 
credit is the chairman of our Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from 
California, [Mr. Fazio] who through his role on the Legislative 
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations pushed hard for this, 
and it took a lot of people to get it here. It is clearly an 
improvement.

  We should note that, to my knowledge, every organization in the 
private sector, in the volunteer sector that monitors lobbying from the 
standpoint of wanting to reform procedures agrees that we should pass 
this bill. There are people from a range of organizations who came to 
us and said, ``Yes, it could be improved. This could be made better, 
but do not do that now, please, because we think it is best to send 
this bill to the President.''
  So we can tell Members that there is an overwhelming consensus from 
the advocates of this bill in the House, from those of us on the 
committee, from the advocates in the voluntary community, from the 
people who felt we need reform. They overwhelmingly believe that a 
commitment to true reform is best demonstrated by passing this bill as 
is, and then, under the leadership of the gentleman from Florida, 
fairly soon after, starting the process of hearing and markups. We may 
well have a second bill. However, if we do not get this one forward, I 
think we risk being added to the list of glorious failures in the 
effort to reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Delaware, [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take anything close to 5 minutes, 
with the hour of the night and the work we have been doing. I would 
just like to second everything we have heard already in the rules 
discussion, what the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has said, 
what the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] has said, particularly in 
the area of not amending this legislation. I do not care how 
meritorious an amendment could be, it could be fatal to the passage of 
a very important step in progressing with true lobbying reform.
  We have already heard the history here of 50 years of different 
Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle finding a whole variety 
of reasons why they are not able to support the basic elements of 
lobbying reform, disclosure, the things we needed to do in order to 
make sure that we are dealing with the problem that is perceived, and I 
think to some degree is a reality, of dealing with lobbyists in the 
United States of America and in the Congress of the United States of 
America. I would hope we would all follow that.
  I believe this bill before us today meets the basic purpose of 
lobbying disclosure, which is quite simple: Require people who are paid 
to lobby Congress to disclose who is paying them, how much they are 
being paid, and what they are paid to lobby about. It is not much more 
complicated than that. I congratulate the Senate and the sponsor here 
for capturing the essence of this.
  The bill takes care of this by carefully defining who is a lobbyist 
and which lobbyist must register; again, something which is, in my 
view, very imprecise today and ill-defined in the laws of the United 
States of America. Of course, it makes it very difficult to follow 
exactly who are the lobbyists, what is the problem, and what should we 
be doing about it.
  I congratulate all of those who have put it together. The bottom line 
is that the House of Representatives must pass lobbying reform 
legislation this year that ultimately can be signed into law, and there 
is no reason for a delay. Through the process tonight and the votes 
that may be taken on other days as we deal with this particular piece 
of legislation, we must resist it.
  This is a good bill. I am proud to be a cosponsor of it. I encourage 
all of us to follow it very carefully, to understand what is in it, and 
as we did with the gift ban reform today, which I think turned out in a 
way that only a few could dream about before, we can pass this, too, 
and we will have taken two tremendous strides in making Congress a more 
respected and better-perceived place by the public, as they look at 
what we are doing in our jobs here.

  Mr. Chairman, I wish the sponsor very good luck with all of this as 
we deal with this in the days to come, and urge its passage.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] who has had more to do 
with this bill legislatively, I think, than any Member in the House, 
both in the last session and in this one.
  (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much 
for yielding time to me, and would first like to thank him for his kind 
remarks and his very hard work on this bill. I would very much like to 
thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] for his very kind remarks 
a moment ago.
  It is very interesting tonight, this is the second bill in a row that 
we have taken up in the midst of maybe the most heated, partisan 
standoff in recent history in the Congress, and while it goes on around 
us, we have taken up two bills that were totally bipartisan, and I 
think reflect on the great work this Congress can do when the two sides 
work together well.
  I would like to also say about the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Canady], his deserves great praise this year. Last year when we were 
moving it through in the past majority, though, he was also with us 
from the beginning, even when it was tough, even when at the last it 
took on kind of a partisan tone. I just want to say thank you to him 
for being loyal to the cause no matter what happened, and congratulate 
him for how far he has brought it today.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill has no opponents. Therefore, I am not going 
to talk a long time, but it does have a threat to its success. That is 
those who, no doubt well-meaning individuals, want to offer amendments. 
I suspect that many of them are good amendments, things that I would 
love to vote for, and both the gentleman from Massachusetts and the 
gentleman from Florida would approve as well. But the fact of the 
matter is that the history of this effort has already been given 
tonight by two speakers.
  We have tried over and over and over to pass it. We got it all the 
way through the House to the Senate, to the conference committee, out 
of the conference committee, back to the Senate, and it was 
filibustered to death last year. We have a chance this time, a golden 
opportunity, to actually pass it. If we simply pass it tonight with no 
amendments, it will then go to the President for signature, and we will 
have really achieved something that everybody has been trying to 
achieve for years and years and not been able to do.
  What will we have achieved? We will have passed legislation that 
allows the public to see what is really going on here with regard to 
lobbying the Congress; now, under this bill, the executive branch as 
well.
  The bill closes a raft of loopholes that are in the existing lobbying 
laws which are not really very useful in their current state. It covers 
professional lobbyists, and lawyers cannot get off the hook. They have 
to register just like nonlawyers, and it exempts anybody who spends 
less than 20 percent of their time lobbying, so average people who just 
want to petition their government are not going to be affected by this, 
nor are the representatives of various institutions who need to come 
from time to time. A professional lobbyist would have to register, 
however.
  What it requires is disclosure of who is paying how much to whom to 
lobby which Federal agencies or which Houses of Congress, and on what 
issues. It requires this disclosure in a simplified way, so the public 
can inquire and can find out what is really going on in the legislative 
process.

                              {time}  2015

  I am proud to be associated with the bill. As I said, since it has no 
opponents, I do not think a lot of time should be taken talking about 
it, but I 

[[Page H 13102]]
strongly urge Members who are considering offering amendments, in view 
of the fact this is an open rule, not to do so. Because no matter how 
well meaning they may be, they could be the cause of letting this bill 
be killed. Because if it goes back, has to go to conference committee, 
once again I think we will see it go down the drain.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate my thanks to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Canady] and to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank] and urge Members to vote for the bill against the amendments.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Canady], and I want to associate myself with all the remarks so far.
  Mr. Chairman, on March 3, I introduced a freestanding piece of 
legislation, H.R. 1130, to radically alter how special interests lobby 
the Federal Government. The bill before us now, H.R. 2564, contains a 
vital provision of my legislation. This provision, placed in this bill 
at my behest by Senator Simpson, prohibits tax-exempt lobbying 
organizations, that is 501(c)(4) groups, from receiving Federal funds.
  I just was not able to find room for it on the House floor schedule, 
and the fast train moved by, so Senator Simpson was nice enough to 
accommodate me, and was strongly, if not passionately, for exactly what 
I was trying to accomplish.
  Mr. Chairman, there are over 142,000 of these 501(c)(4) groups, and 
most of them do good work. They are in the sole business, some of them, 
however, of lobbying the Federal Government. That is what they were 
created to do. Collectively, they own over $35 billion in assets. They 
spend nearly $18 billion each year running their organizations, 
pursuing their agendas, and pushing their causes.
  It is all great. Covered by free speech. But certainly one of the 
most egregious examples of a conflict of interest that I think I have 
ever heard of is for political advocacy groups to receive the tax 
dollars of hard working American citizens. Presidents of some of these 
142,000 organizations often reap hundreds of thousands of dollars in 
salaries.
  Just a couple of examples. The President of AARP makes over, way 
over, $300,000 a year. That is two full Congress people and a chief of 
staff, who is rather senior. the five senior executives of the Mutual 
of America Life Insurance Company, and yes, Mr. Chairman, they are a 
tax-exempt lobbying organization, they make a combined, five people, 
$2.7 million. Why do they need the hard-earned money of taxpayers? This 
is an absurdity.
  A political advocacy group can now, under current law, lobby Congress 
to create a new program; and then, once created, apply for and receive 
Federal funds dispensed through that very same program. Then they come 
back to Congress and lobby for continued or increased funding of that 
very same program or a new program.
  Of course, these lobbying groups have not successfully manipulated 
this system by luck. They have argued that no Federal funds they 
receive are used for lobbying, because, of course, that is against the 
law. They will also argue that any money they receive is designated for 
administering of various social programs created by Congress, some 
good, some not so good, some even counterproductive. But they have many 
elderly housing and senior citizen employment jobs, for example, at 
EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency.
  What they and their defenders fail to address, and we have seen this 
happen for decades with the old melted down evil empire, is the 
fungible nature of money. One dollar from someone else's pocket frees 
up one dollar in their own pockets. Imagine the outcry if the Michigan 
militia were to receive Federal dollars from a literacy program to 
teach children how to read. Reasonable minds would understand that such 
funds are wholly fungible; and, notwithstanding the arguably deserving 
nature of the reading program, the militia's political nature should, 
of course, preclude them as a grantee.
  Mr. Chairman, the political nature of tax-exempt lobbying 
organizations is exactly the point that we should address when it comes 
to ultimately deciding who gets Federal funding and who does not.
  Not long ago outrage was expressed when it was discovered that the 
Nation of Islam was receiving taxpayer funding. There is no doubt about 
it, alarm bells would have been ringing, rightly, all over Capitol Hill 
if the bigoted, the disgraceful, racist KKK was a Federal grantee 
providing day care or low-income housing.
  Whether from the far left of the political spectrum, all the way to 
the far right, or every stop in between, this provision should stop 
that. It would cover the National Rifle Association as well as AARP or 
NCSC. It is my firm belief that political advocacy groups should not 
receive one penny of taxpayer funds for any program.
  Mr. Chairman, the Dornan language in H.R. 2564 puts a stop to this 
gross example of everything that is wrong with some of the lobbying on 
this Capitol Hill. I thank the manager of the bill for its inclusion 
and and I thank everybody for working so hard on this.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding time to me.
  I would like to join in piling on as far as the praise that ought to 
be dispensed tonight, not only to floor managers of the bill, the 
gentlemen at the desks, but also my friend, the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Bryant], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale], certainly 
the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], all of whom deserve the 
thanks of the Members for pushing this legislation so vigorously.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma and the gentleman from 
Indiana, however, have given notice that they will try to attach their 
controversial and much traveled Istook-McIntosh amendment to this bill. 
Do my colleagues remember that amendment? It would create a reporting, 
paperwork, litigation and bureaucratic nightmare for businesses, 
charities, civic organizations, churches and other groups.
  My colleagues remember that amendment. It would restrict the ability 
of organizations like the Red Cross and the YMCA to talk to any level 
of government, State, Federal or local, about the pressing problems 
this Nation's communities face every day.
  It would, in the words of George Will, make lawyers happy. It would 
erect a litigation-breeding, regulatory regime of baroque complexity 
regarding political expression, according to noted conservative 
columnist George Will. Or it represents what former Republican 
Congressman and former president of the American Conservative Union, 
Mickey Edwards, calls Big Brother with a vengeance.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues remember that amendment. Well, it is 
back. The only thing new is that the proponents have cut the Istook-
McIntosh amendment into four pieces to be offered as four amendments to 
the lobby reform bill before us. I call this approach the Kentucky 
Fried Chicken method of legislating. You take a whole bill and cut it 
into pieces hoping that this will somehow make it easier to swallow.
  They have pulled their amendment apart hoping it will seem more 
reasonable. Well. Mr. Chairman, parts is parts. Whether it is one 
amendment or four amendments, the Istook-McIntosh proposal is still 
enough to make anyone choke. Or perhaps more accurately, it is enough 
to strangle any charity in red tape.
  The first of the amendments, the Istook offering, would set limits 
for businesses or other organizations use of their own funds to talk to 
virtually any government official at any level about nearly anything, 
including regulations, contracts, loans, permits, renewals, licenses, 
awards, if that organization, business or nonprofit received any 
Federal funds.
  In addition to businesses and charities, if Members can believe this, 
these regulated organizations include colleges and universities and 
State and local governments that use any independent contractors to 
help them with their government relations.
  These regulated organizations, yes, even States and local 
governments, would be required to file annual reports 

[[Page H 13103]]
with the Federal Government detailing every penny they use to talk to 
any level of government. And on top of that, today's Istook amendment 
broadly expands the current Tax Code definition of lobbying to include 
any contact about ``a program, policy, or position'' of a government 
agency.
  The next serving consists of three McIntosh amendments. One would 
create a bounty hunter lawsuit system that would encourage harassing 
lawsuits against tens of thousands of regulated charities, businesses 
and other groups. This is nothing but a lawyer relief proposal. This 
amendment incorporates what is called the False Claims Act, which will 
allow any zealous citizen, regardless of motive, to sue any charity, 
business or other group claiming some violation of this whole block of 
Istook-McIntosh regulations, and to collect as a bounty up to 30 
percent of the treble damages provided for under the False Claims Act.

  So anybody who does not happen to agree, for instance, with Catholic 
Charities or Planned Parenthood, has every incentive to sue and try to 
collect money for their trouble.
  Another McIntosh amendment would also create an additional paperwork 
reporting and bureaucratic maze for any organization described under 
section 501 of the Tax Code, including charities, civic organizations, 
churches, veterans groups, business groups such as the Chamber of 
Commerce, and many others if they receive almost anything from the 
Federal Government. As far as I can figure, virtually all section 501 
organizations are likely to be regulated.
  These regulated groups would also have to file reports with the 
Federal Government detailing the use of the group's own funds on 
political advocacy, lobbying, their endorsements, coalition 
memberships, the names of those they have hired to do their government 
relations work, any in-kind support or payments to participate in any 
initiative or referendum.
  Finally, the third McIntosh amendment would create a system that 
treats any group of 501(c)(4) organizations who happen to use the same 
name or represent themselves as being affiliated as if they were one 
single organization for purposes of the limitations and regulations 
that are contemplated here. This would mean, for instance, that all 
Rotary Clubs around the country would have to somehow collect from the 
thousands of local Rotary chapters all of the public policy involvement 
and spending information and then file it with the Federal Government.
  There are many other organizations that would fall into the same 
trap, including the National Rifle Association, Disabled American 
Veterans, the National League of Cities, Veterans of Foreign Wars, 
Ladies Auxiliary, and the International Olympic Commission.
  Mr. Chairman, whether this is offered to us in four ugly pieces or 
one ugly whole, the Istook-McIntosh proposal is a bureaucratic swamp 
that will interfere with the mission of charities, bog down American 
businesses, and encourage unnecessary and absolutely pointless 
litigation. It should be defeated in all its forms. It should be 
defeated both because of its own lack of merit and because of the 
effect it and any other amendment will have on the prospects for final 
enactment of this legislation as has already been well discussed this 
evening.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman again for the time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant].
  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from 
Florida for yielding me this time.
  I would begin by saying that this is the Lobbying Disclosure Act, and 
in some of the early debate on this we have heard about the thousands 
and thousands of lobbyists who frequent the halls of Congress and how 
only about 4,000 of these folks are registered.

                              {time}  2030

  I do want to say something, though, positive about lobbyists. I have 
not been up here that long. I have been here as a freshman about a year 
now, and I have found a couple of words that I think are misused and 
abused quite often. That is the words ``lobbyists'' and 
``bureaucrats.''
  Mr. Chairman, I have found out that these folks are real people. They 
have beating hearts and they have families and children, and so forth. 
They work at their jobs very hard. The lobbyists I have found are good 
people. They represent a lot of people when they come up here to 
Washington, when they come to our offices. They represent folks back 
home who do not have the opportunity to visit in Washington and see us 
personally. They often have good information, education, and they often 
disagree with each other.
  But with that said, Mr. Chairman, I think this bill is very 
appropriate, and I would support it. I think what we need is more 
accountability, more sunshine, as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Canady] has mentioned, and more disclosure. I think that would be 
wholesome for this system. I think it has been evidenced by the fact 
that the other body passed this same bill by a score of 98 to nothing 
on July 25.
  Mr. Chairman, a week or so ago I was proud to be a part of the House 
Committee on the Judiciary who considered this bill, and again saw a 
strong bipartisan effort in support of this bill. There were 30 people 
who voted for it and no one voted against it.
  By passing this Lobbying Disclosure Act, I think we can end the 
business as usual that we see up here and certainly the perception by 
the folks back home that there is business as usual up here, and it is 
not good business. We can demonstrate that we want disclosure of 
lobbying activities and thus improve the level of accountability and 
the legislative process itself.
  Now, I know there is not a lot of disagreement about what is in this 
bill, but I would like to go over some of it. My colleague, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], indicated that he expected some 
controversial amendments, but that everyone agrees pretty much what is 
in the base bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell the people back in the district 
that I represent what this bill actually does do, though. It is going 
to require these lobbyists to identify their clients and the people 
that they lobby. They will have to register to do that. They will need 
to disclose the general issues on which they are lobbying, and they 
will also have to tell how much money they are being paid to do this 
lobbying.

  We have a fine definition of what a lobbyist is. I think it is one 
that is fair. It does not get into the problem some of the lobbying 
bills of last year got into, some of the groups that really are not 
lobbyists, and I do not think we are going to see any type of problem 
there.
  The definition that we have in this bill truly identifies the 
lobbyist who walks the Halls of Congress, who represents many people up 
here, who lobbies Congressmen and their staff and who gets paid to do 
it.
  More about this bill. It does not create any new bureaucracy. There 
is an awful lot of talk about adding more jobs. This does not do that. 
We use the services of the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the 
Senate to implement the disclosure requirements, which will be done on 
a semiannual basis.
  Second, the bill contains no criminal penalties. The lobbyists who 
knowingly violate this bill may receive civil fines up to $50,000. 
Third, grassroots lobbying organizations are affected under this 
legislation. As I mentioned earlier, last year's controversial 
provisions are not in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2564 also addresses the problem of nonprofit 
organizations using taxpayer money to lobby and this bill does it in a 
very clean, simple manner. The bill adopts the Simpson amendment from 
the other body. Its provisions simply state that 501(c)(4) 
organizations, which are the lobbying arms of many nonprofit groups, if 
they engage in lobbying, they are ineligible. They cannot receive 
Federal funds.
  These kinds of nonprofit organizations can choose to lobby and not 
receive Federal funds, or to receive Federal funds and not lobby. This 
provision does not affect the normal charities who do not lobby and are 
identified as 501(c)(3) under the Internal Revenue Code.

[[Page H 13104]]

  Such diverse organizations as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the 
American Association of Association Executives, the American League of 
Lobbyists, and the Alliance for Justice, all support this legislation.
  There is one other part of this particular bill that I do like, and I 
want to add it as part of my discussion, because I think it is 
important. Under the current law, our U.S. Trade Representative cannot 
aid or advise a foreign entity on matters before any officer or 
employee of any department or agency of the United States within 3 
years after the termination of this individual service. What this bill 
does is make that a lifetime ban for activity on the part of a former 
trade representative or a deputy trade representative in conducting any 
of these relationships.

  Moreover, it takes the reverse also in determining who is eligible to 
serve an administration as a deputy trade representative or as a trade 
representative. It would disqualify any person who has represented a 
foreign entity or aided or advised a foreign entity in any trade 
negotiation or trade dispute.
  Mr. Chairman, I think altogether we have something here that is a 
very sound bill and I am proud to rise again in a bipartisan effort to 
support this very fine lobbying bill and urge my colleagues to vote for 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale], one of the main sponsors of 
this bill.
  Mr. McHALE. Mr. Chairman, many years ago Lt. Gen. Arthur MacArthur, 
Gen. Douglas MacArthur's father, wrote to his superiors saying, and I 
quote:

       I have just been offered $250,000 and the most beautiful 
     woman I have ever seen to betray my trust. I am depositing 
     the money with the Treasury of the United States and request 
     immediate relief from this command. They are getting too 
     close to my price.

  Mr. Chairman, the American people are concerned that not every high-
ranking official of our Government may have General MacArthur's sense 
of humor or his high sense of integrity.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2564 is the most significant lobbying reform in 
the last 50 years. The legislation under which we operate this evening 
has been in effect since 1946. It is woefully inadequate, and there is 
a bipartisan recognition that the law needs to be reformed and it needs 
to be reformed tonight.
  Under H.R. 2564, paid professional lobbyists will be required to file 
semiannual reports detailing their identity, their clients, the 
lobbying issues upon which they have contacted covered officials, and 
the money spent when contacting Members of Congress, executive 
agencies, senior staff and, General MacArthur would be pleased to know, 
high-ranking military officers.

  Lobbying is a constitutionally protected activity, but one best 
exercised with maximum public exposure. In politics, as elsewhere, 
sunshine is the best disinfectant. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to stand 
at this microphone tonight and recognize that on this occasion, one of 
so many that we have missed during the past 11 months, so many missed 
opportunities during the 104th Congress, recognize this evening that in 
a bipartisan effort with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], with 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] seated immediately to my 
right, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] having shepherded 
this bill from the beginning, and all of these Members having at least 
allowed my participation, we are about to bring before the membership 
of this House the most extraordinary change in the lobbying law of the 
United States considered in the last 5 decades.
  We have done it with, I think, an extraordinary sense of the 
importance of the ability of the people under the Constitution to 
petition their government. As pointed out by one of the previous 
speakers, unlike earlier legislation, we have provided sufficient 
attention to detail in guaranteeing the right to petition the 
government, in protecting the rights of grassroots lobbying.
  Mr. Chairman, the legislation that we now consider I anticipate will 
receive the same bipartisan measure of support that it received on July 
25 when the Members of the U.S. Senate voted 98 to zero to pass it. It 
is critically important for those of us who advocate genuine lobbying 
reform that we keep the bill clean this evening and that we resist the 
temptation to adopt any one amendment because, frankly, those who would 
kill this bill lack the courage to do so on the floor, but might be 
successful in a conference committee.
  Therefore, having experienced that defeat previously, I urge the 
Members to oppose all amendments, vote for the bill, and send it to the 
President, where I anticipate he will promptly sign it.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan], the vice chairman of the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution.
  (Mr. FLANAGAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2564, 
the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, and urge my colleagues to support 
it too by opposing all amendments. Any amendment adopted today to this 
bill could ultimately serve to kill lobbying disclosure reform this 
year in Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, although this bill isn't perfect--in fact, it could go 
further in controlling and disclosing lobbying activities here in 
Washington--it is a conscientious, bipartisan attempt to end over a 
half century of gridlock on this issue. But, I warn you that gridlock 
will remain if this bill isn't kept clean and, instead, is loaded with 
extraneous amendments. I would like to remind all of my colleagues, 
that if a single word is changed to this bill, it will have to go back 
to the dim, dark dungeons of the other body where many, many bills go, 
but only a few come back, and even fewer become law.
  For over five decades, Congress has tried to enact meaningful 
lobbying reform proposals, like this one, only to have their efforts 
thwarted because of House-Senate differences. Just last year, both 
Chambers of Congress passed different lobbying disclosure bills. 
However, because those proposals were different and those differences 
were never rectified in conference, neither of them were ever enacted 
into law.
  Mr. Chairman, given the history of gridlock on this issue, it is 
important that the Lobbying Disclosure Act we have before us today not 
be weighed down with extraneous amendments that will only serve to 
derail real lobbying reform efforts this year and probably in this 
Congress.
  The proposal we are considering today is identical to S. 1060, the 
other body's lobbying disclosure legislation which passed that Chamber 
earlier this year by a vote of 98 to zero. The House should now follow 
the Senate's lead by passing their language today so a bill can be 
placed on the President's desk this weekend, a bill he will certainly 
sign into law.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation, which is sponsored by the Republican 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and the Democratic gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], is a good bill. It is a genuine attempt to 
impose new disclosure requirements for lobbyists who contact 
legislative and executive branch officials and their staff, and it 
deserves the support of every member of the House of Representatives.
  Specifically, the bill requires all paid, professional lobbyists who 
contact Federal Government officials, including Congressmen, or their 
staff to identify their clients, the general issues on which they 
lobby, and how much they are paid. Under this bill, lobbyists must 
register and report semiannually with the Clerk of the House and the 
Secretary of the Senate so their information is readily available to 
the public. If lobbyists knowingly fail to register or disclose false 
information, they will be turned over to the Justice Department where 
they will be prosecuted and faced with a maximum civil penalty of 
$50,000.
  This bill protects average citizens' right to petition Government by 
defining a lobbyists as ``any individual who is employed or retained 
for compensation for services that include more than one lobbying 
contact.'' This language will ensure that no person's first amendment 
rights are violated and that genuine grassroots lobbying is exempted 
from this bill.

[[Page H 13105]]

  With all this said, I again urge my colleagues to withhold from 
offering or voting for amendments so we can have a strong lobbying 
disclosure reform law on the books--something that has not occurred in 
this country in over 40 years.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], a member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to applaud the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Canady] and the ranking member [Mr. Frank] and their 
bipartisan effort to really put forward a very, very good bill.
  Mr. Chairman, interestingly enough, one of the many responsibilities 
that we have in the U.S. Congress and one that I frankly enjoy, is the 
opportunity to listen to and to interact with those who come to present 
their issues. Most often, those are individual citizens who have come 
to express their views about an issue.
  If there is an amendment I cherish more, it is certainly the first 
amendment that protects our right for freedom of expression. However, I 
think it is extremely important that we recognize that this bill still 
applauds and affirms that right. This Lobby Disclosure Act, H.R. 2564, 
a bipartisan legislation, clearly reaffirms what my colleagues have 
already taken to the floor, the right of lobbyists to present their 
views on behalf of their clients.
  The legislation only requires that lobbyists file semiannual reports 
on the following which include, the legislation that they are lobbying 
Members. A simple request. That simply means what is the lobbyist there 
lobbying the Member about, so that it relates to their responsibilities 
and their clients' interests.

                              {time}  2045

  The amount of income received from clients, the expenses incurred by 
lobbying organizations and, of course, these reports are to be made 
public. I think foremost we need to realize that lobbyists are doing 
their job and they are pressing forward under the first amendment, they 
rise to express their beliefs or their arguments on behalf of citizens 
mostly of this country.
  This bill is good because it exempts small firms. For example, 
individuals and lobbying firms that spend less than $5,000 within a 6-
month period would be exempted from the bill's registration 
requirements. In addition, organizations spending less than $20,000 on 
lobbying expenses during a 6-month period would also be exempted from 
these requirements.
  Furthermore, individuals who spend less than 20 percent of their time 
on lobbying activities would not have to meet the registration 
requirements. It strikes a fair balance between the rights of our 
citizens under the first amendment and the Constitution to express 
their views.
  I always look for a local flavor to legislation, and there is a local 
flavor to this lobbying bill. There is a good part that responds to the 
accusations that have been made about lobbyists and lobbyists' 
activities. But then we have the amendments, the baby Istook amendment 
that I hope we will reject.
  This evening the United Negro College Fund is having a dinner in 
Houston, an organization that has supported educating youngsters across 
this Nation. I would imagine if the Istook amendment was passed and if 
the United Negro College Fund, a national organization, desired to 
press us on educational issues to educate young people, they would be 
denied under this amendment. For example, the Ensemble Theater, a local 
community theater in my community that brings arts to those who might 
not have the opportunity, if they joined in to a national arts group 
and wanted to press this Congress under the first amendment to enhance 
arts dollars, they would be forbidden.
  Then the Houston Partnership, an organization that has promoted the 
city of Houston and encourages international trade, might join into the 
national Chamber of Commerce and be denied under the Istook amendment 
or any others.
  Then the Clear Lake Economic Council that wanted to fight to preserve 
the jobs of those citizens at the Johnson Space Center would be denied. 
And then Hester House, an institution that supports the rights and 
needs of children in Houston, formerly Congresswoman Barbara Jordan and 
Mickey Leland grew up in the Hester House. That organization might be 
denied, under the McIntosh proposal and the baby Istook amendments, to 
press the point of providing more Medicaid, more health care for our 
children.

  We have got good legislation on the table. We have got a good bill 
that acknowledges that lobbyists have rights to press constitutional 
issues, their rights under the first amendment on behalf of their 
clients. But in fact what may happen to those who will be denied is 
that important points will not be made, important points from 
organizations like United Negro College Fund, the Boy Scouts, and the 
Girl Scouts.
  So we need legislation that reaffirms the rights of Americans under 
the first amendment whether they come to us as lobbyists or come to us 
as individuals. This sunshine law discloses any questions that we may 
have through a very fine registration program, through an evidencing of 
who you represent as a lobbyist and whether in fact you are pressing 
the issues of your client. That is fair, my colleagues. I will tell you 
that it is not fair to deny those who would come, who simply want to 
press their points and organize such as AARP, when we were organizing 
about the Medicare issue in the U.S. Congress and senior citizens came 
and organized rallies on the grassy area out front, to deny them that 
right. That is not the kind of bill that I think these two fine 
gentlemen have offered. So I would simply say, vote separately for this 
bill and leave the amendments alone and we will have a fair bill.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  I rise in the strongest possible support of the lobbying reform 
proposal before us this evening. I applaud the gentleman from Florida 
and Massachusetts for bringing this bill to the floor. In the 104th 
Congress, we have passed many reform initiatives, including the 
Congressional Accountability Act, to make Congress follow the same laws 
that all Americans must follow.
  Earlier this year, the House passed term limits, and earlier tonight 
we passed gift ban legislation. It is my hope, as someone who refuses 
all PAC contributions, that we will enact in this Congress campaign 
finance reform that bans all PAC contributions to House and Senate 
campaigns.
  But tonight we have before us a solid bill to reform the way 
lobbyists do business in Congress. This important issue has achieved 
bipartisan support as evidenced by a unanimous vote reporting the 
legislation out of the Committee on the Judiciary. Hopefully this 
bipartisan cooperation will spill over into the budget debate and help 
us reach a balanced budget as well.
  Clearly, Americans have many questions about how lobbyists work in 
Washington, DC. In its current form, this bill does not tie the hands 
of groups or individuals who seek to make their voice heard in the 
legislative process. This legislation is simply a more stringent 
disclosure of lobbyists activities. Under this proposal, registered 
lobbyists must disclose the congressional Chamber and Federal agencies 
they approach, the issues they discuss with the relevant officials and 
the amount of money they spend on their efforts. This is basic 
commonsense reform.
  The freshman and sophomore classes constitute half the Members of 
this Congress. We came to Washington on a promise to change the way 
this House, this Congress and this Federal Government operate. This 
bill is one more step in fulfilling that commitment.
  I would urge my colleagues to pass the bill as written, as any 
amendment will delay implementation and possibly kill the bill in this 
Congress. There will be efforts to include other provisions in the 
general area of lobbying disclosure and reform. But the bill before us 
tonight is not the vehicle for those additional provisions.
  I urge all my colleagues to pass the bill without additional 
amendments so 

[[Page H 13106]]
we will see lobbying reform become law this year.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], one of those who has been active 
on behalf of this bill.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, most Americans who have 
watched television this week or read newspapers certainly are under the 
impression that Democrats and Republicans cannot get along at all. It 
is unfortunate because this is one of those instances where Democrats 
and Republicans have worked very well together. I think it is important 
that we point that out to the American people.
  I want to pay tribute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and 
the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] on the Republican side, both 
of whom have been very active on this measure, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
McHale], and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], who also have been 
active on the Democratic side.
  What we have shown here is, if the two parties have people in them 
who talk to each other and communicate, we can actually do things that 
move this country forward. This bill is an excellent example of a bill 
that will move this country forward because the lobbying disclosure 
provisions that have already passed the U.S. Senate under unanimous 
vote in July of this year are provisions that virtually everyone agrees 
with. These are provisions that will make it easier not only for the 
American people to know what is going on in Congress but actually make 
it easier for the lobbyists not to be buried in paperwork.
  It provides some streamlining provisions that make more sense, some 
commonsense proposals that have been introduced into this law. It also 
requires disclosure of who is paying whom how much to lobby, which 
Federal agencies and Houses of Congress. It is important for the 
American people to know who the people are that are sinking dollars 
into this institution. I think that this is a good step forward.
  It also closes some loopholes in existing lobbying registration laws. 
Probably most importantly, it covers all professional lobbyists. 
Unfortunately, with the loopholes that we have in the current law, 
there are too many people who can come and work the halls of this 
Congress but never have to actually register as lobbyists.
  So I applaud all the Members on both sides of aisle who have worked 
on this measure, and it is my hope that we move forward. I also hope 
very strongly that we avoid the Istook amendment and other amendments 
because these amendments will only have the effect of killing this 
bill.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton].
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I was prepared this evening to offer an 
amendment that would permanently ban Members, former Members of 
Congress forever from lobbying on behalf of a foreign government. I had 
intended to offer that amendment because I believe very strongly that 
it is wrong for former Members to use their job here as a revolving 
door to cash in later on behalf of a foreign government. Currently 
there is a 1-year ban on that activity, not a lifetime ban.
  Americans all across this land are very upset with the role that 
lobbyists play here in Washington and with good reason. All too often 
our elected leaders represent perhaps the most influential lobbyists 
rather than the people who elected them. Executive branch officials, I 
might note, are in fact barred for life from lobbying on behalf of 
foreign governments. The underlying bill that we are taking up today, 
H.R. 2564, also bars U.S. trade officials from representing foreign 
countries for life.
  As we work to restore the public confidence in this Congress, we 
should apply that same standard to Members who serve here. I feel that 
we need to encourage folks to become public servants for the right 
reasons and that reward for helping people while you serve, not using 
that service to benefit our own pockets. It is not right that taxpayers 
send their representatives to Washington to fight for them and then 
that elected official leaves office and perhaps sells that knowledge to 
another government at the expense of the American people. Each of us 
were sent here to represent our own districts and our State and 
certainly our country. And it would be wrong for us to use that 
experience to represent someplace else.
  I understand the debate that is going on tonight. The bill that has 
come over from the Senate, the committee chairman, subcommittee chair 
as well as the ranking side prefer no amendments because they want to 
get this bill through. In a number of private discussions that I have 
had with Members this evening, I feel that it may be more prudent in 
fact to offer this at another time on another bill, but in fact in this 
Congress to get the job done. I might.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] for 
some clarification of that.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, let me commend the gentleman on 
this amendment. I believe that this amendment addresses a very 
important issue. I believe that it is wrong for Members of Congress who 
have left the Congress to then run out and find a foreign client, a 
foreign government to represent here in Washington. I think that is an 
abuse of the system and something that should not continue.
  I believe that we should consider restrictions on that sort of 
activity. It would be my intention as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
the Constitution to hold hearings on this subject as well as other 
related issues that we are not addressing in this bill but which do 
need to be addressed. I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
constructive spirit in which the gentleman is approaching this. I think 
he has a very good amendment. I have not had a chance to give a lot of 
thought but it seems very good to me. If I had to vote on it right now, 
I would vote for it. But I think it will obviously be a useful thing 
for us to have at the hearings, the markup.
  I hope something very much like it will emerge. I believe and I know 
my friend from Florida agrees. It is very likely that we will want to 
do another bill because there are a number of good ideas that have come 
up. I will be urging that we go forward with this, and I am very, very 
likely to be supporting legislation of the sort the gentleman from 
Michigan offered. I appreciate the spirit of trying to get this bill 
through that he would give us a chance to do it in that manner.
  Mr. UPTON. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate those comments from both 
my friends. I would at this point indicate that I will not offer my 
amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, let us all hope that he is a role model for our 
colleagues.
  Mr. UPTON. I will not offer therefore my amendment this evening and 
look forward to working with both gentlemen in the future.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, George Will's conservative credentials are 
second to none, but in the case of the Istook amendment, even card-
carrying conservatives like Mr. Will cannot hold their nose and support 
this legislation.
  This amendment slams the doors of the political process in the faces 
of the Girl Scouts, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and thousands of 
community-based nonprofit organizations across this great Nation. In 
doing so, it will create untold amounts of government redtape and 
bureaucracy for America's charities.
  Mr. Chairman, we need this lobby reform bill now more than ever. This 
is a Congress where the NRA writes the gun laws, the polluters write 
the Clean Water Act, and the Christian Coalition dictates social 
policy. That's the problem--and the American people know it. But does 
anyone in this Chamber, or anyone in America, really think that the 
Girl Scouts and the YMCA have too much power and influence in 
Washington? Of course not.
  Several weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, I was successful in passing 
legislation in 

[[Page H 13107]]
this body that will finally get tough with underage drinking and 
driving, a crime that claims thousands of lives every year. My zero 
tolerance legislation was offered with the encouragement, support, and 
cooperation of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
  As a charity, MADD operates under the existing laws that govern 
charities, including those which limit advocacy work. However, MADD 
will be directly impacted by the Istook amendment because it works with 
the Department of Transportation and the Department of Justice to 
combat drunk driving and assist the victims of this crime. In the words 
of MADD's national president, the Istook amendment will have ``a 
chilling effect'' on MADD's ability to fulfill its mission.
  Mr. Chairman, MADD was started in 1980 Candy Lightner, who in 
attempting to bring the drunk driver who killed her daughter to 
justice, found the system rigged against her. Since 1980, it has been 
MADD's leadership that has been instrumental in curbing the carnage on 
our roadways. However, had the Istook provision been in effect 15 years 
ago, MADD would not have been able to bring us to where we are today.
  As George Will has stated, the Istook amendment will ``erect a 
litigation-breeding regulatory regime of baroque complexity.''
  Let's not punish Girls Scouts. Defeat this extremist amendment.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] who has done more than any other 
person to move forward with the agenda of reform on gifts and lobbying 
than any other person in the Congress.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me, but there have been so many who have been working on reform, and 
I think one of the reasons why I have stayed here tonight is it is 
rather comforting and calming to be in an environment where Republicans 
and Democrats are working together for a common cause. It may not be as 
exciting, but it sure is relaxing.
  I first want to thank the subcommittee chairman and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], the chairman, and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], the ranking member, for doing 
yeoman's work in getting this bill out of their subcommittee intact, 
identical to the way the Senate passed the bill, getting it through the 
full committee intact identical to the way the Senate passed this bill, 
and for good reasons. The Senate passed a fine bill. They passed it way 
back in July, and candidly we probably would not even be dealing with 
this legislation today if it was not for the work of Mr. Levin and Mr. 
Cohen and Mr. McConnell, and the work that they did in the Senate in 
giving us a bill that we can present to the President of the United 
States if it leaves this Chamber without amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have one gigantic choice. We can amend the bill and 
send it to the Senate, where it may pass eventually someday, some year 
at some time, or we can send it to the President where he will put his 
signature and for the first time in nearly 50 years we will have an 
updated and better lobby disclosure bill.
  The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 deserves to be made law. It will 
for the first time require the registration of people who have not been 
registered before. It will require them to disclose general information 
about what they do and how much they spend, and I know that in addition 
to the fine work of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] he has had a supportive 
committee on both sides, Republican and Democrat, and I particularly 
want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant] and the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan] and the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Goodlatte] for their help, and also the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Bryant] on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Barrett] on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale] on the other side of the aisle. This is 
legislation that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale introduced 
in support of what the Senate has done. There really is no excuse for 
us to cave in and do candidly, and when I say ``candidly'' it almost 
sounds like the gentleman's name, candidly to do what unfortunately 
some in my own leadership want to have happen, they want this bill 
amended.

  Mr. Chairman, for some reason my colleagues want it sent back to the 
Senate. For some reason they want it to go to conference. I do not 
understand why. To me it is simply the wrong way to go. There are going 
to be some excellent proposals made, and it is going to be tempting to 
go along with those proposals, but we have a chairman and the ranking 
member of the committee who have agreed to take these good proposals, 
to take action on them, and bring them back to the floor of the House 
as a separate bill, and then we can send that bill to the Senate, and 
let us see what happens.
  I would just like to read from the language that accompanied the 
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, two paragraphs, and one of the things 
that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] pointed out is that in 
1991 the General Accounting Office, GAO, found that almost 10,000 of 
the 13,500 individuals and organizations listed in the book 
``Washington Representatives'' were not registered under the 1946 act. 
GAO interviewed a small sample of the unregistered Washington 
representatives listed. Three-quarters of those interviewed contacted 
both Members of Congress and their staffs, dealt with Federal 
legislation, and sought to influence the actions of Congress or the 
executive branch. We have 10,000 of the 13,500 listed as Washington 
representatives not registered as lobbyists. I mean there is a reason. 
When we passed the act many years ago in 1946, the Federal Regulation 
of Lobbying Act of 1946, the Senate, the Supreme Court, significantly 
weakened that act in 1954 and basically made it pretty much unworkable. 
The 1946 act requires anybody whose principal purpose is influencing 
legislation to register with the Clerk of the House or the Secretary of 
the Senate. It simply is not being done because the Senate gutted that 
requirement.
  So I am concerned a bit about the fact that we will seek and discuss 
amendments tonight. I am concerned that tomorrow we may just have one 
vote after another. All it is going to take is just one amendment to 
basically send this bill back to the Senate. There will be for some 
reason some people satisfied and happy that we have sent it back to the 
Senate. For the life of me I do not understand why we would not want to 
know who is a lobbyist, know what they do, and how much money is 
involved.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first 
thank the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], for yielding me this time. 
Now I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] for 
offering this legislation today, and I would like to rise in support of 
the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 as it has been introduced. This 
bill makes important and substantive changes to the current regulations 
related to the lobbying process. I do have concerns, however, about a 
particular provision.
  For the purposes of clarification of this provision, I would like to 
enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], the 
chairman of the subcommittee and the author of this legislation.
  Section 18 of H.R. 2564 prevents 501(c)(4) organizations, as defined 
under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 from receiving a Federal 
``award, grant, contract, loan or any other form'' if such 
organizations want to engage in lobbying activity.
  I have been contacted by members of the Disabled American Veterans 
from my home State of Rhode Island. They are concerned and have 
expressed concern that section 18 of H.R. 2564 may preclude them from 
utilizing space at local Veterans Administration facilities. The DAV, 
the Disabled American Veterans, works for the physical, social, mental, 
and economic rehabilitation of wounded and disabled veterans, obtains 
fair and just compensation, adequate medical care, and oftentimes 

[[Page H 13108]]
suitable gainful employment for wartime veterans who became disabled in 
service to our country. They deserve every bit of it.
  Annually, the DAV provides assistance to 300,000 veterans and their 
families--at no charge to the veteran and no charge to the Federal 
Government. I am concerned that section 18 would place in jeopardy the 
vital services provided by the DAV.
  As my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] knows, 
these veterans' organizations often use the facilities, these veterans' 
facilities, as an opportunity for them to reach out to the same 
constituency that the veterans' facilities are mandated to reach out 
to. They do not want to be shut out, and I think that what we want to 
do is help them help us in the Federal Government do the job that we 
are trying to do on behalf of our veterans, and I would ask my 
colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] to clarify this 
section for me.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Rhode 
Island for yielding, and I appreciate the gentleman's expression of 
concern on this issue.
  Section 18 provides that organizations described in section 501(c)(4) 
of the Internal Revenue Code which ``engage in lobbying activities 
shall not be eligible for the receipt of Federal funds constituting an 
award, grant, contract, loan or any other form.'' It is my 
understanding that ``any other form'' as referred to in this section 
means any other form of Federal funds. It is my intention that use of a 
borrowed room by the Disabled American Veterans would not constitute 
receipt of Federal funds and the DAV would not run afoul of this 
provision.
  I believe that this should address the concern raised by the Disabled 
American Veterans, an organization which does so much to help so many 
American veterans.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for 
his assistance on this matter, commend him, and look forward to 
continuing to work with him on behalf of our veterans, and I thank him 
for his explanation and clarification of this. I think it honors the 
spirit of what the DAV is trying to do, and I think it also honors the 
spirit of our bill, so in both of those respects I would like to 
commend the author, once again like to commend the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], and I appreciate the 
opportunity this evening to speak on behalf of the bill.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to continue the 
colloquy which was very ably started by the gentleman from Rhode Island 
[Mr. Kennedy]. I, too, rise to assure the veterans beyond the DAV, to 
the Purple Heart veterans, American Legion, the VFW, and all other 
veterans' groups of service men and women who have done so much for our 
country, when it comes to any activity as described that has been by 
the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] and other activities that 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and I would describe to 
our colleagues, are all of them, as far as the gentleman is concerned, 
protected under the legislation and it would not rise to any infraction 
on their part?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, 
that is absolutely correct. This principle would apply to other 
organizations who are serving in a similar manner.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I know, because speaking for all 435 Members 
of this House, and I am sure the 100 Members in the other Chamber, 
would want to have that protection knowing that the veterans we are 
trying to serve, work with, would in fact be protected under this 
legislation.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to join 
in and agree, although I should note that presently there are only 433 
Members of this House.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. We added a few in this partisan reform 
Congress.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, the events of the last week have shaken 
the public's confidence in this great house.
  Now, we have the chance to restore some of that confidence by passing 
the lobbying disclosure bill.
  The time for delay is over.
  It is time the public knew who is lobbying who and for how much.
  It is time Members stop taking contributions from lobbyists for legal 
defense funds or charities they control.
  The people send us here to represent them in the greatest legislative 
body ever conceived.
  That is what it's all about.
  Not the lobbyists.
  Not the trips.
  Not the gifts.
  And the American people know that.
  We need to send a clear, bipartisan message that we understand that 
all of us together and that we know that too.
  Finally, we need to reject any amendment that would restrict the 
ability of businesses, universities, and charitable organizations from 
using their own money, just because they receive some federal funding.
  A lobbying disclosure bill passed the other body 98-0.
  Let us pass this bill with the same bipartisan spirit and reject any 
extremist amendment designed to make it partisan.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte], a member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Canady], my good friend, the chairman of our subcommittee, 
and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank] for the strong bipartisan support of this important legislation 
that we have been struggling for years to bring forward, and I also 
very much appreciate the very kindly way that this debate has 
proceeded.

                              {time}  2115

  We are in general agreement about this, but I would hope that we 
would have the same kind of level of debate. Even at times when we are 
in strong disagreement on the underlying issues, we should never let 
the debate break down, as it does sometimes.
  Congressional reforms have been a major priority since last year's 
elections. For instance, we have taken steps to clean up sloppy 
administrative and financial practices in the House of Representatives. 
We have passed into law the Congressional Accountability Act, making 
Members of Congress subject to the same laws that we pass and impose on 
everyone else. Now we are focusing on lobbying reform and rules 
governing gifts to Members of Congress, which rules we just changed 
earlier this evening. The people that I talk to feel that lobbyists 
have too much power and more access to the government than average 
folks. They are right to feel that way. That is why we are taking 
strong steps to rein in lobbying activity abuse.
  Existing rules governing lobbying are unclear, contain weak 
enforcement provisions, and lack clear guidance as to who is to 
register as a lobbyist. This bill will take care of this problem. The 
main focus of this legislation is to provide for meaningful disclosure 
by full-time lobbyists. Currently, only those lobbyists who, in their 
personal judgment, believe it is their principle purpose to lobby must 
register. In other words, it is up to the individual lobbyist to decide 
whether or not to register.
  This legislation, however, carefully defines the term ``lobbyist.'' 
Someone who spends more than 20 percent of his or her time engaged in 
lobbying activities for a client in a 6-month period is considered to 
be a lobbyist. That person must register with the Clerk of the House 
and the Secretary of the Senate.
  Lobbyists will be required to file a semiannual report which contains 
information about clients, issues, and 

[[Page H 13109]]
Federal agencies in which their lobbying activities are involved, and 
the ability of the government to enforce lobbying rules is 
strengthened, but the controversial provisions related to grassroots 
lobbying contained in last year's bill have been removed, and I think 
that will be a great reassurance to a great many Americans concerned 
abut their individual right to contact their Representatives in 
Congress and make their voice heard. This bill in no way will interfere 
with that right.
  In addition to creating an effective system of disclosure for 
lobbyists of domestic clients, this bill amends the Foreign Agents 
Registration Act. That act addresses the disclosure of interests of 
foreign individuals, corporations, and governments. Under this 
legislation, major loopholes in these requirements are eliminated, 
which will greatly enhance the disclosure of lobbying by foreign 
interests.
  The House of Representatives is known as the people's House, and the 
people's business should be conducted without undue influence. These 
reforms will help make sure that happens.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2564, the Lobbying 
Disclosure Act of 1995 and urge my colleagues to approve a clean bill 
with no further amendment.
  My reason for supporting a clean bill is simple. If we pass this bill 
as is, it goes directly to the President for his signature. If we amend 
this legislation, it goes back to the Senate and into likely oblivion.
  Let's be clear--amending this bill means killing lobby reform for 
this Congress. And that would be Washington business-as-usual at its 
worst. The same type of business-as-usual that has kept lobbying reform 
bottled up for 40 years.
  Mr. Chairman, this important legislation requires meaningful 
disclosure of the activities of paid lobbyists, by requiring more 
information than ever before, and it covers lobbying of both the 
Congress and the Executive Branch.
  Any individual who receives at least $5,000 from a single client in a 
6-month period for lobbying purposes or an organization which spends 
more than $20,000 in a 6-month period for lobbying activities is 
required to register semi-annually with the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate.
  Registered lobbyists must disclose the congressional chamber and 
federal agencies they approached, the issues they discuss with the 
officials, and the amount of money they spent on their lobbying effort.
  If foreign entities--such as a company or government--are involved, 
the lobbyist must state this on the disclosure report. All of this 
information will be easily available to the House and Senate, as well 
as to the public.
  The bill sets up violations guidelines for people who fail to 
register or disclose false information. The Clerk of the House of 
Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate must turn over 
potential violators to the Department of Justice, which will decide 
whether to prosecute. Lobbyists found guilty face a maximum civil 
penalty of $50,000 per violation.
  H.R. 2564 also: prevents tax deductions for lobbying expenses, which 
were eliminated in 1993, from being restored; prohibits 501(c)(4) 
corporations who lobby Congress from receiving federal grants; repeals 
the Ramspeck Act, which allows former Congressional or judicial 
employees to obtain civil service employment without taking the civil 
service exam; prohibits former U.S. trade representatives or deputies, 
from representing a foreign government, political party, or business; 
expands the existing financial disclosure statement for Members of 
Congress by adding more categories to describe the value of personal 
assets and liabilities.
  This legislation includes meaningful reforms of this outdated system. 
But lets dispell some of the misconceptions surrounding H.R. 2564.
  This bill does not: Create a new bureaucracy--Implementation will be 
carried out by the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate.
  This bill: Contains no criminal penalties--Only lobbyists who 
knowingly violate the law may be subjected to civil fines.
  This bill: Does not cover grass roots lobbying and does not hinder 
the ability of ordinary citizens to petition Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is not perfect. But we cannot allow the 
perfect to be the enemy of the very good. We cannot allow this 
legislation to suffer the same fate as reform bills in the past.
  This is serious reform--another important step toward changing 
Washington's business-as-usual.
  I am afraid it is more than reputation. I am afraid that in the minds 
of many of us here in this body, we are really in need of serious 
reform, and must dispel any hint or any smell of business as usual.
  Let us do the right thing. I urge my colleagues to oppose any 
amendments to this bill. As meritorious as some may seem, approving any 
of them means the destruction of the Lobbying Disclosure Act and any 
reform in this Congress.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, last week during a 216-210 vote on the very 
same matter, I voted no. Unfortunately, there was some kind of 
malfunction in the voting machine and my vote was not recorded.
  I want to state for the record that my position on the gentleman from 
Oklahoma's amendment has not changed. I remain opposed to limitations 
on any of our citizens' right to petition their Government. Simply 
because you are a university, a business, or a charitable organization 
should not force you to give up your first amendment rights.
  I would urge opposition to this measure by my colleagues. Let us not 
trample on first amendment protections in an effort to silence critics 
of the policies promoted by our colleagues across the aisle.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report for H.R. 2564, the Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 
1995.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill will prohibit military women who are 
stationed overseas from obtaining an abortion in a military hospital--
even if they use their own money to pay for this procedure.
  Mr. Chairman, this provision of H.R. 2564 will put the lives of 
military women in danger, because they will be forced to use third-
world clinics or unsafe back alley facilities.
  It is true that, as Representative Young pointed our earlier, I voted 
yesterday for the conference report on H.R. 2020, the Treasury-Postal 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. I voted for this bill because 
I know that this measure is necessary to get our Nation's Federal 
employees back to work.
  Under this bill, Federal employees will lose their ability to use 
their own health insurance to pay for a full range of reproductive 
services. This is a travesty, and I fought against this provision when 
it was considered initially by the House.
  Nevertheless, I believe that there is a critical difference between 
the anti-choice provisions in the Defense appropriations bill and the 
Treasury-Postal appropriations bill.
  The difference is that when a military woman needs an abortion, and 
she is stationed overseas in a third-world nation, the only medical 
facility which is likely to be clean and safe, with well trained 
doctors, will be the base Hospital. Plain and simple, I cannot support 
a bill which denies military women the chance to use the only decent 
available medical facility.
  Today, the anti-choice forces are hoping to score another victory by 
denying military women, who happen to be stationed overseas, access to 
a safe and legal abortion.
  Military women defend our country with their lives. Now their lives 
will be in jeopardy if the Defense appropriations conference report 
passes.
  Is this what you would want for your daughter? is this what you would 
want for your granddaughter?
  I urge my colleagues to protect a military woman's constitutional 
right to reproductive choice. Vote no on the conference report for H.R. 
2126.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Clinger 
amendment.
  The Clinger amendment will save taxpayer dollars and protect career 
civil servants from being drafted into hardball political advocacy.
  Federal workers are routinely being pressured to participate in 
partisan lobbying campaigns. These lobbying efforts are often offensive 
to the civil servant's personal values and damaging to his or her 
career.
  What do you think happens to the career employee who expects to serve 
during numerous Presidencies but who gets caught up in 

[[Page H 13110]]
partisan lobbying efforts by his agency? Well, the next administration 
with a different political stripe comes in and is naturally suspicious 
of that civil servant's professional judgment and independence.
  The Clinger amendment simply says: Let us leave the political talk to 
presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed appointees and let the 
dedicated career Federal workers that I represent get their jobs done 
free of politics.
  I am especially alarmed by some of the unsolicited political 
propaganda that was mailed to all members of the Virginia General 
Assembly this year by the Environmental Protection Agency. State 
senators and delegates complained about this junk mail that featured 
false statements in opposition to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 and some of the regulatory reform initiatives.
  I support an open and vigorous exchange of ideas, and I am proud to 
serve in a body that epitomizes the free exchange of political thought. 
While there will always be a time and place for political advocacy, our 
system of government depends on a dedicated corps of civil servants who 
actually fulfill the mission crafted by Congress and the President--
free of being enlisted in partisan lobbying campaigns.
  Surely the President, his hundreds of Senate-confirmed appointees, 
combined with the thousands of nonprofit and for-profit advocacy 
organizations in this town can adequately express the full range of 
diverse policy and political opinions without requiring the taxpayer to 
finance lobbying campaigns by Federal agencies that harm the careers of 
civil servants.
  I urge my colleagues to unanimously support this important amendment 
offered by the distinguished chairman of the Government Reform and 
Oversight Committee.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, there are critics of lobbying reform who 
hold the cynical belief that if this bill can be amended, it will get 
bogged down in the Senate, and lobby reform will die.
  That would be tragic.
  I very much believe in the open, democratic system in our Nation 
where people can communicate with their elected representatives, 
directly or through others. To do so is an important aspect of our 
democracy.
  I also believe the American public is entitled to know who is 
lobbying whom, and who is spending how much.
  But today the lobbying disclosure system we have is chaotic and badly 
broken. It has so many loopholes that the public has no clear idea 
whatsoever about how lobbyists are spending millions of dollars.
  If you take the long view, this is our best chance since 1948, when 
President Truman called for reform of the lobbying disclosure law, to 
do the job, and do the job right.
  This bill is a good bill as it stands. The Senate supported it 
unanimously and its leaders on this issue played an indispensable role 
in its design and passage.
  The administration today said the President will sign this bill in 
its current form.
  And now, it is our turn. If we do this right, the American people 
will be able to know what they are entitled to know: Who is paying how 
much, to whom, to lobby Congress and the executive branch.
  All week long, the American people have been given one reason after 
another to wonder if there is any issue on which the Senate, and the 
House, and the President can cooperate. This is surely one such issue.
  Put that together with gift ban we passed earlier tonight, and I 
believe we will have taken two very important steps toward restoring 
trust in the integrity of Government. I sincerely hope campaign finance 
reform will be next, and soon.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in support of the 
Clinger antilobbying amendment, which would prohibit Federal agencies 
from using appropriated funds to promote public support or opposition 
for a legislative proposal.
  This amendment is not about stifling free speech, it is not about 
muzzling lobbying activities. What the Clinger amendment is about, 
ladies and gentlemen, is the Congress laying down the law and saying 
``It is wrong for us to spend a dime of taxpayer money so Federal 
agencies can lobby the Congress and attempt to shape legislation to 
suit that agency's agenda or whims.''
  As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I saw 
this practice first hand as we worked on legislation overhauling the 
Clean Water Act. The Environmental Protection Agency actually allowed 
its employees to prepare lobbying materials for the committee members. 
These included fact sheets which had little to do with facts. Instead, 
these were thinly guised agency propaganda filled with political 
undertones.
  One of the arguments that has been advanced is that this amendment is 
unconstitutional. That argument is without merit.
  The constitutional argument apparently has two prongs--one claims 
that the first amendment is impacted; the other focuses on the 
separation of powers between this branch and the executive branch.
  It's difficult to see how the first amendment guarantees of Federal 
officials would be impacted. The language isn't as restraining as the 
Hatch Act; employees on their own dime may enjoy the freedoms of 
speech, association, expression, and the right to petition. And, if I 
understand the CRS opinion correctly, nearly identical language has 
been included in the Interior Department appropriations for about 15 
years.
  Turning for a moment to the separation of powers issue, clearly the 
proposed action is within the authority granted to Congress by the 
Constitution; the administration's constitutional rights are found in 
article II, section 3--that is, the President shall ``take care that 
the laws are faithfully executed'' or to ``recommend to Congress' 
consideration such measures as he deems necessary and expedient.''
  Chairman Clinger's amendment doesn't restrict the administration's 
ability to enforce or administer the laws of the United States. It 
doesn't restrict direct contact with Members, and it exempts the 
President and his Senate-confirmed appointees so it in no way hampers 
the President from faithfully executing the laws nor providing 
suggestions to Congress.
  However, Federal agency employees should not be preparing lobbying 
materials to influence the legislative process. It it's a part of their 
job description then their job description needs to be rewritten. This 
is a wildly inappropriate use of taxpayer funds, and we as a Congress 
should seek to stop it, not just for the 104th Congress, but in the 
future.
  What Chairman Clinger has proposed is a commonsense amendment. It is 
not harsh, it is not radical, it does not jeopardize the Constitution 
or our right to free speech.
  I think Americans would be appalled to know that at the Department of 
Veterans Affairs, employee check stubs contain a message from Secretary 
Jesse Brown urging opposition to the House budget plan.
  That the U.S. Department of the Interior sent a letter to public land 
constituents indicating opposition to the Livestock Grazing Act.
  That the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service assembled a ``Taking it Too Far'' slide show and panel 
discussion to oppose the takings legislation.
  That the Corporation for American Service [Americorp] published its 
first annual report containing selected press clips praising Americorp 
and criticizing congressional action.
  Who pays for all this? You, the public. Is this how you want Federal 
employees to use their time, crafting political propaganda? I don't 
think so.
  The American people know this is wrong, and they should be offended 
that this practice has been allowed to exist so long without any 
adequate remedy.
  Maybe I could muster up some sympathy for those who oppose this 
amendment if we were faced with some dire shortage of lobbyists in this 
town. Of course, that's not the case.
  This morning, just out of curiosity's sake, my office called the 
Office of Records and Registrations to get the latest tally on the 
number of lobbyists. Right now, we have 6,531 active lobbyist 
registrants on Capitol Hill; that's more than twice the number of 
people who live in my hometown, Madison Village, OH.
  Of course, it only gets worse. If you tally up the lobbyists who are 
active registrants with clients, we've got--get this--12,556 lobbyists. 
And on the inactive, but still registered front, we've got another 
37,181 lobbyists.
  Forgive me for stating the obvious, but it sounds to me like we've 
got our lobbying needs covered and we can make do without Federal 
employees, who do not even register as lobbyists, jumping into the 
fray. Where I come from, I'd say we've already got more lobbyists here 
than you can shake a stick at.
  Enough's enough. Let the Federal agency employees do their real jobs. 
Support the Clinger amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, this bill is considered read for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of H.R. 2564 is as follows.

                               H.R. 2564

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Lobbying Disclosure Act of 
     1995''.

     SEC. 2. 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 

[[Page H 13111]]

       (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. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (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;
       (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, 

[[Page H 13112]]
     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. 4. 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 5) in the semiannual period 
     described in section 5(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 5(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--
       (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. 5. 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 4, 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 4(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. 6. 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 Act and develop common 
     standards, rules, and procedures for compliance with this 
     Act;
       (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 Act, 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 Act;
       (4) make available for public inspection and copying at 
     reasonable times the registrations and reports filed under 
     this Act;
       (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; 

[[Page H 13113]]

       (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 Act; and
       (8) notify the United States Attorney for the District of 
     Columbia that a lobbyist or lobbying firm may be in 
     noncompliance with this Act, 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. 7. 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 Act; 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. 8. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Constitutional Rights.--Nothing in this Act 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 Act 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 Act.
       (c) Audit and Investigations.--Nothing in this Act 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. 9. 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)--
       (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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act, or the application thereof, 
     is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Act 
     and the application of such provision to other persons and 
     circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

     SEC. 14. 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 4(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 4(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. 15. 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 

[[Page H 13114]]
     that would be required to be disclosed under such section for the 
     appropriate semiannual period to meet the requirements of 
     sections 4(a)(3), 5(a)(2), and 5(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 4(a)(3), 5(a)(2), 
     and 5(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, 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 3(8) 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. 16. REPEAL OF THE RAMSPECK ACT.

       (a) Repeal.--Subsection (c) of section 3304 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is repealed.
       (b) Redesignation.--Subsection (d) of section 3304 of title 
     5, United States Code, is redesignated as subsection (c).
       (c) Effective Date.--The repeal and amendment made by this 
     section shall take effect 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 17. EXCEPTED SERVICE AND OTHER EXPERIENCE CONSIDERATIONS 
                   FOR COMPETITIVE SERVICE APPOINTMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 3304 of title 5, United States 
     Code (as amended by section 2 of this Act) is further amended 
     by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
       ``(d) The Office of Personnel Management shall promulgate 
     regulations on the manner and extent that experience of an 
     individual in a position other than the competitive service, 
     such as the excepted service (as defined under section 2103) 
     in the legislative or judicial branch, or in any private or 
     nonprofit enterprise, may be considered in making 
     appointments to a position in the competitive service (as 
     defined under section 2102). In promulgating such regulations 
     OPM shall not grant any preference based on the fact of 
     service in the legislative or judicial branch. The 
     regulations shall be consistent with the principles of 
     equitable competition and merit based appointments.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, except the Office of Personnel Management shall--
       (1) conduct a study on excepted service considerations for 
     competitive service appointments relating to such amendment; 
     and
       (2) take all necessary actions for the regulations 
     described under such amendment to take effect as final 
     regulations on the effective date of this section.

     SEC. 18. EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS.

       An organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which engages in lobbying 
     activities shall not be eligible for the receipt of Federal 
     funds constituting an award, grant, contract, loan, or any 
     other form.

     SEC. 19. AMENDMENT TO THE FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION ACT 
                   (PUBLIC LAW 75-583).

       Strike section 11 of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 
     1938, as amended, and insert in lieu thereof the following:
       ``Section 11. Reports to the Congress.--The Attorney 
     General shall every six months report to the Congress 
     concerning administration of this Act, including 
     registrations filed pursuant to the Act, and the nature, 
     sources and content of political propaganda disseminated and 
     distributed.''.

     SEC. 20. DISCLOSURE OF THE VALUE OF ASSETS UNDER THE ETHICS 
                   IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978.

       (a) Income.--Section 102(a)(1)(B) of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978 is amended--
       (1) in clause (vii) by striking ``or''; and
       (2) by striking clause (viii) and inserting the following:
       ``(viii) greater than $1,000,000 but not more than 
     $5,000,000, or
       ``(ix) greater than $5,000,000.''.
       (b) Assets and Liabilities.--Section 102(d)(1) of the 
     Ethics in Government Act of 1978 is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (F) by striking ``and''; and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (G) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(G) greater than $1,000,000 but not more than $5,000,000;
       ``(H) greater than $5,000,000 but not more than 
     $25,000,000;
       ``(I) greater than $25,000,000 but not more than 
     $50,000,000; and
       ``(J) greater than $50,000,000.''.
       (c) Exception.--Section 102(e)(1) of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978 is amended by adding after 
     subparagraph (E) the following:
       ``(F) For purposes of this section, categories with amounts 
     or values greater than $1,000,000 set forth in sections 
     102(a)(1)(B) and 102(d)(1) shall apply to the income, assets, 
     or liabilities of spouses and dependent children only if the 
     income, assets, or liabilities are held jointly with the 
     reporting individual. All other income, assets, or 
     liabilities of the spouse or dependent children required to 
     be reported under this section in an amount or value greater 
     than $1,000,000 shall be categorized only as an amount or 
     value greater than $1,000,000.''.

     SEC. 21. BAN ON TRADE REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTING OR ADVISING 
                   FOREIGN ENTITIES.

       (a) Representing After Service.--Section 207(f)(2) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by--
       (1) inserting ``or Deputy United States Trade 
     Representative'' after ``is the United States Trade 
     Representative''; and
       (2) striking ``within 3 years'' and inserting ``at any 
     time''.
       (b) Limitation on Appointment as United States Trade 
     Representative and Deputy United States Trade 
     Representative.--Section 141(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2171(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(3) Limitation on appointments.--A person who has 
     directly represented, aided, or advised a foreign entity (as 
     defined by section 207(f)(3) of title 18, United States Code) 
     in any trade negotiation, or trade dispute, with the United 
     States may not be appointed as United States Trade 
     Representative or as a Deputy United States Trade 
     Representative.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to an individual appointed as United 
     States Trade Representative or as a Deputy United States 
     Trade Representative on or after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 22. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST IN QUALIFIED BLIND 
                   TRUST.

       (a) In General.--Section 102(a) of the Ethics in Government 
     Act of 1978 is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following:
       ``(8) The category of the total cash value of any interest 
     of the reporting individual in a qualified blind trust, 
     unless the trust instrument was executed prior to July 24, 
     1995 and precludes the beneficiary from receiving information 
     on the total cash value of any interest in the qualified 
     blind trust.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 102(d)(1) of the Ethics 
     in Government Act of 1978 is amended by striking ``and (5)'' 
     and inserting ``(5), and (8)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendment made by this section shall apply with respect to 
     reports filed under title I of the Ethics in Government Act 
     of 1978 for calendar year 1996 and thereafter.

     SEC. 23. SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT LOBBYING EXPENSES SHOULD 
                   REMAIN NONDEDUCTIBLE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that ordinary Americans 
     generally are not allowed to deduct the costs of 
     communicating with their elected representatives.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that lobbying expenses should not be tax deductible.

     SEC. 24. EFFECTIVE DATES.

       (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, this Act 
     and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on 
     January 1, 1996.
       (b) The repeals and amendments made under sections 13, 14, 
     15, and 16 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.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time during 
further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
recorded vote on any amendment made in order by the resolution.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less 
than 

[[Page H 13115]]
5 minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any postponed 
question that immediately follows another vote by electronic device 
without intervening business, provided that the time for voting by 
electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not be 
less than 15 minutes.
  Further, debate on each amendment to the bill and any amendments 
thereto will be limited to 30 minutes, to be equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent of the amendment and an opponent.
  Are there any amendments to the bill?


              amendment offered by mr. fox of pennsylvania

  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Fox Pennsylvania: Page 23, insert 
     after line 2 the following:
       (d) Prohibition on Gifts.--
       (1) In general.--No lobbyist who is registered under 
     section 4 may provide any gift to a Member of the House of 
     Representatives, a Senator, or an officer or employee of the 
     House of Representatives or the Senate unless the lobbyist is 
     related to the Member, Senator, or officer or employee.
       (2) Definition.--For the purpose of paragraph (1), 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.
       (3) Exception.--The restriction in paragraph (1) shall not 
     apply to the following:
       (A) Anything for which the Member, Senator, officer, or 
     employee pays the market value, or does not use and promptly 
     returns to the donor.
       (B) A contribution, as defined in section 301(8) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) 
     that is lawfully made under that Act, a contribution for 
     election to a State or local government office limited as 
     prescribed by section 301(8)(B) of such Act, or attendance at 
     a fundraising event sponsored by a political organization 
     described in section 527(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.
       (C) A gift from a relative as described in section 109(5) 
     of title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (Public 
     Law 95-521).
       (D)(i) Anything provided by an individual on the basis of a 
     personal friendship unless the Member, Senator, officer, or 
     employee has reason to believe that, under the circumstances, 
     the gift was provided because of the official position of the 
     Member, Senator, officer, or employee and not because of the 
     personal friendship.
       (ii) In determining whether a gift is provided on the basis 
     of personal friendship, the Member, Senator, 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, 
     Senator, 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, 
     Senator, 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.
       (E) A contribution or other payment to a legal expense fund 
     established for the benefit of a Member, Senator, officer, or 
     employee that is otherwise lawfully made in accordance with 
     the restrictions and disclosure requirements of the Committee 
     on Standards of Official Conduct.
       (F) Any gift from another Member, Senator, officer, or 
     employee of the Senate or the House of Representatives.
       (G) Food, refreshments, lodging, and other benefits--
       (i) resulting from the outside business or employment 
     activities (or other outside activities that are not 
     connected to the duties of the Member, Senator, officer, or 
     employee as an officeholder) of the Member, Senator, officer, 
     or employee, or the spouse of the Member, Senator, officer, 
     or employee, if such benefits have not been offered or 
     enhanced because of the official position of the Member, 
     Senator, officer, or employee and are customarily provided to 
     others in similar circumstances;
       (ii) customarily provided by a prospective employer in 
     connection with bona fide employment discussions; or
       (iii) 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.
       (H) Pension and other benefits resulting from continued 
     participation in an employee welfare and benefits plan 
     maintained by a former employer.
       (I) Informational materials that are sent to the office of 
     the Member, Senator, officer, or employee in the form of 
     books, articles, periodicals, other written materials, 
     audiotapes, videotapes, or other forms of communication.
       (J) Awards or prizes which are given to competitors in 
     contests or events open to the public, including random 
     drawings.
       (K) 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).
       (L) 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.
       (M) Training (including food and refreshments furnished to 
     all attendees as an integral part of the training) provided 
     to a Member, Senator, officer, or employee, if such training 
     is in the interest of the Senate or House of 
     Representatives.
       (N) Bequests, inheritances, and other transfers at death.
       (O) 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.
       (P) Anything which is paid for by the Federal Government, 
     by a State or local government, or secured by the Government 
     under a Government contract.
       (Q) 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.
       (R) 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.
       (S) Opportunities and benefits which are--
       (i) available to the public or to a class consisting of all 
     Federal employees, whether or not restricted on the basis of 
     geographic consideration;
       (ii) offered to members of a group or class in which 
     membership is unrelated to congressional employment;
       (iii) 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;
       (iv) 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;
       (v) in the form of loans from banks and other financial 
     institutions on terms generally available to the public; or
       (vi) 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.
       (T) A plaque, trophy, or other item that is substantially 
     commemorative in nature and which is intended solely for 
     presentation.
       (U) Anything for which, in an unusual case, a waiver is 
     granted by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order 
on the amendment. We have not had a chance to see it yet.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is preserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and a Member 
opposed will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment and claim the 15 minutes in opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 7\1/2\ minutes of that time to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and ask unanimous consent that he may be 
permitted to yield blocks of time to other Members.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] will 
be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Frank] will be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I first want to say at the outset that H.R. 2564 is a 
bill whose 

[[Page H 13116]]
time has arrived. It would provide for the disclosure of lobbying 
activities to influence the Federal Government and for other purposes, 
and I think that Members in the Chamber realize that each of those who 
are here tonight as committee chairs, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Frank] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] have done a 
great deal of work in bringing this legislation forward, and they have 
my gratitude and that of the other Members, my colleagues, for what 
they have done to this date.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation is excellent. I have an amendment 
which I believe is consistent with the bill, and I would say at this 
time that we have a duty to our constituents to restore accountability 
to the relationship between lobbyists and Members of Congress. We must 
work to obtain a higher standard in order to regain the trust of the 
American people who are sick and tired of business as usual.
  My amendment helps to sustain our mission of enacting true lobby 
reform. The amendment would prohibit registered lobbyists from giving 
gifts to Members, officers, and employees of Congress. Exemptions 
apply, including gifts from friends or relatives. Quite simply, the 
amendment complements House Resolution 250, which was adopted this 
afternoon, by placing the responsibility on the lobbyist, Mr. Chairman, 
as opposed to solely on the recipient.
  On the floor today we have heard from many Members expressing their 
frustration with the expansion of gift rules by which they must 
ethically abide, but without any accountability by the lobbyists. This 
is quite a disparity, if we are to enact true accountability to the 
relationships between lobbyists and Members of Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that my colleagues are concerned about any 
amendments that come before this House with regard to this important 
bill. However, I believe that this amendment is a strengthening 
provision and not a weakening one. While I endorse all of the 
provisions in this legislation, I firmly believe that my amendment will 
made a good bill even better, and we can finally attain the lobby 
reform we want in this country that will restore the people's trust and 
confidence in this House, and I believe this amendment will go a long 
way in maintaining the trust people want to have in their Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inquire of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] whether he will insist on his point of order.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I will not insist now, I 
will withdraw it, but I would encourage any Members who do have any 
amendments to get them to us. I know the gentleman meant no 
discourtesy, it moved more rapidly than he had anticipated and it was 
not his fault, but now that we are in the amendment process, any 
Members who have amendments, if they could get them to us so we could 
review them for parliamentary purposes, that would expedite things.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of the point of order.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, 
although I certainly commend the gentleman for his interests in the 
receipt of gifts by Members of Congress. That is an issue, of course, 
that has consumed the considerations of the House today as we have 
moved forward with the passage of a change in the House rules which 
will essentially prohibit Members from receiving gifts.
  In light of that action by the House today, I find that this 
amendment is a little unusual. I do not know that there is a need for 
this amendment in light of the action of the House, that the House took 
earlier this very day.
  Let me further say, Mr. chairman, that my primary reason for opposing 
this amendment, in addition to the fact that it is unnecessary and 
duplicative of the restrictions that we imposed on ourselves by our own 
actions earlier today, this amendment, like all the other amendments 
which are going to be offered, may be offered with the very best of 
intentions, but if a single one of these amendments is adopted that 
poses a great threat to this bill. It poses a threat to derail this 
reform effort.
  We have recounted the history of 40 years of inaction and stalemate 
and gridlock on this subject of lobbying disclosure reform. Now is the 
time to move beyond the gridlock.

                              {time}  2130

  So, I would urge the Members of the House to vote against the 
amendment. I would encourage the gentleman to withdraw his amendment, 
in light of the action taken earlier today by the House on this 
subject. But, I commend the gentleman for his interest in the issue, 
and would simply ask that the Members look at this in the proper 
context.
  Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman is interested in reform, but this 
amendment, which is advanced in the name of reform, will actually have 
the potential to derail this major reform effort, so I would oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond briefly to the point raised 
with regard to the prior legislation, which was a rule adopted this 
afternoon under the Gingrich-Solomon amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, frankly, while that placed a duty on the Members not to 
accept gifts from lobbyists, this legislation takes it one step further 
to protect the Member by saying the lobbyists cannot give us gifts, and 
rather than have a Member who is trying to comply with the law be 
entrapped, here under this legislation we would not have lobbyists 
giving gifts to Members. Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of what is right 
and fair about Congress, this should not be necessary.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's intentions, but I would 
join with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] in opposing this on 
two grounds. First, it will interfere with the likelihood of this bill 
becoming law if we send this back to the Senate and we have differences 
between our gift ban and the Senate ban.
  In fact, one of the things we talked about was whether or not Members 
could receive products from their home State. Now, with the objection 
of the gentleman from Iowa before, products from the State were ruled 
out under the gift ban, but they are an exception here. So, we have 
somewhat of a mismatch between them.
  Beyond that, I would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I do not 
think it is an appropriate thing for us to say, namely, that having 
passed the rule that said we could not accept these things, we somehow 
need further protection against the temptation of having them offer 
them to us.
  To say that the Members need further protection because it would be 
against the rule for the Member to because it would be against the rule 
for the Member to accept it and we therefore, want to make sure the 
lobbyist does not offer it, I think does the Members a disservice. And 
as far as the unwary Member, I think the notion of a Member sauntering 
aimlessly through the halls and being ambushed by a gift-bearing 
lobbyist and before the Member has time to reject the gift, the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct ``police'' come and the 
Member is hauled off to the basement of the Capitol to be made to give 
up the T-shirt that was now illegal for him to receive, because we are 
not letting Members have T-shirts. I just think that the notion that 
we, having adopted a stiff rule that says Members cannot accept gifts, 
that we need to protect Members against the temptation of people 
offering them gifts is unwise.

  But over and above that, Mr. Chairman, I would hope the gentleman 
would agree with us then even if he believes that this has merit, and 
it has some merit, it is not worth the jeopardy we would encounter in 
the other body if we were to change this. I would just say to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, I have heard us get all tangled up in T-
shirts. I can just imagine what the Members of the other body would do. 


[[Page H 13117]]

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just make the point that this amendment has 
been explained as an amendment to protect Members of Congress. I do not 
think we need protection. I think we can ensure that we follow the 
Rules of the House. We do not need to impose penalties on people 
outside the House to ensure that we do not violate our own rules.
  It would be quite a shame to pass an amendment to protect Members of 
the House and, in the process, derail this important reform effort. I 
think our focus needs to be on protecting the American people and 
ensuring that the American people have access to the information they 
are entitled to have about lobbying activities here in Washington. That 
is what this bill does.
  This amendment, although it is very well intended and I respect the 
gentleman's motives, I know that he is entirely supportive of the 
legislation and he has no intent to cause harm to it. I believe despite 
the gentleman's pure intentions, the consequence of adopting this 
amendment can be very harmful to our effort.
  Mr. Chairman, if it is adopted, it will prevent this House from 
taking up the Senate bill, passing it, and sending it directly to the 
President. That is the direct result of the adoption of this or any 
other amendment. I urge that the Members of the House defeat this and 
all other amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English].
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, it is a violation of the 
law to offer a policeman a bribe, much as it is a violation of the law 
for the policeman to accept the bribe. I think it is somehow 
fundamental here that we should sanction this behavior on both ends.
  Similarly, if we are serious about a gift ban, I think we should also 
impose a sanction on the deliberate and intentional giving of a gift 
that is illegal.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that the Fox amendment is a distinct 
improvement on this underlying bill, which I am a strong supporter of 
and intend to offer an amendment to as well.
  Let me just suggest to the gentlemen who have been making a very 
eloquent argument here that this bill should be kept pristine, that 
there should be no role of the House in improving this legislation, may 
I suggest that we are considering a reform bill here, but not the 
Pentateuch. There is nothing sacred about the underlying bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is incumbent upon us in the House of 
Representatives to pass the best reform bill that we possibly can. If 
we have to take that to conference, then we should have the discipline 
to insist that our conferees come forward with a product that we can 
approve and send to the White House. I do not think we should skip a 
step merely out of convenience.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I did want to say that the gentleman said we were 
arguing this bill was pristine. I did not argue that it was pristine. 
Indeed, the gentleman from Florida and I think it could benefit from 
some further amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, what we believe is that at this point, we jeopardize 
the chance to get anything if we amend it. We, therefore, are proposing 
not that this never be changed, but that we do it in a two-step 
process; that we get a bill signed into law, and that we immediately 
begin to take up a second round.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair 
regarding the amount of time remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] has 10 
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] has 4 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has 
4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield my time to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts yields the time back 
to the gentleman from Florida.
  The gentleman from Florida now has 8\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, it is intoxicating to be in an environment 
where we are working on a bipartisan basis. I did not think so soon I 
would actually stand up and oppose one of my best friends in Congress, 
and someone who I have such high respect for, but I oppose the 
amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] primarily based 
on the fact that he puts in tremendous jeopardy an effort that began in 
the Senate, came to the Committee on the Judiciary, was passed by the 
subcommittee and the full committee without amendment, to finally get 
us to reform the Lobbying Disclosure Act.
  Mr. Chairman, if I recall, the gentleman from Pennsylvania was born 
in 1947. In 1946, before the gentleman was born, was the last time we 
amended the Lobbying Disclosure Act, and it was gutted in 1954 by the 
Supreme Court.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to get a strong lobby disclosure bill. This 
amendment, in my judgment, however strongly the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania and others feel about it, does not merit placing in 
jeopardy such an important bill that we could send to the Senate if it 
is not amended.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the 
gentleman from Connecticut, because he is a good friend, I appreciate 
his spirit of friendship to other Members. I would point out to the 
gentleman that under the gift rule, Members are allowed to give other 
Members presents, so the gentleman from Connecticut can give a birthday 
present to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, now that he remembers his 
birthday, and it does not have to be a product of the gentleman's own 
State.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, but I do not want to 
give him this present.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller].
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, first I want to commend my friends and 
colleagues, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and all the Members that have invested 
so much time in this lobbying reform bill, which is so important to our 
effort to change how Washington works.
  Mr. Chairman, like the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] who is 
initiating the amendment that we are considering, this freshman class 
was elected to change how Washington works and brings a lot of new 
ideas to the Congress. I think that is what is really important about 
why I stand in support of the amendment of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  This amendment prohibits lobbyists from offering gifts to Members of 
Congress. Think about this. We adopted pretty much a comprehensive gift 
ban. Nothing. No gifts that Members of Congress can accept, with a few 
exceptions such as birthdays from personal friends and families. A very 
limited number of exceptions.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to think about this. There may 
be lobbyists out there who may want to take advantage of that rule that 
we have imposed to set a Member up and somehow offer a gift to a Member 
of Congress, so they can turn around and initiate an ethics violation 
against that Member of Congress for campaign purposes.

  What this amendment does, this amendment essentially puts the onus, 
the burden, on the lobbyist and prohibits them from offering the gift 
in the first place. There are 435 Members of this body. I recognize 
that the only Members of this body that had input into this bill so far 
are members of the Committee on the Judiciary. That does not total 435 
Members, and I think it is very important that the sponsors of all the 
amendments being offered have the full opportunity to offer them and of 
course the House, the 435 Members of the House have the opportunity to 
vote on them.

[[Page H 13118]]

  When the vote comes up for the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, I plan to vote ``aye'' because I believe this is a 
good idea to prohibit a lobbyist from offering a gift to a Member of 
Congress. Let us not allow a Member to be put in a bad situation. We 
made a decision not to accept gifts today. Let us make sure the 
lobbyists do not offer them.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I first of all, I appreciate 
those Members who spoke in support of the amendment. I do appreciate 
those who have written the bill and the long history it took to bring 
this legislation to fruition. As my colleagues know, I strongly support 
the legislation, as was noted by the author, the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Canady].
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation is excellent. The amendment we think 
makes it stronger. In fact, I feel certain it does make it stronger. It 
places an affirmative duty on the lobbyist not to give the gift.
  As it was described by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English] 
and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller], others could thwart that 
process by in fact leaving gifts at Members' offices and reporting it 
later for political gain. Mr. Chairman, we know that appearance is 
reality in politics, and this would keep service with integrity at the 
forefront.
  Mr. Chairman, no one who is offering amendments, I believe, 
especially mine is not being offered, to thwart the effort. The fact 
that there has not been amendment to the bill since 1946 is 
regrettable, but the 104th Congress did not start until January 4 this 
year, and I am pleased to see that there is a bipartisan effort to move 
this legislation forward.
  The people of the United States have a zero tolerance when it comes 
to the gifts. My colleagues can see how quickly we passed House 
Resolution 250 today, because no one believes that those who come to 
Congress should privately benefit from that experience in the way of 
gifts or trips or entertainment. No one runs for this office to receive 
the gifts. No one runs for reelection for that purpose as well.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the people's House and the public wants to keep 
the confidence in our House. By not having gifts, we do not have to 
worry about the recordkeeping that we will forget because we are too 
busy trying to get legislation adopted, answering constituent problems, 
or doing casework, work which is most important.

                              {time}  2145

  This is a concept that is long overdue. I believe it is as important 
as the bill itself to having lobbying disclosure. It is a bipartisan 
bill. I believe that to maintain the integrity of the office, to make 
sure it is consistent with H. Res. 250, I believe the amendment is 
consistent with the bill. It complements the bill. It is given in good 
faith. I think both the Republican and Democratic floor leaders know of 
the fact that I come here with the idea of comity, cooperation and to 
make sure that we are only doing the best for America, for this House 
and for the ethics that we want to see pursued and upheld. It is in 
that spirit that the amendment was offered and is being supported by a 
few of my colleagues and hopefully a great number more tomorrow.
  I hope that the makers understand that we all want to see the 
legislation itself, H.R. 2564, passed and adopted so that we have for 
the first time the modern improvement and disclosure of lobbying 
activities in the United States as well as making sure that lobbyists 
do not offer gifts to Congressmen because that is also not in the 
spirit of what this Congress is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. I want to again express my admiration to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania. He is a valuable Member of the House. I respect his 
motivation in bringing forward this amendment.
  But I have to consider the history of the way the issue of lobbying 
disclosure reform has been dealt with. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
who spoke earlier, indicated that the House and the Senate should have 
an opportunity to work on this issue. I believe.
  The fact of the matter is that the House and the Senate have been 
working on this issue for 40 years, but nothing has happened to pass a 
law. I do not want us to continue to work on it during this Congress 
and see the same result that we have seen over the last 40 years. We 
have seen this history of failure after failure. It is simply time that 
we break the gridlock. It is time for this Congress on a bipartisan 
basis to recognize that we have to get the job done, that we may not 
have a perfect bill, but that we have a bill that moves us forward in a 
significant way.
  If the House adopts amendments, what will happen? I do not have a 
crystal ball to tell Members for certain how things will flow from 
that, but I can look at the history of the way this issue has been 
dealt with. And that history leads me to believe that there is a very 
great chance that this bill would go back to the Senate and that would 
be the last we would hear of it.
  In this Congress. That would be such a shame. We have an historic 
opportunity to take up this bill, which has come true through the 
Senate and is identical to the bill that has emerged from the Committee 
on the Judiciary. We can take up that Senate bill and pass it and put 
it on the President's desk for him to sign. I believe that the 
President would sign it. I believe that we can make this reform happen 
and I believe that is what we should do.
  This amendment will interfere with that. I would urge the Members of 
the House to defeat the amendment offered by my good friend from the 
State of Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Fox] will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?


                    amendment offered by mr. clinger

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Clinger: Beginning on page 25, 
     redesignate sections 8 through 24 as sections 9 through 25, 
     respectively, strike ``this Act'' each place it occurs and 
     insert ``this Act (other than section 8)'', and insert after 
     line 2 the following:

     SEC 8. PROHIBITION ON USE OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR LOBBYING.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter III of chapter 13 of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 1354. Prohibition on lobbying by Federal agencies

       ``(a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     until or unless such activity has been specifically 
     authorized by an Act of Congress and notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, no funds made available to any 
     Federal agency, by appropriation, shall be used by such 
     agency for any activity (including the preparation, 
     publication, distribution, or use of any kit, pamphlet, 
     booklet, public presentation, news release, radio, 
     television, or film presentation, video, or other written or 
     oral statement) that is intended to promote public support or 
     opposition to any legislative proposal (including the 
     confirmation of the nomination of a public official or the 
     ratification of a treaty) on which congressional action is 
     not complete.
       ``(b) Construction.--
       (1) Communications.--Subsection (a) shall not be construed 
     to prevent officers or employees of Federal agencies from 
     communicating directly to Members of Congress, through the 
     proper official channels, their requests for legislation or 
     appropriations that they deem necessary for the efficient 
     conduct of the public business or from responding to requests 
     for information made by Members of Congress.
       ``(2) Officials.--Subsection (a) shall not be construed to 
     prevent the President, Vice President, any Federal agency 
     official whose appointment is confirmed by the Senate, any 
     official in the Executive Office of the President directly 
     appointed by the President or Vice President, or the head of 
     any Federal agency described in paragraph (2) or (3) of 
     subsection (d), from communicating with the American public, 
     through radio, television, or other public communication 
     media, on the views of the President for or against any 
     pending legislative proposal. The preceding sentence shall 
     not permit any such official to delegate to another person 
     the authority to make communications subject to the exemption 
     provided by such sentence.
       ``(c) Comptroller General.--

[[Page H 13119]]

       ``(1) Assistance of Inspector General.--In exercising the 
     authority provided in section 712, as applied to this 
     section, the Comptroller General may obtain, without 
     reimbursement from the Comptroller General, the assistance of 
     the Inspector General within whose Federal agency activity 
     prohibited by subsection (a) of this section is under review.
       ``(2) Evaluation.--One year after the date of the enactment 
     of this section, the Comptroller General shall report to the 
     Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate on the implementation of this section.
       ``(3) Annual report.--The Comptroller General shall, in the 
     annual report under section 719(a), include summaries of 
     investigations undertaken by the Comptroller General with 
     respect to subsection (a).
       ``(d) Definition.--For purpose of this section, the term 
     `Federal agency' means--
       ``(1) any executive agency, within the meaning of section 
     105 of title 5; and
       ``(2) any private corporation created by a law of the 
     United States for which the Congress appropriates funds.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     chapter 13 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 1353 the 
     following new item:
``1354. Prohibition on lobbying by Federal agencies.''.

       (c) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to the use of funds after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, including funds appropriated or 
     received on or before such date.

  Mr. CLINGER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and a Member opposed will 
each be recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment and claim the 15 minutes in opposition. I yield 7\1/2\ 
minutes of that time to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] 
and ask unanimous consent that he may be permitted to yield blocks of 
time to other Members.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] will 
be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Frank] will be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, at the outset let me say that I want to commend the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] for this legislation. And I know the long 
hours, months, years almost that has gone into bringing this measure 
before us tonight.
  I am also sensitive to the concerns that they have raised this 
evening about wanting to keep a clean bill. I can understand their 
concern that we might again jeopardize the hope of getting true lobby 
reform legislation. But I would remind the Members of this body that 
this is an open rule. The Committee on Rules did provide us with an 
open rule. The amendment which I am bringing forward, I think, fits 
very admirably into the legislation that is being considered. It is an 
improving measure. It will definitely strengthen the bill, I think. And 
I think it also, I would suggest that it would be remiss of us to be 
intimidated by what the other body may or may not do. I think we need 
to do our work, do our business here, and trust that the other body 
will be reasonable in this regard.
  I would tell Members at the outset that we have had strong 
indications from Members of the other body that they would be 
supportive of the inclusion in this measure.
  What we are addressing, Mr. Chairman, in this legislation is a matter 
of some concern and one that I think is shared by most of the Members 
of this body. That is, what the executive branch does with taxpayer 
dollars in the way of lobbying.
  Frankly, I got this idea for this amendment because we were receiving 
many, many concerns from many Members where they had heard from their 
constituents that they had been exposed to various efforts by one or 
another executive branch agency to apply grass roots lobbying. 
Initially it was just a trickle and then it was a flood.
  We have had many, many examples of this. As they say, the proof is in 
the pudding, and we have compiled a top 10 reasons to support the 
Clinger amendment. And there are examples that include an employee 
check stub from the Department of Veterans Affairs opposing the House 
budget plan. Secretary Ron Brown had an invitation to attend a briefing 
to oppose the Mica commerce legislation.
  There was a letter that we received from the National Spa and Pool 
Institute complaining about receiving lobbying materials from an agency 
that regulates that industry, namely the EPA. And Members might ask, as 
certainly I did, is there not a law on the books that would preclude an 
executive branch agency from lobbying through grass roots organizations 
to try and bring pressure to bear on the Congress. There is. The law is 
on the books. It is the Anti-Lobbying Act, passed in 1919. It is a 
criminal statute. The law itself is very unclear and has been the 
subject of numerous opinions, often conflicting, on what it means and 
how broadly it reaches.

  During the last 75 years, Mr. Chairman, no one, not one individual, 
has been prosecuted under this law. Frankly, having the Department of 
Justice as the enforcing agency is a little bit like having the fox 
guarding the chicken coop.
  The amendment that I am offering is modeled after a provision that 
has been included, civil provision that has been included in the 
Interior appropriations bill since 1978. So this is not a partisan 
issue. This has been applied to Republican administrations since it was 
put into the Interior appropriations bill in 1978. The amendment covers 
only Federal agencies and provides that no funds would be used for any 
activity that is intended to promote public support or opposition to 
any legislative proposal, including preparation of pamphlets, kits, 
booklets, et cetera. However Federal officials can continue to 
communicate directly with Members of Congress and provide information 
and respond to requests from Members.
  In addition, the President, the Vice President, Senate confirmed 
appointees and other White House officials would be able to continue to 
communicate positions to the public. This is a reasonable and not an 
unduly restrictive amendment. The comptroller general would enforce the 
provisions if the funds have been expended in violation. And in 
addition, the GAO must report on the implementation of the legislation 
one year after enactment.
  This is good government reform, Mr. Chairman. If we apply lobbying 
reform to Congress, we should also apply it to the executive branch.
  For those who are thinking perhaps this is a partisan effort, and 
there may be those on the other side who would suggest that there was 
partisan animus here, I would like to point out that it really is not. 
Once enacted into law, such a provision would remain through all future 
administrations, and there were certainly examples we could point to 
during past years. The Reagan defense department organized defense 
contractors and spent money on a grass roots campaign to build support 
for the C-5B. That was wrong. It should not have been allowed to go 
forward, just as some of the activity that is going on in this 
administration should not be allowed to go forward.
  So, as I said, Mr. Chairman, we do have strong indication the Senate 
would be willing to accept this. I would stress the fact again, we 
really should not allow ourselves to be intimidated and allow our 
business to be thwarted by what the other body may or may not do. I 
urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to express my admiration for the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  I have looked at this amendment. I think that this amendment does 
address a real problem that exists. Based on my review of it, I believe 
it is an 

[[Page H 13120]]
idea that I would support. However, I do not believe that this bill 
should be subjected to this amendment. I think this is the wrong place 
to bring this up.
  This is an issue that is within the jurisdiction of the committee 
that the gentleman from Pennsylvania chairs. I know that this is an 
issue on which he has devoted or to which he has devoted a considerable 
amount of time. I believe that it is an issue which could move forward.
  I fully accept that the gentleman here is acting because he believes 
that this is a problem that needs to be addressed and intends no harm 
to this bill. But my fear, again, is that, if we look at the history of 
the way this issue of lobbying disclosure reform has proceeded, we see 
that there have been many slips along the way that have prevented the 
ultimate success of various efforts.
  Now, I think we can repeat history in this Congress, and I do not 
know that there is any way that we can be assured that the Senate would 
accept this language or any other language. That is something that the 
Senate decides. But what I am concerned about is the very real fact 
that we have to recognize that there are people who do not want this 
legislation to pass, people who do not want lobbying disclosure.
  I do not believe that the gentleman from Pennsylvania is opposed to 
this. I believe that he supports the underlying bill. I have every 
confidence of that. But there are people who wish to see this bill 
derailed. I have seen evidence of that in a number of different ways. I 
think we have to be cognizant of that, and we have to be aware that 
this opportunity can slip away from us.
  It is here. We have it. We have a good bill. It is a bill that has 
wide support. It has support from many of the people who are going to 
be subjected to the very requirements that are imposed by the bill. It 
is recognized as a reasonable, responsible approach, and it is 
something that we can go to the American people with and we can tell 
them that we are acting to protect their rights. We are acting to 
ensure that they have the knowledge that they are entitled to have.
  I want to make sure that we do that in short order. I wanted to make 
certain that no amendments are adopted that will prevent us from moving 
forward to that goal.
  Again, I respect the gentleman who is offering the amendment. I 
appreciate his interest in this issue. Quite frankly, when I spoke of 
different categories of amendments that would be considered, I said 
that there were some with merit, some that had less merit, and some 
that were simply bad ideas. I think that this is one of the amendments 
that is meritorious because I do believe there are problems. I do not 
think this is a partisan issue because, as the gentleman said, this 
would affect the current administration and future administrations. But 
there is a way to accomplish this goal.
  I do not believe the way to accomplish this goal is by threatening 
the lobbying disclosure bill. This is really a somewhat different 
issue. It is within the jurisdiction of a different committee. I 
believe that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] could move 
forward with his idea as a separate bill. I believe that the Congress 
would adopt it.
  This is not the time to bring it up. This is not the vehicle. I would 
urge the Members of the House to reject this amendment so that we can 
get on with the process of breaking the gridlock that has existed for 
the last 40 years on lobbying disclosure reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I agree with the thrust of the gentleman from Florida's comments. I 
would add a couple. Let us stress this is not within the Committee on 
the Judiciary's jurisdiction, and it is not about the regulation of 
private lobbyists.

                              {time}  2200

  We have a bill brought out by the Committee on the Judiciary that 
deals with private lobbyists. This has in common the word ``lobbying'' 
but it is a different set of issues. This is a potential abuse of 
public funds by the executive branch. That presents a very different 
set of issues than the question of disclosure and influence from 
various private interests, and putting the two together really does not 
have a great deal of legislative justification except there is a train 
leaving the station, and people who have a good idea would like to jump 
to it. That would not necessarily be a problem except that it can 
jeopardize passage.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania fairly said this is not partisan. 
This kind of lobbying has been done by Democratic and Republican 
administrations in the past, they do it in the future, but that is part 
of the problem because Democratic and Republican administrations will 
oppose this bill. This is not simply a Senate problem. This invites a 
veto. It invites a veto from President Clinton, it would have invited a 
veto from President Bush, it would have invited a veto from President 
Reagan.
  So, I would hope the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], using 
his chairmanship of the committee, would bring up a piece of 
legislation separately and let us deal with it, but I acknowledge what 
he says is true. This is not a partisan one, this is an interbranch 
one, but we have got a piece of legislation that addresses a real 
problem that we have been assured, because we have got a letter from 
the White House, they will sign it. The Senate has passed it. We send 
it to them, they will sign it.

  Now the gentleman asks to add to that a matter not of partisan 
strife, but of interbranch strive, and to take where we have a 
consensus bill, to regulate and improve the regulation of private-
sector lobbying and add to it a bill, which as my friend from 
Pennsylvania candidly said, and I agree with him, it is more of an 
executive branch versus a legislative rather than a partisan one, to 
add that is to invite a veto or to have people in the Senate who are 
like this, suddenly become defenders of executive branch prerogative 
and lobby against it.
  So far that reason, because it is a different subject, and because 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] has the ability to bring 
the bill out--the gentleman from Pennsylvania can bring this bill out 
at any time, it can come to the floor, we can debate it. I have some 
questions about some of the substance. It says, for instance, that 
press releases or oral statements can be done by the direct appointee 
but they cannot delegate it. As I read this, the problem the way it is 
drafted is, if the Secretary of State asked a non-Presidential 
appointee to draft a press release on an issue that was pending before 
the Congress, that would be a violation. I think that is overdrafted. I 
would like to deal with that, but let us deal with it in a separate 
bill brought out by the gentleman's committee, because to take this 
matter of executive versus legislative prerogative and add it to this 
other bill is probably more complicated than almost anything else. That 
is not to go to the merits of it, but it is clearly inviting a veto or 
a Senate filibuster before we get to a veto, and it will, I think, 
endanger the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I state at this point that the amendment is germane to 
the discussion this evening.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Tauzin], the prime cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Clinger] for yielding this time to me, and indeed I join him in 
cosponsorship of this amendment. It is a very worthy amendment. I, too, 
am delighted with the bipartisan nature of this debate tonight and 
would want to commend all the parties. It is about time for this.
  Let me say right up front this is the right place for this amendment. 
This bill is the right bill for this amendment, and I support this bill 
as I support this amendment. Why is it the right place for this 
amendment? This is a bill designed to deal with inappropriate lobbying 
influences upon this Congress. One of the most inappropriate lobbying 
influences upon this Congress is a use of taxpayer funds by agencies of 
our own executive government to influence and indeed to use those funds 


[[Page H 13121]]
to hopefully affect the outcome of legislation before this body. The 
evidences of it are numerous. The outrageous evidences of it have come 
to the floor only just recently before this body. Examples of it are 
like the one I would cite where SBA actually sent materials out to 
small businesses across America to urge them to support, support the 
Clinton health plan last year, actively lobbying businesses that they 
are supposed to help organize to engage themselves in a campaign for a 
proposition before this House and the Senate. Examples like that are 
numerous.
  Second, the inappropriateness of this use of taxpayer funds in 
support of issues, in opposition to issues, before this Congress is 
often in collusion with private lobby groups who work before this body 
to influence the decisions that are made here. Here is a typical 
example. ``Taking it too far, a slide slow and panel discussion held at 
LSU in Baton Rouge.'' Sponsored by whom? Sponsored by the Coastal 
Energy and Environmental Resources Center, Sierra Club, Delta Chapter, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Corps of Engineers to learn 
more about regulatory takings and the harmful potential effects of 
taking bills before the Congress, agencies of our Government using 
taxpayer funds to work with lobby groups organized to influence 
legislation before this Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, no one, no one should allow that to happen under 
Democratic or Republican regimes. If ever there was a nonpartisan 
amendment that was offered in the right place at the right time, this 
is it. We ought to adopt this amendment. We ought to say affirmatively 
in the law that agencies of our Government indeed can communicate with 
Congress, agencies of our Government can indeed express administrative 
positions to the general public, but no agency ought to use taxpayer 
funds whether by themselves or in collusion with private lobby groups 
to influence the outcome of legislation before this body. That ought to 
be illegal. This amendment makes it illegal.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield to myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] makes some 
very important points. He has pointed out some examples which are very 
troubling. They trouble me, and I believe that the Congress should act 
to deal with those problems. I simply do not think that this is the 
right place or the right time, and I would like to follow up on the 
excellent point that the gentleman from Massachusetts made.
  This issue represents a conflict between the legislative branch and 
the executive branch. It is fraught with the potential for a veto, and 
I do not believe that lobbying disclosure reform should be held hostage 
to this issue of executive branch lobbying, and I am afraid that that 
is what would happen. I am afraid that we would see a scenario in which 
this bill would be sent to the President, potentially with this in it, 
if everything went as we would like to have it, and we were able to get 
it through both houses, it would go to the President, and the President 
would veto it, and once again we would have failed to address the 
critical issue of lobbying disclosure reform that the Congress has been 
working on for 40 years without any product in terms of a new law being 
passed.
  I respect the motivations of the proponents of this amendment, as I 
have said. I understand that they have identified a real problem, they 
are looking for a way to address it. But this is not the only vehicle 
in town. We are seeing a plethora of amendments coming forward, and I 
will guarantee my colleagues, given the history of this, I do not know 
that this is such a great vehicle to begin with, given the way this 
issue has not moved to final passage, so I would urge them maybe to re-
evaluate whether this is indeed such a good vehicle.
  The point is, if we can keep these amendments off, the House will 
have the opportunity to send this bill directly to the President, see 
it passed into law, and in the midst of all the conflict that is going 
on in Washington now, all the fighting that is going on and the 
stalemate that we see, and we all have our different views of why that 
is and who is to blame, but in the midst of that if we could pass this 
bipartisan reform effort and send it to the President for his 
signature, I think we would be sending a message to the American people 
that we can work together.
  When we will listen to one another and when we will focus on the good 
of the American people, we can accomplish something that will benefit 
the people of this country, and this disclosure effort is good for 
democracy, it will help restore public confidence in the system of 
government established by our Constitution, and it will help eliminate 
some questions that now exist about the lobbying activities that go on 
in Washington.
  So I would urge that we move forward with that effort, and reject 
this amendment and all other amendments to this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding me this time, and I say that I was contemplating not opposing 
this amendment for two reasons: One, I like it, and second, it is being 
offered by the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight, who is my chairman, and I believe the best chairman in 
Congress. He has made that committee such an outstanding committee. I 
hope he does not tell the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] that I said 
that.
  My big concern is that this amendment has never had a hearing, never 
really had the opportunity to be considered, and I would like to 
encourage my chairman to offer this as a bill, take it up in our 
committee, allow people on both sides of the aisle to come before the 
committee, allow the administration to defend some of the outrageous 
things they have been doing and some that have been done in previous 
administrations, because this has been an abuse.
  What a golden opportunity to set on the record a document that would 
justify its passage, and so I hope that by the time I wake up tomorrow 
the chairman of my Committee on Government Reform and Oversight will 
realize that it really belongs in the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight. This is not the right place or the right time in my 
judgment to tack on so many amendments to this lobby disclosure bill 
when it has not passed in over 50 years or 49 years. When nothing has 
gotten through this Chamber in nearly 50 years, to me it is just to 
invite a very unfortunate situation, and that is that lobby disclosure 
will once again be killed.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Horn], chairman of the Subcommittee on Government 
Management, Information, and Technology.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, this has been a great day for reform. This is 
the second great day this year. The first was the first day of this 
Congress when we applied the workplace laws. Thanks to my colleague, 
the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], we got rid of proxies, we 
cut committee staff, term limits on committee chairs.
  Reform is growing in this country. A good example is California. 
Within 2 months, 100,000 people signed up to start a new reform party 
in California. People want us to get the job done. Today we had a great 
victory. The Speaker's proposal to ban all gifts was overwhelmingly 
adopted except by a handful of Members.
  Now we need to finish this day tonight and tomorrow. We ought to 
accept reasonable amendments. The Clinger amendment is a reasonable 
amendment. I happen to think the Traficant amendment to deal with 
foreign lobbyists is a reasonable amendment. I do not think we who have 
equal bicameral status with the other body should simply tailor things 
to what we think might or might not be done in the other body. They 
have to feel the pressure of the people, they will feel the pressure of 
the people. A President that vetoes this bill because this provision is 
in it will feel the wrath of the people. So will the Members of the 
United States Senate feel that wrath.
  The fact is here we have a complete misuse of taxpayer money by 
government officials regardless of party. It goes back for years. We 
need to hone 

[[Page H 13122]]
this in at the source of it, and it is Cabinet officers that are using 
civil servants that are there to operate programs to stir up kits for 
them and fliers and all the rest that can be used by lobby groups to 
come here and tell us the glories of this program or that program.

                              {time}  2215

  Let those lobby groups pay their own way. We should not have to be 
using taxpayer dollars.
  Thomas Jefferson had it right when he talked about religious freedom. 
We ought to be talking about political freedom. We said, in conclusion, 
``To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for propaganda and 
opinion which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.'' I 
thank Jefferson was right. I think the clinger amendment comes at the 
right time. We have a whole series of cases. We do not need to hold a 
hearing to find that it exists. It exists.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, partisanship does now appear to be 
rearing its head. We now see a threat to this bill. The gentleman from 
California was fair and talked about problems in previous 
administrations and an executive branch problem, but the gentleman who 
just spoke and the other gentleman used this as a platform to attack 
the Clinton administration. That is going to unravel this kind of 
consensus.
  There was documentation only about recent problems. Yes, there have 
been tensions between the executive and the legislative, but the 
gentleman from California and the gentleman from Louisiana want to make 
this into a platform for attacking the current administration. No, you 
are not going to easily get a bill both back again through the other 
body and then signed by the President when it does this.
  I am very surprised to hear my friend, the gentleman from California, 
say this does not need hearings. Every bill needs hearings and a markup 
to make sure you get it right. For example, this bill does, it seems to 
me to say that a press release can only be done if it deals with any 
pending legislative issue, including a nomination by the Cabinet head 
himself or herself. It says you cannot delegate this. Saying that you 
respond to an oral request for an interview, it can only be done by the 
Cabinet head himself or herself. No legislation does not need a 
hearing.
  I think if this is what we are going to have, that this kind of 
partisan attack on one administration, no reference, except the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, to the fact that this has been done 
previously, then you are not going to get legislation. If you care 
about it, you control the subcommittee and the committee, where is your 
bill? Why did you not bring a bill out? If this is so important, what 
have you been waiting for? Have your hearing, have your markup, bring a 
bill and let us debate it, but do not catch a ride on this train when 
you know it is going to derail it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] has the right 
to close.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is very significant to note it has been 40 
years since we got to this now. I do not want to wait another 40 years 
before we get to the part of the problem that we have. I think this 
Clinger amendment addresses some of the important problems that we have 
now. I am sorry, I am a freshman here. I do not have a lot of 
experience on previous administrations. I do want to thank the current 
administration, because I think they had something to do with me being 
here.
  I have found that there are agencies today that are abusing the 
system by sending out mailings in the hopes of influencing legislation. 
These are not individuals, these are not nonprofit groups, these are 
not private sector companies, these are Federal agencies that are using 
lobbying money, using money to lobby for more tax dollars to be spent 
on their agency.
  In June this year, the Department of Energy sent out a mailing that 
was timed in correspondence, they sent out 10,000 of these to private 
individuals and businesses, at the cost of $3.50 each. June was 
selected to oppose some current legislation coming out, H.R. 993, the 
bill to abolish the Department of Energy. Part of the propaganda read, 
``Dismantling the Department of Energy only is likely to disrupt 
Secretary O'Leary's efforts to reshape the department and produce 
meaningful savings.''
  Let us talk about some of the meaningful expenditures. This is the 
agency that has over 500 public relations employees, costing taxpayers 
$25 million. This the agency that has spent over $46,000 to hire a 
private investigation firm to develop a list of unfavorable people, and 
``to work on these people a little.'' Does that sound like lobbying, to 
work on these people a little? This is the agency that has hired a 
personal media consultant for Secretary O'Leary at a cost of $75,000 
per year. These are all abuse.
  This money does not go toward any valid mission of the Department of 
Energy, not toward environment management, not toward developing an 
agency energy policy, not toward finding one drop of oil, not one valid 
mission. I think it is an abuse of taxpayer dollars. That is why I 
support the Clinger amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. I would advise Members, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Clinger] has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has one-half minute remaining, and the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] has one-half minute remaining.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my 
time to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] now has 1 
minute remaining.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Cooley].
  Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Clinger amendment. 
For too long executive branch employees have improperly used 
appropriated funds to foster public support or opposition to pending 
legislation before Congress. Without a doubt, such activities are a 
blatant misuse of taxpayers' funds. The Clinger amendment does not 
impact any other Federal agency, it only targets the Federal 
Government. We must stop agencies from punching in at work, putting on 
their lobby hats, and taking taxpayers to the cleaners. The type of 
activity by the Federal bureaucrats is clearly not legitimate, and the 
Clinger amendment will halt all this abuse. The Clinger amendment is a 
key part of real government reform. It is not partisan in any way, and 
would apply permanently to no matter what administration was in place.
  There have been abuses in previous administrations, but nothing has 
been done. The Department of Justice as the enforcing agency, we are 
giving a pack of wolves a red-carpet route to the sheep herd.
  Federal bureaucracies should not be picking favors to one group or 
another pursuant to their own self-interest. Their jobs are to carry 
out the law passed by Congress not give speeches on congressional 
legislation or play lobbyists.
  Enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to support the endeavors and 
vote on the Clinger amendment. If we do not make the most of this 
opportunity to hold Federal bureaucracies accountable for fulfilling 
their proper duty, then we in Congress should be held accountable. Let 
us not drop the ball on this one, let us support the amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] has 1 
minute remaining.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am sensitive to the fact that there is 
concern here about passing true lobby reform. I would point out, 
however, that we do have time. This is, after all, only the first 
session of the 104th Congress, so if there is a need to go to a 
conference, that can be done. May I also say that there are other ways 
in which this can be done, if in fact this piece of legislation happens 
to bog down.
  Let me just in closing point out some of the organizations that have 
strongly endorsed this legislation: the National Taxpayers Union, the 
National Federation of Independent Businessmen, the 

[[Page H 13123]]
Chamber of Commerce, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the National 
Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, Citizens Against Government 
Waste, the Chamber of Commerce, and many, many others.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that has broad-based support 
because the need is very apparent. The abuse that has been throughout 
many administrations needs to be corrected. This amendment does correct 
it, does it in a reasonable and very fair way. I would urge support of 
the amendment.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Members of the House keep their eye on 
the ball as we go through this debate. We have to keep focused on what 
the underlying bill is about and what we are trying to accomplish in 
the underlying bill. That is to reform lobbying disclosure, to have 
meaningful disclosure of lobbying activities that go on here in 
Washington with the executive branch and the legislative branch.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] has what I believe is a 
good idea, an idea which addresses a real problem, but I believe that 
his idea should go through the committee process, it should be 
subjected to the hearing process, there should be a markup, and his 
idea should move forward as a separate initiative. It only has the 
potential for derailing this bill which has been worked on for so long 
by so many different people. I know that is not the gentleman's 
intention, but I am very much afraid that that may be the consequence 
if his amendment is adopted. I urge the Members of the House to defeat 
this proposed amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Clinger] will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose, and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. Fox 
of Pennsylvania] having assumed the chair, Mr. Kolbe, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill, (H.R. 2564) to 
provide for the disclosure of lobbying activities to influence the 
Federal Government, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________