[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 188 (Tuesday, November 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13660-H13661]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       RECOMMENDING A LOBBYING DISCLOSURE BILL WITH NO AMENDMENTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today the House will resume 
consideration of the Lobbying Disclosure Act. As we resume 
consideration of this bill, we have a historic opportunity to pass a 
lobbying disclosure bill and send it to the President for his 
signature. We need to do that. For 40 years the Congress has been 
grappling with this issue unsuccessfully. We have seen 40 years of 
gridlock on the subject of lobbying disclosure reform. It is time that 
we end this gridlock and move forward.
  When the House begins its consideration later today of this bill, we 
will vote on four amendments. I want to bring the Member's attention to 
the substance of these amendments and urge that the Members reject 
these and all other amendments to the lobbying reform bill.
  The Washington Post summed the situation up in an editorial that 
appeared yesterday. The headline says ``Amending Lobby Reform to 
Death.'' The editorial says, ``The question now is whether the House 
will pass this bill and send it to the President or gum it up with 
amendments that would force a House-Senate conference and delay 
enactment indefinitely. The Senate 

[[Page H 13661]]
lobbying bill is worth passing, as written, and its enactment should 
not be delayed any further. The House should vote down the various 
amendments and send the bill straight to the President.
  We need to focus on the task that is before us. That is the task of 
passing lobbying disclosure reform. I have some comments on the 
particular amendments. The first amendment we will vote on is an 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox]. The 
gentleman from Pennsylvania has good intentions with his amendment, 
which would prohibit lobbyists from giving gifts to Members of 
Congress, but his amendment is unnecessary because we have already 
passed comprehensive gift reform in the House and in the Senate.
  Furthermore, his amendment is dangerous because it contains a 
definition of ``gift'' which is different from the definition contained 
in the gift reform that the House passed. The only thing that will 
result from the adoption of the Fox amendment is confusion and trouble 
for Members of the House.
  Furthermore, the amendment is unfair. It will create a double 
standard under which a lobbyist can be fined up to $50,000 in a civil 
penalty for giving a gift to a Member of Congress that is prohibited, 
while a Member of Congress does not face a similar civil penalty. Is 
that fair? Should we have one standard for imposing fines on lobbyists 
and exempt Members of Congress for fines? I do not think that is 
consistent with the spirit of reform. The Fox amendment does that, and 
it should be rejected for that reason alone.
  Another amendment that we will consider is offered by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger]. The amendment of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania deals with an important issue of lobbying by executive 
agencies. I believe there have been some abuses there which should be 
corrected, but the amendment of Mr. Clinger is poorly drafted, it has 
not been through the committee process, and it will create all sorts of 
problems.
  Under the Clinger amendment, agency press officers would not be 
allowed to answer inquiries from the press regarding the agency's 
position on legislative proposals. Does that make any sense I do not 
think so. This proposal goes too far. Mr. Clinger should take this back 
through his committee, which has jurisdiction of the issue, and come 
forward with a refined proposal to really address the abuse. This 
amendment by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] is designed 
and calculated to ensure a veto of this bill.

                              {time}  1245

  The President is bound to veto this bill if anything like the Clinger 
amendment is attached to it. We should not derail lobbying disclosure 
reform by adding extraneous amendments such as this.
  There are other amendments that will be considered; some of them have 
some merit. Some of them, standing alone, are amendments that I would 
support. But this is not the time; this is not the place. We need to 
get on with the business that has occupied the Congress off and on for 
more than 40 years, and if we can pass this bill and send it to the 
President I believe that we will demonstrate to the American people 
that things really have changed here in Washington, that we can 
accomplish things in this Congress that other Congresses have been 
unable to deal with.
  So I would encourage the Members to support lobbying disclosure 
reform and oppose all amendments to the lobbying disclosure reform 
bill. These amendments all have one thing in common. They will derail 
this effort to reform this law, which everyone admits desperately needs 
reforming.

                          ____________________