[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 189 (Wednesday, November 29, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13738-H13745]
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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2564.

                              {time}  1032


                     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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, 
November 28, 1995, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Weller] had been disposed of and the bill was open for amendment 
at any point.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I think the votes yesterday on this bill 
are very explicit. The committee has the steam and the power to turn 
back amendments.
  Lobby disclosure, the field that I have been interested in for 5 
years, our foreign interests, individuals from our Government and 
individuals who represent the interests of foreign entities, the law 
has been so vague and so weak that two out of every three agents 
representing foreign interests do not even bother to register.
  Now, this bill addresses that to some degree, but there are still 
fines and penalties that are so huge it is like shooting a flea with a 
bazooka. As a result, the Department of Justice does not enforce it. We 
have many foreign interests lobbying the Congress of the United States. 
That basically goes unchecked, and when you try and change it, there is 
always a good reason why it should not be now.
  I am not impugning the work of the fine chairman here, nor his 
intentions, but I would like to say this. Here is, in essence, what we 
are doing here in the Congress. To make a bill as good as it could be, 
maybe even make a bill great, that bill has no shot. If you want to 
pass it, send a mediocre bill to the other body who all of a sudden is 
the big decisionmaker on what our legislation should be.
  Let me inform Congress that the first Senate was appointed by State 
legislatures to protect the interests of the States. The House of 
Representatives, the House of Commons, was to protect the people of the 
country. I think it is unbelievable to me that we would have these 
foreign agents running around, not even registering, and we have taken 
token steps to clamp down on that. I think it is time to change that.
  In essence, I am taking a little bit of time away from the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] to be here, and I am hoping somebody 
else is here to offer an amendment. I am not going to offer my 
amendment first unless there is nobody else and this committee rises.
  If it is going to be defeated, then so be it, but here is what the 
Traficant 

[[Page H 13739]]
amendment says: You will have to register. If you do not register, you 
will be subject to fines, anywhere from $2,000 to $1 million. You could 
be prosecuted. You could be subpoenaed in. To register and to extend, 
you will do so January 31 and July 31. You will have known dates to do 
it. And we will know who you are. The American taxpayer should know who 
represents foreign interests.
  Technically in the past, when this law was written, it dealt with 
Nazi Germany. We were interested in spies. Well, now we have foreign 
agents whose interest is trade. Commercial interests. I would submit 
that that is a greater problem in this country today than anything else 
we deal with, with a trade deficit of $170 billion.
  Who represents China, folks? Who represents Japan? Who represents the 
European interests? Who represents any foreign interest that has an 
interest in the legislation today or an interest in the legislation 
dealing with Bosnia or dealing with appropriation matters of defense? 
That is what the issue is about.
  I am hoping that the Members of Congress will take a look at this. I 
think the committee has brought enough Democrats together to carry the 
load, that in fact they will accept no amendments because if there are 
amendments, the Senate just is not going to accept it.
  Well, as one Member of Congress, let me say this to the Senate. Quite 
frankly, Scarlett, I think the Congress should draft only the best 
legislation and that is the legislation to be signed into law.
  With that, it is good to see the venerable chairman here. I do not 
question the intentions of former Chairman Frank and Chairman Canady. I 
think you have done a fine job. I hope the Members realize that there 
are foreign interests that lobby the Government, and we are dealing 
with lobby disclosure, and we are not doing the best job we can with 
foreign interests.
  Maybe the Members might just decide to do something about it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
       Page 37, line 11, strike ``AMENDMENT'' and insert 
     ``AMENDMENTS'', in line 13 insert ``(a) Reports.--'' before 
     ``Strike'' and insert after line 21 the following:

       (b) Definitions.--
       (1) Agent of a foreign principal.--
       (A) In general.--Section 1(c) of the Foreign Agents 
     Registration Act of 1938, as amended (22 U.S.C. 611(c)), is 
     amended--
       (i) by striking ``agent of a foreign principal'' each place 
     it appears and inserting ``representative of a foreign 
     principal'';
       (ii) in paragraph (1)(iv), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (iii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (iv) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) any person who engages in political activities for 
     purposes of furthering commercial, industrial, or financial 
     operations with a foreign principal.

     For purposes of clause (1), a foreign principal shall be 
     considered to control a person in major part if the foreign 
     principal holds more than 50 percent equitable ownership in 
     such person or, subject to rebuttal evidence, if the foreign 
     principal holds at least 20 percent but not more than 50 
     percent equitable ownership in such person.''.
       (B) Further definition.--Section 1(d) of that Act (22 
     U.S.C. 611(d)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) The term `representative of a foreign principal' does 
     not include--
       ``(1) any news or press service or association organized 
     under the laws of the United States or of any State or other 
     place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, or 
     any newspaper, magazine, periodical, or other publication for 
     which there is on file with the United States Postal Service 
     information in compliance with section 3685 of title 39, 
     United States Code, published in the United States, solely by 
     virtue of any bona fide news or journalistic activities, 
     including the solicitation or acceptance of advertisements, 
     subscriptions, or other compensation therefor, so long as it 
     is at least 80 percent beneficially owned by, and its 
     officers and directors, if any, are citizens of the United 
     States, and such news or press service or association, 
     newspaper magazine, periodical, or other publication, is not 
     owned, directed, supervised, controlled, subsidized, or 
     financed, and none of its policies are determined by any 
     foreign principal defined in subsection (b) of this section, 
     or by any representative of a foreign principal required to 
     register under this Act; or
       ``(2) any incorporated, nonprofit membership organization 
     organized under the laws of the United States or of any State 
     or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
     States that is registered under section 308 of the Federal 
     Regulation of Lobbying Act and has obtained tax-exempt status 
     under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and 
     whose activities are directly supervised, directed, 
     controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole by citizens of 
     the United States.''.
       (2) Political promotional or informational materials.--
     Section 1(j) of that Act (22 U.S.C. 611(j)) is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding clause (1), by striking 
     ``propaganda'' and inserting ``promotional or informational 
     materials''; and
       (B) in clause (1), by striking ``prevail upon, 
     indoctrinate, convert, induce, or in any other way'' and 
     inserting ``in any way''.
       (3) Political activities.--Section 1(o) of that Act (22 
     U.S.C. 611(o)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``prevail upon, indoctrinate, convert, 
     induce, persuade, or in any other way'' and inserting ``in 
     any way''; and
       (B) by striking ``or changing the domestic or foreign'' and 
     inserting ``enforcing, or changing the domestic or foreign 
     laws, regulations, or''.
       (4) Political consultant.--Section 1(p) of that Act (22 
     U.S.C. 611(p)) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``any person''; and
       (B) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the 
     following: ``, or (2) who distributes political promotional 
     or informational materials to an officer or employee of the 
     United States Government, in his or her capacity as such 
     officer or employee''.
       (5) Serving predominantly a foreign interest.--Section 1(q) 
     of that Act (22 U.S.C. 611(q)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii) of the 
     proviso; and
       (B) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, and (iv) such activities do not involve the 
     representation of the interests of the foreign principal 
     before any agency or official of the Government of the United 
     States other than providing information in response to 
     requests by such agency or official or as a necessary part of 
     a formal judicial or administrative proceeding, including the 
     initiation of such a proceeding.''.
       (c) Supplemental Registration.--Section 2(b) of that Act 
     (22 U.S.C. 612(b)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence by striking ``, within thirty 
     days'' and all that follows through ``preceding six months' 
     period'' and inserting ``on January 31 and July 31 of each 
     year file with the Attorney General a supplement thereto 
     under oath, on a form prescribed by the Attorney General, 
     which shall set forth regarding the six-month periods ending 
     the previous December 31, and June 30, respectively, or, if a 
     lesser period, the period since the initial filing,''; and
       (2) by inserting after the first sentence the following new 
     sentence: ``Any registrant using an accounting system with a 
     fiscal year which is different from the calendar year may 
     petition the Attorney General to permit the filing of 
     supplemental statements at the close of the first and seventh 
     month of each such fiscal year in lieu of the dates specified 
     by the preceding sentence.''.
       (d) Removal of Exemption for Certain Countries.--Section 
     3(f) of that Act (22 U.S.C. 613(f)) is repealed.
       (e) Limiting Exemption for Legal Representation.--Section 
     3(g) of that Act (22 U.S.C. 613(g)) is amended by striking 
     ``or any agency of the Government of the United States'' and 
     all that follows through ``informal'' and inserting ``or 
     before the Patent and Trademark Office, including any written 
     submission to that Office''.
       (f) Notification of Reliance on Exemptions.--Section 3 of 
     that Act (22 U.S.C. 613) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``Any person who does not register under section 2(a) on 
     account of any provision of subsections (a) through (g) of 
     this section shall so notify the Attorney General in such 
     form and manner as the Attorney General prescribes.''.
       (g) Civil Penalties and Enforcement Provisions.--Section 8 
     of that Act (22 U.S.C. 618) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(i)(1) Any person who is determined, after notice and 
     opportunity for an administrative hearing--
       ``(A) to have failed to file when such filing is required a 
     registration statement under section 2(a) or a supplement 
     thereto under section 2(b),
       ``(B) to have omitted a material fact required to be stated 
     therein, or
       ``(C) to have made a false statement with respect to such a 
     material fact,

     shall be required to pay for each violation committed a civil 
     penalty of not less than $2,000 and not more than $1,000,000. 
     In determining the amount of the penalty, the Attorney 
     General shall give due consideration to the nature and 
     duration of the violation.
       ``(2)(A) Whenever the Attorney General has reason to 
     believe that any person may be in possession, custody, or 
     control of any documentary material relevant to an 
     investigation regarding any violation of paragraph (1) of 
     this subsection or of section 5, the Attorney General may, 
     before bringing any civil or criminal proceeding thereon, 
     issue in writing, and cause to be served upon such person, a 
     civil investigative demand requiring such person to produce 
     such material for examination.
       ``(B) Civil investigative demands issued under this 
     paragraph shall be subject to the 

[[Page H 13740]]
     applicable provisions of section 1968 of title 18, United States 
     Code.''.
       (h) Change in Short Title of the Act.--Section 14 of that 
     Act (22 U.S.C. 611 note) is amended by striking ``Foreign 
     Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended'' and inserting 
     ``Foreign Interests Representation Act''.
       (i) References to Agent of a Foreign Principal.--The 
     Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``agent of a foreign principal'' each place 
     it appears and inserting ``representative of a foreign 
     principal'';
       (2) by striking ``agents of foreign principals'' each place 
     it appears and inserting ``representatives of foreign 
     principals'';
       (3) by striking ``agent of such principal'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``representative of such principal''; 
     and
       (4) by striking ``such agent'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``such representative''.
       (j) References to Political Propaganda.--
       (1) The paragraph preceding section 1 of the Foreign Agents 
     Registration Act of 1938, as amended is amended by striking 
     ``propaganda'' and inserting ``political''.
       (2) The Foreign Interests Representation Act (other than 
     the paragraph amended by paragraph (1) of this subsection) is 
     amended by striking ``propaganda'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``promotional or informational materials''.
       (k) References to the Act.--
       (1) Section 207(f)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``Foreign Agents Registration Act of 
     1938, as amended,'' and inserting ``Foreign Interests 
     Representation Act''.
       (2) Section 219 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (a) by striking ``agent of a foreign 
     principal required to register under the Foreign Agents 
     Registration Act of 1938, as amended,'' and inserting 
     ``representative of a foreign principal required to register 
     under the Foreign Interests Representation Act''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by striking ``agent of a foreign principal'' and 
     inserting ``representative of a foreign principal'';
       (ii) by striking ``such agent'' and inserting ``such 
     representative''; and
       (iii) by striking ``Foreign Agents Registration Act of 
     1938, as amended'' and inserting ``Foreign Interests 
     Representation Act''.
       (3) Section 5210(4) of the Competitiveness Policy Council 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 4809(4)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``agent of a foreign principal'' and 
     inserting ``representative of a foreign principal''; and
       (B) by striking ``subsection (d) of the first section of 
     the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C. 611)'' 
     and inserting ``section 1(d) of the Foreign Interests 
     Representation Act (22 U.S.C. 611(d)),''.
       (4) Section 34(a) of the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 
     U.S.C. App. 34(a)) is amended by striking ``Act of June 8, 
     1934 (ch. 327, 52 Stat. 631), as amended'' and inserting 
     ``Foreign Interests Representation Act''.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (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 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Thursday, November 16, 1995, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] 
and a Member opposed each 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. 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 Florida [Mr. Canady] and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] each will be recognized for 
7\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As I discussed, every year foreign interests spend hundreds of 
millions of dollars to influence our Government. They employ topnotch 
representatives. Many times they are former staff members of key 
committees, counsel to Ways and Means. Sometimes they are Members who 
chaired the most powerful committees in the Congress.
  That evidently is a way of life, and the bill attempted to deal with 
that by banning for a lifetime U.S. Trade Representatives and Deputy 
Trade Representatives. We felt that did not go far enough.
  But the bottom line is there are several General Accounting Office 
reports, and they basically say that only one out of every three, maybe 
only one out of every four agents who represent foreign interests take 
the time to register. The Traficant amendment deals with the 
registration of these agents dealing with foreign interests, and, in 
fact, penalties to stop such abuse.
  Since that 1990 report was released by the General Accounting Office, 
the GAO wrote, neither the Justice Department nor Congress has 
adequately rectified this breach of security.
  I submitted a bill dealing with the issue. The bottom line is with 
the end of the cold war, our whole dynamic on foreign interest lobbying 
has switched from sinister underground spy networks to trade and global 
competition. Many individuals and law firms who represent interests in 
these areas are exempt from registration under the act.
  Now the bill deals with that, but not enough. The Traficant amendment 
would make them come in and submit in writing the reasons why they 
should qualify for an exemption.
  In addition to that, the bill basically, and the focus, is changed 
from foreign agent representation act to foreign interest 
representation act, and that is where it should be.
  Any person who engages in political activities for the purpose of 
furthering commercial, industrial or financial operations of a foreign 
interest would no longer be exempt. In addition, representatives of 
foreign interests will now be required to notify the Attorney General. 
Moreover, any person relying on an exemption under the act must notify 
the Justice Department of their intention to do so.
  The amendment also establishes a test to determine what constitutes 
foreign control. Entities that are more than 50 percent foreign owned 
would be presumed to be foreign controlled, and be required to 
register. Entities with a 20 to 50 percent foreign ownership would also 
be considered foreign controlled.
  But the timeliness of foreign agent registration now becomes an 
issue. Of the 28 registration statements reviewed in the GAO report, 70 
percent had not even registered on time, for those who had registered.
  Now one out of four is registering, and 70 percent of the one out of 
four is registering late. No one is really looking into them. We are 
talking about lobbying. We are worried about everybody lobbying 
Congress. I am talking about foreign interests that lobby the Congress 
of the United States. I could hear the talk. I have great respect for 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. ``Yes, it's right, Traficant, you're right, 
but not now.''
  Beam me up here.
  The penalties that are under law right now are so great the Justice 
Department shies away. The Traficant amendment puts reasonable 
penalties on. From a $2,000 civil fine up to $1 million with repeated 
abuse or significant facts.
  The Justice Department would be given the authority to subpoena 
individuals for testimony and their records. The bottom line here is, 
even though I am preaching to the wind, we are now worried about 
Bosnia, with a $40 billion trade deficit with China.
  Who represents China? We do not know. I guarantee you that. A $70-
plus billion trade deficit with Japan. Whom all of those are, we do not 
know. We have gone from a $2 billion surplus with Mexico to a $20 
billion deficit projected this year. Who represents the Government of 
Mexico? Who represents interests in Mexico?

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. Chairman, Canada, $16 billion surplus. Who represents all those 
interests? Here we are with North American free trade, Congress; we 
have a $36 billion deficit in our own hemisphere. We have chased our 
workers out of the country, chased our factories out, and we do not 
even require the people who represent those interests to register.
  The Senate, the Senate said, ``If you add this on, it is gone, boy.'' 
Let me tell you what, any Senate that would reject this commonsense 
amendment is a Senate that the American people can do without. 

[[Page H 13741]]

  I do not know how much time I have left, Mr. Chairman, but I want to 
retain some of my time to hear these illustrious rebuttals.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I appreciate the interest of the gentleman from Ohio on this issue. I 
have offered to work with the gentleman from Ohio on his concerns.
  I believe that the bill that is before the House addresses the 
concerns that the gentleman has in a very substantive way. I believe 
that the bill takes a big step forward in improving the information 
that will be available concerning foreign agents as well as persons 
representing foreign business interests.
  As I have said before on the floor, I believe that this whole issue 
of the representation of foreign interests is something that we need to 
look into with greater detail. I am committed to doing that in a 
comprehensive way early next year in the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution.
  I am concerned that, in some ways, the gentleman's amendment would 
actually weaken what we have in the bill. I think that that is a point 
that needs to be made and understood by the Members.
  But I want to work with the gentleman from Ohio. I would urge the 
gentleman from Ohio to withdraw his amendment so that we can move 
forward with this important legislation, put this legislation on the 
President's desk, and break the 40-year gridlock. I understand what the 
gentleman has said, and I respect his perspective on this.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Would the gentleman articulate where the Traficant 
amendment weakens his bill?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. I will, Mr. Chairman. For instance, H.R. 2564, 
the bill before the House now, eliminates the domestic subsidiary 
exemption which is currently in the law for foreign corporations. Your 
amendment would restore that exemption. Now, I think that is a 
weakening of the bill.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Notification would allow it. We have to know the 
reasons, sir. Let us be honest about that. Right now that exemption 
goes without notice.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I urge the Members of the 
House to focus on the issue here. We debated this at great length 
yesterday or earlier and at some length yesterday. The point here is 
that we have a bill dealing with lobby disclosure reform. This is an 
issue that has been tied up in the House and the Senate for more than 
40 years. We have seen 40 years of gridlock.
  We have a historic opportunity today to send a bill to the President 
to sign that will ensure that the public has access to information 
concerning lobbying activities here in Washington. I think it is time 
we do that.
  There is bipartisan consensus that that is what we should do. There 
is bipartisan support for this bill that passed the Senate 98 to zero.
  I do not claim that this is a perfect bill. But I do know that if 
history repeats itself, we will not get anything done on this issue, 
and I think the American people want something done and they are tired 
of excuses. They are tired of delay. They are tired of games that are 
played, and it is time that we ended that.
  So I would urge opposition to the amendment, the well-intended 
amendment, offered by the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], a major sponsor of this legislation 
on our side.
  (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say first to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] that what you are asking for in 
this amendment is, in my opinion, the right thing, as were several of 
the amendments asked for last night, and I think I can speak with more 
credibility perhaps than many of the Members of the House about this 
because of the fact that over the last years I have introduced and on 
occasion passed legislation to require disclosure of foreign ownership, 
sponsored and voted for legislation to force disclosure of the lobbying 
connections between our former Cabinet members and their clients after 
they leave and to prohibit them from being able to lobby for or advise 
foreign nationals or foreign companies. I agree with you.
  It is not the amendment that you have here today that is the problem. 
It is the fact that any amendment in this setting is a problem.
  As you know, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] are going to introduce legislation 
which I intend to cosponsor that will take these amendments and put 
them into law. We will get to vote on this again.
  The Senate has not said that if you put the Traficant amendment on we 
will kill this bill or if you put the Istook amendment on we will kill 
this bill; they have not said they are going to kill the bill at all.
  What we know, though, is if this bill goes to conference, as opposed 
to being passed and going to the President, it is going to be tied up 
and killed as it has been every time it has been attempted for 40 
years.
  Here we have a historic opportunity to pass this bill and see it 
signed into law and watch a major bipartisan accomplishment improve 
this process. Any amendment offered today, no matter how good it is, 
standing alone, is going to endanger this process.
  For that reason I ask Members to vote ``no'' and then to cosponsor 
the Canady-Frank bill that will come after it.
  I want to say the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] has played this 
straight from the beginning. He played it straight last year when we 
were in the majority, and I was chairman of the Committee of 
jurisdiction, and he has played it straight this year as subcommittee 
chairman. I accept his commitment to do just what he said; that is, to 
have hearings and move this bill out of here that contains many of the 
things we would like to see done.
  For the time being, please vote ``no'' on the amendment today so we 
can pass the bill.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Let me say the gentleman from Ohio has brought this to our attention 
before. I agree with most of his amendment.
  This is a complex issue, and as the gentleman from Florida pointed 
out, there is one point the gentleman from Ohio acknowledges, and I 
appreciate it, that the legislation here would strengthen regulation of 
foreign agents. He makes the point that we can strengthen it further. 
We agree with him.
  But there are two points that are relevant. First, and I think what 
happened was he quite sensibly drafted his amendment to the existing 
law. This bill, as it came to us, changed the existing law. So, while 
his amendment does, in fact, strengthen the regulation of foreign 
interests in most instances, there is one instance, because of the kind 
of problem that happens with drafting, where he drafted to the original 
law and then the bill about came in after that, and there is one 
provision here, domestic subsidiaries of foreign interests, which now 
have an exemption in the law, and the bill, as presented, would abolish 
that exemption. Domestic subsidiaries would have no exemption. What 
they have now is a too generous exemption.
  The gentleman from Ohio understandably tightens up the exemption. 
What he could not have known when he was drafting his bill was this 
legislation would do away with the exemption altogether. So, through no 
fault of anyone's, in fact, in this one case his bill weakens the 
scheme. In general, it strengthens it. His amendment, in general, 
strengthens it. In this one instance, it weakens it because it modifies 
an exemption we abolished altogether.
  I would note I mentioned yesterday we have, and I am holding a bill 
here that includes as cosponsors myself, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Bryant], I hope the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 

[[Page H 13742]]
Traficant], the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] on the other 
side, and others. Not the chairman of the subcommittee, because he 
quite understandably wants to preserve his ability to look at the whole 
thing. But he promised us yesterday--and I have worked with him for 
years and he is a man who has kept every promise he has ever made to 
other Members--there would be a hearing and markup of legislation that 
would focus specifically on tightening foreign agents' registration.
  Here is our problem. As my friend from Texas said, it is not anyone 
in the Senate has said if you change it we will kill the bill. It is 
worse than that. If we had such a public threat, then the gentleman 
would be correct, the gentleman from Ohio, and political pressure could 
be brought against them. But as the gentleman from Ohio understands as 
well as anyone here, this bill has a lot of enemies who do not want to 
admit they are its enemies. If we were dealing with someone who stood 
up and said, amend it and I will kill it, we could deal with that.
  This bill is not likely to be shot head on. It is likely to be 
nibbled at from all sides. It will disappear. There will be quicksand 
here. There will be a bend in the road. We have a crowded legislative 
calendar.
  It took a lot of energy to get this bill up even today. If it has to 
go to conference with everything else going on, with Bosnia, with the 
budget, with all the other major items, there is a strong likelihood of 
it being held up.
  The problem is not if you go to conference and someone stands up and 
says, ``I hate this bill,'' but people who want to kill it say, ``I 
like this bill better than you do. I want to do it this way. I want to 
do it that way.'' We have no way to resolve it.
  So we believe, and we appreciate the gentleman acknowledging this, we 
have a bill that improves the scheme of regulation of foreign 
interests. We agree it does not go far enough. Our hope is that we 
would get this bill passed, which we can do. If we get by this 
amendment without it being adopted, this bill goes to the President's 
desk, in my opinion, and we then immediately thereafter begin to 
tighten it. We tighten it in ways where I think we have a consensus.
  The only change we would want to make in the gentleman's bill, I want 
to make, would be one I think he would agree with, we would want to 
continue to wipe out that exemption rather than to restore it.
  With that, I hope the gentleman from Ohio would understand we say 
this in a cooperative spirit and want to get this bill to the 
President's desk.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Under the bill, section 8, lobbying contact, under exceptions, B, the 
term ``lobbying contact'' does not include a communication that is made 
on behalf of a government of a foreign country or foreign political 
party and disclosed. I have heard all of this talk about how it is so 
much stronger.
  Let us talk about what your bill does not do here, folks. Your bill 
does not empower the opportunity of the Justice Department to subpoena 
foreign agents to appear, testify, or produce records at administrative 
hearings concerning their violation of registration. Your bill does not 
impose administrative fines for minor violations against those who, 
after being directly informed of their obligation to report, still fail 
to do so. So, as a result, the General Accounting Office says this is 
meaningless. The Department of Justice is not going to go after these 
gnats with an MX missile.
  Now, if there is some delineation and clarification of exemption, I 
would submit I would have to see in writing where the strength of your 
language is that much stronger. But, given that, given that, when is it 
that there are minor matters that deal in these issues that cannot be 
rectified in the conference with the U.S. Senate? Have we started to 
become subservient to the House of Lords or what?
  Let me say, I do not have that much time. You guys are going to 
defeat the amendment. I want to say this to you: We have allowed 
foreign interests to run around this country lobbying our Government, 
and if not this bill today, then, damn it, when? That is what this bill 
is about. You are telling me you are going to bring another bill back. 
It is going to go to the other body. They are going to like it then, 
and the President is going to sign it.
  What I am hearing today is: If it is great legislation, it has no 
shot; if it is mediocre, send it over, boys.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 
remainder of my time.
  I am disappointed in my friend. We are trying to work this out. You 
want to posture and wave your arms, fine.
  You asked me where is your bill weaker. We, in our bill here, page 
26, line 13, letter D, striking subsection (q), subsection (q) of the 
law is an exemption granted to domestic subsidiaries of foreign agents. 
We abolish that exemption. Your bill merely amends it.
  Yes, your bill tightens this in some ways. But here is the specific 
case, page 26, line 13.
  Second, we are not being subservient to the Senate. We are 
recognizing what you yourself understand. There are enemies of this 
bill who, if it goes back into the parliamentary thicket, will make it 
less likely it emerges.

                              {time}  1100

  That is why we want to get this thing done, and then move beyond 
that. But I will say at this point, there is a very specific area, page 
26, line 13, where we strike an exemption for domestic subsidiaries of 
foreign interests, a pretty significant one, and you leave it in there 
and modify it. That is the difference.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, under my amendment, and listen to the language, ``Any 
person who engages in political activities for the purpose of 
furthering the commercial or financial operations of a foreign interest 
would no longer be exempt. In addition, representatives of foreign 
interests will now be required to notify the Attorney General'' if they 
would even seek any technicality to have such an exemption.
  The only thing that I do is, I ban it too, but I make sure that at 
least those have an intention of trying to get around the registration 
have to show their hand here. I think that that speaks well of it. If 
there could be any more clarifying language, I would be glad to accept 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  The gentleman had just said, first of all, he abolishes the 
exemption; but, second, he makes you tell the Attorney General if you 
are going to get it. That is like saying, ``I didn't take the bicycle, 
and it was fixed when I gave it back to you, but it was broken when I 
took it.''
  The fact is that the gentleman, inadvertently perhaps, restores an 
exemption that this bill repeals, and saying that the Attorney General 
has to tell us does not change the facts. That is why this would 
benefit from being able to be worked on, as we will do in January or 
February.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, we are so close. We are about this close from passing 
real lobby reform legislation, the length of the pen that the President 
of the United States can use to sign this into law. We have done it in 
a very contentious Congress, on a bipartisan basis, with people who 
said ``Yes, let us have a gift ban, and a strong gift ban,'' and who 
now, after almost 50 years, five decades, are this close, the length of 
a pen, to signing this into law and to make it the law of the land that 
we are reforming this Congress and regulating the lobby.
  Yes, I am very concerned about the lack of registration of foreign 
agents. There are some that are not registered. But for every one of 
them, there are dozens or hundreds of people that are domestic agents 
that are not registered under our laws today. I am concerned about the 
loss of jobs to other countries, but I am also concerned about the loss 
of the public interest from this Capitol building. Let us do what is 

[[Page H 13743]]
right today: Defeat these amendments, place this on the President's 
desk, sign it into law this year, and then move on to reform our 
campaign finance laws, on a bipartisan basis also.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
western Pennsylvania [Mr. English], replacing the big shoes of Tom 
Ridge, and he has done a fine job.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time, and for his handsome comments.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment, I think, provides 
fundamental reform of the registration of foreign agents. I think it is 
timely and necessary, given that this aspect of the law has not been 
modified for many decades and is demanding of reform. It is an 
obscenity right now that most representatives of foreign interests do 
not register. They are not in the public domain. The public is not 
protected from them and is not provided with the information that they 
need about the level of foreign interest representation.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say, there is no controversy here. The managers 
of this bill have conceded, despite some technical arguments, that 
generally this amendment would strengthen this bill. That clearly is 
not in question here. I think the managers of this bill have made one 
real argument against this amendment, that somehow it impedes the 
progress of the legislation. However, I would repeat my earlier 
argument on previous amendments, like the English-Traficant amendment 
that was defeated last night by a very narrow margin, that we need to 
do our business.
  It has been conceded here that this bill, this underlying bill, 
should be stronger. I would submit that we will feed public cynicism if 
we do not go forward and produce, here and now, the strongest possible 
bill, and have the discipline to follow through and get a conference 
passed by both houses. I do not think we can jump start this by simply 
passing the Senate version which, as has been conceded, does not go far 
enough in some particulars.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been one of the few issues that has been 
bipartisan in the extraordinary leadership of the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Canady] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], 
Republican and Democrat coming together for the first time in 49 years 
to pass meaningful lobby disclosure.
  The Senate wants the bill of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] 
to pass. They want this bill to be sent back to the Senate. Some do not 
like the Simpson amendment in it; some do not like for the first time 
the fact that Senators will have to disclose their blind trusts, the 
full amount. They want it to come back to them so in conference they 
can take out the parts they do not want. Others want to send the 
President a bill that he will veto, to embarrass the President.
  Mr. Chairman, we have the opportunity to have for the first time 
since 1946 meaningful lobby disclosure pass this Congress and be signed 
by the President. When they passed meaningful lobby disclosure in 1946 
it was gutted by the Supreme Court in 1954. We have a meaningless law 
right now on the books. It is the reason that only 6,000 people 
register as lobbyists, when it is estimated that 60,000 to 80,000 
people actually lobby Congress and lobby the executive branch. We have 
an opportunity to have these individuals lobby, and to disclose that 
they lobby, to disclose who pays them, to learn how much they are paid 
and to learn what they do.
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] has a good concept. I believe 
that will pass. I believe that we can bring out a bill on its own, 
combined with a few others that have come forward in the course of this 
debate, but I urge my colleagues to recognize we are so close. We have 
the opportunity to defeat this amendment, maybe defeat one more, and 
then send it to the President and have it become law.
  I would just conclude by congratulating the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Canady] and congratulating the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank], and to tell them that it is refreshing to participate, and to 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] and others, to participate in a 
bipartisan effort to get true lobby disclosure.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, No. 1, I do not want any of my comments taken to in any 
way cast any shadow of competency and/or address to duty on behalf of 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], one of the most 
intelligent Members of this body, who has shepherded a lot of these 
bills in the past, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], his 
effort, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], both of them 
extremely well qualified and do an excellent job. They have worked with 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and we probably have the 
best brain trust involved in the bill. When you talk about the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], we talk about one of our more solid 
Members who understands the Constitution and can interpret law.
  Saying that, Mr. Chairman, I agree with everything the gentleman 
said. I have some concerns with loopholes in your language. In section 
3 under definitions, the definition of lobbying contact calls for, in 
subsection B, under subsection 8, the term ``lobbying contact'' does 
not include a communication that is made on behalf of a government of a 
foreign country or a foreign political entity.
  Mr. Chairman, there is some real technical language in here that 
people can run with. Everybody says no, that does not apply, the other 
section applies. A court of law is a funny place. The only thing I 
would like to say is this: that the Traficant amendment gives 
reasonable fines for reasonable offenses. It provides a date certain 
when individual agents representing foreign agents must register, and 
they have no more than a 30-day grace period, January 30-July 30.
  The point I am making is, I listen to these arguments but here is 
what troubles me. We all agree that this is strengthening. If there is 
one question on the exemption language which, quite frankly, I believe 
the intent of my legislation prohibits any exemptions for commercial 
trade issues and, in fact, further makes notice that anybody who 
misreads that section must notify the Attorney General that they think 
they may have an exemption, make sure there is a process, before they 
could even consider having an exemption. My bill specifically in fact 
denies any exemption. I will read it: ``Any person who engages in 
political activities for the purpose of furthering commercial or 
financial operations of foreign interests would no longer be exempt.''
  Yes, the trouble that we have is most people do not know the law. 
There is no notification, which the Traficant bill provides. There is 
no reasonableness in the fines. As a result, there is no enforcement. 
There are no subpoena powers. It is like saying we are going to enforce 
the law, but we cannot subpoena your records.
  I have been here for a number of years and, quite frankly, I am 
absolutely sickened by foreign interests who rip us off. Let me say 
this: We might be concerned about the Senate's blind trust today, but I 
am concerned about foreign interests' blindsiding of the American 
economy. I think that is a hell of a lot more.
  However, I am going to do this. I am asking the chairman, because I 
have a commitment by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], will 
he include the Traficant language with that one minor clarification, in 
another piece of legislation, and does that have a shot to come out of 
this Congress?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as I have told the gentleman 
before, I want to work with the gentleman on this issue. We are going 
to consider the specific language that he has proposed here today, any 
changes he wants to make on it, any other suggestions he has on this 
general subject. I want to move forward with as strong a piece of 
legislation on this subject on this legislation as we possibly can.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, is that a 
yes?

[[Page H 13744]]

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Yes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I can guarantee to the 
gentleman, knowing the way this place functions, that we will have a 
new bill come out, his language will be in it in some form, and if he 
does not like that form, we will have a vote on the floor on his 
language, because we need a vote on this and other issues, and I can 
guarantee he can have a vote on this floor and I will be supporting it.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out, there are a 
number of others of us who would like to speak in favor of such effort.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. With that, Mr. Chairman, I think we have at least made 
our case. The blind trusts of the Senate are important, but there is 
the blindsiding of our economy by individuals trying to operate and get 
around it. I agree, the gentleman's intentions are honorable.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment, which in 
text and in substance will be included in further legislation, from 
what I have heard, now be withdrawn and there be no labor of a vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that today, the House of 
Representatives is considering H.R. 2564, legislation that will make 
long-overdue lobbying reforms. By approving this measure, the House 
will make real changes in the lobbying process, and take an important 
step toward restoring the American people's faith in their government.
  Too often in the past, Congress has failed to effectively address the 
problems plaguing the lobbying process. Last year, for example, the 
House worked in a bipartisan manner to approve meaningful lobbying 
reform legislation, only to see the maneuvers of a few Republicans in 
the Senate block its enactment.
  Throughout this year, Democrats have called upon the Republican 
majority to move forward with similarly meaningful lobbying reform 
legislation. By bringing H.R. 2564 to the floor, the Republicans have 
at last heard and answered this call. This bill would require 
professional lobbyists to identify their clients and disclose how much 
they are paid for their efforts. It would also guarantee the American 
people full access to this information.
  Earlier this month, the Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member, 
recognized the importance of real lobbying reform and unanimously 
approved H.R. 2564. This impressive, bipartisan support offers great 
promise for today's debate on the measure.
  Two weeks ago, the House demonstrated its commitment to reform by 
approving tough, new gift rules. Today, the House can take another step 
on the path toward needed reform and restored public faith in 
Government. I urge my colleagues to choose this path by passing real 
lobbying reform. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2564.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2564, the 
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. This historic legislation imposes new 
disclosure requirements for lobbyists who contact legislative and 
executive branch officials and their staffs.
  Lobbying reform legislation is long overdue. In fact, Congress has 
failed to agree to comprehensive legislation on this issue for 49 
years. I have served in this body for almost 3 years and I am relieved 
to finally have the opportunity to vote for genuine lobbying reform.
  Today, when the House adopts a rule to ban lobbyists from giving, and 
Members from receiving, unnecessary gifts, such as meals and vacations, 
it will be amending the 1946 Federal Regulation and Lobbying Act.
  The 1946 act is seen as having broad deficiencies: among other 
weaknesses, it does not cover executive branch lobbying, grass-roots 
lobbying, or the lobbying of congressional staff. These deficiencies 
have diminished the public's trust in Congress and its actions.
  This issue should concern all Americans, because it indicates where 
the sympathies of their own Representatives lie, with them and their 
neighbors or with special interest groups based in Washington.
  Polls clearly show that citizens continue to believe that special 
interests control the outcome of legislative debate. It is time for the 
House of Representatives and all of its Members to answer to the 
public's demand for lobbying reform.
  The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 reforms the way special interest 
groups and lobbyists unduly influence legislation on Capitol Hill. The 
legislation holds lobbyists responsible and if they break the law, they 
will be punished with tens of thousands of dollars in fines. I urge all 
my colleagues to support H.R. 2564.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2564, the 
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. Unfortunately, current lobbying 
disclosure requirements are riddled with loopholes, which may lead 
public officials to enact policies that benefit special interests, 
rather than the public good. Building on Republican efforts to end 
business as usual in Washington, H.R. 2564 would impose strict 
registration and disclosure requirements for lobbyists who contact 
legislative and executive branch officials or their staffs. The bill 
would impose civil penalties on lobbyists who fail to file or who 
report false information, prohibit former U.S. trade officials from 
representing foreign entities, and expand financial disclosure 
requirements for Members of Congress.
  In order to ensure that individuals who petition their congressional 
and Government representatives are not unfairly burdened with 
disclosure laws, H.R. 2564 defines a lobbyist 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.
  There is strong bipartisan support for this legislation. In fact, the 
Senate passed an identical version of this legislation--S. 1060--on 
July 25, 1995, by a vote of 98 to 0.
  Justifiable concerns were raised that if the Senate-version of this 
legislation were amended, the bill would become mired in a House-Senate 
conference, and the possibility of enacting any significant lobbying 
reform legislation would be substantially reduced. Therefore, although 
I find merit in many of the amendments which are being offered during 
floor consideration of H.R. 2564, I am voting against all changes to 
the underlying bill to avoid sending the legislation into a protracted 
House-Senate conference. This scenario would result in delay and 
disagreement between the two Chambers, which has in fact undermined 
previous attempts at lobbying reform.
  Mr. Chairman, improvements in our outdated lobbying registration and 
disclosure requirements are long overdue. By promptly passing H.R. 2564 
without amendment, we can send this important measure to the 
President's desk for signature into law. I am hopeful that the House 
will consider separate legislation relating to the issues raised 
through the amendment process in the coming months.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to approve this legislation in the 
same form as passed by the Senate. H.R. 2564 is an important reform 
bill which is worthy of strong bipartisan support.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  If not, under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Allard) 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, pursuant to House 
Resolution 269, he reported the bill back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 421, 
nays 0, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 828]

                               YEAS--421

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)

[[Page H 13745]]

     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Cox
     Crane
     de la Garza
     Fattah
     Flake
     Hefner
     Riggs
     Roth
     Towns
     Tucker
     Waters

                              {time}  1134

  Mrs. LINCOLN and Mr. OWENS changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________