[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 200 (Friday, December 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H14937-H14938]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CORRECTING TECHNICAL ERRORS IN THE ENROLLMENT OF S. 1060, LOBBYING 
                         DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take 
from the Speaker's table the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 
36) directing the Secretary of the Senate to make corrections in the 
enrollment of S. 1060, to provide for the disclosure of lobbying 
activities to influence the Federal Government, and for other purposes, 
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate concurrent resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Longley). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  Mr. SKAGGS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, and I do not 
intend to object, but I want to engage my colleague, the gentleman from 
Florida, in a brief discussion of how we have gotten to this point, 
which is probably not susceptible to a brief discussion.
  As I understand it, however, we are taking up Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 36, which is a purely technical, typographical error 
correction bill to the lobbying bill, is that correct?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this concurrent resolution 
directs the enrolling clerk to correct solely technical errors in the 
lobbying bill, especially with respect to some erroneous cross-
references. It makes no substantive changes in the bill. The concurrent 
resolution is necessary so that the bill we send to the President, 
hopefully later today, will be technically correct.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, if I may reclaim my time on the reservation, 
as has been widely reported now, there is a more substantive issue that 
now pertains to this bill having to do with the contract language in 
section 18 and its effects on, in particular, certain health insurance 
organizations, corporations organized under 501(c)4. This bill does not 
deal with that issue, is that correct?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, this concurrent resolution does not deal with any substantive 
issues. The Senate passed a separate resolution; actually, they amended 
the concurrent resolution the House had previously passed, with a 
change that would affect section 18 of the bill. That is not the 
resolution that is before the House now.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Continuing to reserve the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I 
would like to ask the gentleman if he would be willing to consent to an 
amendment to Senate Concurrent Resolution 36 that would address what I 
believe to be a sincere problem with the implementation of section 18 
and delay its effective date.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield 
further, I cannot consent to that for two reasons. One, there are 
Members who have substantive objections to that particular change; and 
second, an amendment to the concurrent resolution at this point would 
only further delay this bill which has already been delayed far, far 
too long.
  We can discuss why it has been delayed, but the point before us now 
is that we can end the delay. If we pass the resolution that is before 
us now without amendment, it will go to the enrolling clerk. The 
enrolling clerk will complete the enrolling clerk's duties and the bill 
will be available for transmission to the President. I believe that 
could be accomplished today. If we accepted the gentleman's amendment, 
I do not know how much longer this would go on.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Continuing to reserve my reservation of objection, Mr. 
Speaker, that is certainly good news on the underlying issue. I was 
just looking to address the concern some groups have about compliance 
by January 1.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I am 
certainly willing to work with Members who have an interest in section 
18 on a separate bill to correct problems that may exist with it. Of 
course, as Members know, there is a difference of opinion of what the 
problem may be and the scope of the problem with section 18, but I am 
certainly willing to work with Members who have an interest in this, 
and I want to make certain that all the concerns of Members are 
adequately addressed in the proper forum.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, under my reservation of objection, I yield 
to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I hope I may not cause too 
much difficulty with the chairman of the subcommittee for expressing my 
admiration on how he has dealt with this bump in the road.
  Second, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, sometimes people say things 
they do not really mean. People often like to talk about how they hate 
to say ``I told you so,'' but I have found it to be one of the few 
pleasures in life that gets better with age.
  A few weeks ago several of us cautioned against amending this bill, 
let it have to go back to the U.S. Senate, and some said we were 
exaggerating what would happen if that were to take place. We have seen 
now, even when we made no substantive amendment, that the U.S. Senate 
was capable of entangling this bill. So I think this shows that when we 
urge people not to vote for amendments, we knew whereof we spoke, 
because there be dragons, as they said in the 15th century, and I hope 
now this bill is free.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just ask, finally, of my friend, the gentleman 
from Florida, who has done such good work on this bill, can we now 
expect the U.S. Senate will allow both the base bill, the lobbying 
bill, and this correction, to go to the President for signature?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, of course, this would not go to the President for signature. 
This just goes to give instructions to the enrolling clerk, but I am 
hopeful that the enrolling clerk's work can be completed today and that 
the bill will go to the President today. However, as the gentleman 
knows, I do not control the process in the Senate, but I am going to 
contact the Senate as soon as this action is taken today and encourage 
that the bill be transmitted to the President today.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will yield again, we all 
know that the gentleman does not control the processes of the Senate, 
because it is patently clear that no one controls what goes on in the 
U.S. Senate.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution, as follows:

                            S. Con. Res. 36

       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill S. 1060, to 
     provide for the disclosure of lobbying activities to 
     influence the Federal Government, and for other purposes, the 
     Secretary of the Senate shall make the following corrections:
       (1) In section 6(8), strike ``6'' and insert ``7''.
       (2) In section 9(7), insert ``and'' after the semicolon, in 
     section 9(8), strike ``; and`` insert a period, and strike 
     paragraph (9) of section 9.
       (3) In section 12(c), strike ``7'' and insert ``6''.
       (4) In section 15(a)(2), strike ``8'' and insert ``7''.
       (5) In section 15(b)(1), strike ``, 5(a)(2),'' and in 
     section 15(b)(2), strike ``8'' and insert ``7''.
       (6) In section 24(b), strike ``13, 14, 15, and 16'' and 
     insert ``9, 10, 11, and 12''.
     
[[Page H14938]]

       (7) In section 12(b)(1), strike ``7'' and insert ``6''.

  The Senate concurrent resolution was concurred in.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________