PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 4, 1993
Foreign Agents Compulsory Ethics in Trade Act of 1993 - Revises Federal criminal code restrictions on lobbying activities by former officers, employees, and elected officials of the executive and legislative branches to create: (1) a permanent restriction on the President and other specified individuals (senior personnel of the executive branch and independent agencies, Members of Congress, and officers and employees of the legislative branch) representing or advising, for compensation, a foreign government or political party, if the representation or advice relates directly to a matter in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest; and (2) a five-year restriction (after termination of employment as such officer or employee) with respect to such matters by individuals representing or advising, for compensation, foreign individuals and organizations.
People & committees
Rep. Kaptur, Marcy [D-OH-9] · D–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H1059)
Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 26, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1224 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1224 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1224 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1224 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.