[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 140 (Friday, September 30, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 30, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1994

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senate will soon consider the 
conference report on S. 349, the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1994. The 
Lobbying Disclosure Act would close loopholes in existing lobbying 
registration laws. It would, for the first time, cover lobbying of top 
executive branch officials. It would streamline reporting requirements 
and reduce paperwork. It will provide effective administration and 
enforcement, and it will also--and this is very important--establish 
tough congressional gift rules.
  The bill passed the House on Thursday by a bipartisan vote of 306 to 
112.
  I would like to make four points here to correct some inaccurate 
statements which have been made about the bill.
  First, only paid, professional lobbyists--paid, professional 
lobbyists--are required to register under this bill, as is intended 
under current law. But current law is so full of loopholes that most 
paid, professional lobbyists do not register. Our conference report 
closes those loopholes.
  Like the bill that passed the Senate, the conference report 
specifically defines a lobbyist as an individual who is ``employed or 
retained by a client for financial or other compensation'' to make 
lobbying contacts--subject, of course, to de minimis exclusions in the 
bill. And I have just quoted from section 103(12). No one who lobbies 
on their own behalf, or on behalf of someone else in a volunteer 
capacity, is required to register.
  Second, if a paid, professional lobbyist who is otherwise required to 
register spends money on grassroots lobbying--that is, an effort to get 
individuals to call or write Congress or the executive branch--that 
paid, professional lobbyist must estimate the amount of money spent by 
that lobbyist and its paid employees in that effort and must also 
disclose the name of any person or entity that was paid by them to 
conduct such a grassroots lobbying campaign. These are the only 
disclosure requirements in the bill relative to grassroots lobbying. I 
am there referring to section 105(b)(6) and section 104(b)(5).

  Now, some have suggested that section 104(b)(5) would require paid, 
professional lobbyists to disclose the names of unpaid individuals or 
volunteers involved in grassroots lobbying whom they contact as part of 
a lobbying campaign. That is incorrect. Section 104(b)(5), by its 
terms, requires the disclosure only of a person who is hired by the 
lobbyist to conduct grassroots lobbying communications. Grassroots 
lobbying communications are defined to include communications made to 
the public by paid, professional lobbyists, not communications made 
from members of the public to the Government. And there I have referred 
to section 103(8). No requirements at all are placed on any person who 
contacts the Government to express his or her own personal views.
  Third, a suggestion has been made that section 105(b)(5) would 
require organizations employing lobbyists to disclose their membership 
lists. This is untrue. This provision, which was added on the Senate 
floor, requires paid professional lobbyists to disclose the name of any 
person or entity other than the client who paid the registrant to lobby 
on behalf of the client. I explained when this provision was adopted by 
the Senate that it would require only that if a lobbyist's bills are 
paid by someone other than a client, the identity of the person who 
pays the bills would have to be disclosed. And I refer to the 
Congressional Record of May 5, 1993, page S5492.
  Indeed, the Senate report on the bill specifically states that ``the 
Committee believes that a broad requirement to disclose all coalition 
members would have serious first amendment implications.'' And there I 
refer to the Senate Report 103-37, page 31. The conference amendment 
contains the same provisions as the Senate bill in this regard.
  Fourth, the bill explicitly exempts religious organizations such as 
churches and associations of churches from having to register. Those 
sections are 103(9)(B) and 103(10)(B).
  This exemption was worked out with the major religious denominations 
prior to its incorporation in the bill. As the Baptist Joint Committee 
explained in a September 29, 1994 letter to Representative John Bryant, 
the chief sponsor of the legislation on the House side,

       We think that section 103(9)(B) and 103(10)(B) adequately 
     protect the free exercise rights of churches and religious 
     organizations.

  I am quoting from the letter from the Baptist Joint Committee of just 
a few days ago, and the letter goes on:

       This language has been examined and approved by a number of 
     religious organizations and their church/State experts 
     including the Jewish Community, main line Protestants and the 
     United States Catholic Conference. I am, therefore, puzzled 
     by those who question this legislation on the basis of the 
     effect it would have on religious organizations.

  In other words, Mr. President, even if a religious organization has a 
paid, professional lobbyist on its staff, it is not required to 
register.
  I put this information in the Record this evening to address 
questions which some have raised, and hopefully I have succeeded in 
answering those questions. Of course, I would be happy to answer any 
questions any of our colleagues might have before this matter reaches 
the floor or during that time.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan yields the floor and 
suggests the absence of a quorum.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________