[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 143 (Wednesday, October 5, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 5, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      THE LOBBYING DISCLOSURE BILL

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to just focus for a moment on this 
so-called lobbying disclosure bill which we will have a cloture vote on 
tomorrow morning. I must say, I think the more you look at it, the more 
questions are raised.
  We had a conference this afternoon. I think probably before the 
conference we had probably a fairly even split or even less. But the 
more you talk about this bill and the more complicated it becomes, it 
seems to me we need to address some things before it leaves the Senate. 
I am not certain it can be taken care of with a colloquy.
  I will have printed in the Record a letter I addressed today to 
Senator Levin and Senator Cohen, where we raised a number of concerns 
with reference to grassroots lobbying. I know there have been some 
saying there is no problem with this, it is all smoke and mirrors. That 
may or may not be the case.
  I would like to include in the Record the letter that was directed to 
the Honorable Carl Levin and the Honorable William Cohen, which 
contains some of the questions we have. Also, a letter directed to the 
majority leader, Senator Mitchell, and myself, the Republican leader, 
signed by 30-some Republicans who are concerned about the same problem.
  Then also I would like to include in the Record a list of 
organizations that now oppose this bill outright. I must say, you do 
not get a group like this in opposition to a bill very often: the 
American Civil Liberties Union, the American Farm Bureau, the American 
Family Association, the Child Protection Lobby, the Coalition Against 
Gun Violence, Doris Day Animal League, Humane Society of the United 
States, the National Association of Realtors, the American Legion--the 
list goes on and on--the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Safe Streets 
Coalition. About every group in America, whether they are on the right 
side, the middle, or the left side of the issue, have read this 
conference report, now, carefully, and they are having real problems 
with us. They are calling us and sending us faxes and directing their 
opposition to us, Members on both sides of the aisle.
  We know that some of the liberal media have already decided this is a 
great bill, even though they probably have not read it and do not 
intend to read it. Maybe they want to discourage grassroots lobbying. 
Why should anybody else make up the views? Maybe let the liberal elite 
make up our minds through editorials in the Washington Post or the New 
York Times or whatever.
  So we have been looking at it very closely this afternoon. Hopefully, 
we can address some of the concerns. But the more you read this the 
more you are concerned. I will just pick out one provision.
  We are going to create another big bureaucracy. We are talking about 
downsizing Government, and here we are about to create another 
bureaucracy and who knows how large it will be and how inefficient and 
how it is going to be expanded.
  It also could become a tool for political revenge because the 
President of the United States, in this case President Clinton, is 
going to appoint somebody for 5 years. That person is going to be the 
Director of Office of Lobbying Registration and Public Disclosures. And 
this same Director is going to promulgate the rules and regulations and 
all the enforcement aspects.
  There is no bipartisan representation there. I do not know why we 
have the President of the United States appointing someone to deal with 
congressional lobbying or gift-taking.
  So let me make it very clear that there may be a way to resolve this. 
One way to resolve it is to take care of the gift matter by changing 
the Senate rules.
  I will just conclude by making this point: When we talk about 
grassroots lobbying, we are not talking about high-priced lobbyists' 
lunches or legislative deals. We are talking about activity out there 
in America when the people ban together to let their elected 
representatives know where they stand on the issues that affect them.
  I want to make it clear, we are not trying to make any changes in 
some of these rules. I support the gift ban provisions--no lobbyist 
lunches, no entertainment, no travel, no contribution into defense 
funds, no fruit baskets, no nothing. That is fine with this Senator, 
and I doubt many Senators partake in that in any event.
  It is also good to point out--and I assume somebody will have a lot 
of fun with this one--the conference report treats Members of Congress 
differently than it does other citizens. If you are a lobbyist--and 
that could be anybody, your brother, sister. There are good people out 
there. Because they are lobbyists does not mean they are not good 
people. It does not mean they are not honest or men and women of 
integrity. That is what they do for a living.
  You have a right to petition Congress. You have a right to engage 
somebody, hire somebody and come to Washington and do whatever you want 
to do. But if they knowingly violate the registration disclosure 
requirements, they could face a maximum fine of $200,000. But if a 
Member of Congress does the same thing, if you knowingly accept a gift 
that is banned under the new rules, there is not any dollar penalty. So 
here we go again. And we wonder why the American people do not trust 
the Congress. We are about to pass a new law and everybody is going to 
say, ``Boy, isn't this great, we are going to nail down these lobbyists 
and let the Members go.'' All we are required to do is go before the 
Ethics Committee.
  I am not certain we can correct all this with colloquies. Maybe we 
can. The best thing to do is get unanimous consent to amend the 
conference report and send it back to the House. We will propose that 
tomorrow after the cloture vote.
  I just say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this 
should not be a partisan measure. I hope my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle will take a look at it. If you have not heard yet 
from all these groups, I can tell you they will probably be calling you 
between now and tomorrow, and they are groups that I think represent 
and reflect the views of a lot of good, hardworking Americans, whether 
it is the American Legion, the American Farm Bureau, the Humane 
Society, or the Doris Day Animal Group, or whatever.
  So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the material I made 
reference to be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     Organizatins Opposed to S. 349

       Alliance For Educational and Cultural Exchange.
       Alliance For America.
       American Civil Liberties Union.
       American Farm Bureau.
       American Family Association.
       American Legion.
       Americans For Tax Reform.
       American Land Rights Association.
       Americans United For Life.
       American Veterinary Medical Association.
       Association of Concerned Taxpayers.
       Center for Science in the Public Interest.
       Child Protection Lobby.
       Christian Coalition.
       Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious 
     Freedom.
       Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
       CNP Action, Inc.
       Coalition Against Gun Violence.
       Coalitions for America.
       Concerned Women For America.
       Defenders of Property Rights.
       Doris Day Animal League.
       English First.
       The Environmental Policy Task Force.
       Family Research Council.
       Federation of American Scientists.
       The Feminist Majority.
       Free Congress Foundation.
       Fund for an Open Society.
       Gun Owners of America.
       Humane Society of the United States.
       Independent Insurance Agents/California.
       International Freedom Foundation.
       The National Center for Public Policy Research.
       National Association of Realtors.
       National Cotton Council of America.
       National Federal Lands Conference.
       National Restaurant Association
       National Right to Life Committee.
       National Right to Work Committee.
       National Rifle Association.
       National Legal and Policy Center.
       National Association of Housing Cooperatives.
       Ohio Citizen Action.
       Planned Parenthood of America (NY office).
       Population-Environment Balance.
       Project 21.
       Safe Streets Coalition.
       Small Business Survival Committee.
       Traditional Values Coalition.
       United Seniors Association, Inc.
       U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC October 4, 1994.
     Hon. George J. Mitchell,
     Office of the Majority Leader,
     Hon. Bob Dole,
     Republican Leader,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear George and Bob: We are writing to request that the 
     Senate adopt a unanimous consent agreement allowing us to 
     amend the conference report on S. 349, the Lobbying 
     Disclosure Act, to eliminate some of the unnecessary 
     regulatory burdens that the conference report would impose on 
     grassroots citizens' organizations.
       A wide array of citizens' organizations representing the 
     entire breadth of the political spectrum have written to us 
     expressing their concerns as to how the conference report's 
     recordkeeping and paperwork requirements will interfere with 
     their ability to communicate effectively with Congress and 
     the executive branch. One diverse coalition of groups has 
     informed us that the broadly drafted grassroots lobbying 
     provisions ``will seriously impair our ability to exercise 
     our rights guaranteed under the First Amendment''.
       We are not raising objections to the section of the 
     conference report that establishes new rules prohibiting 
     lobbyists from giving gifts to Members of Congress and staff. 
     However, modifications should be made to certain grassroots 
     lobbying provisions in the conference report. We hope we can 
     accomplish this limited goal expeditiously. Nevertheless, we 
     are prepared to support efforts to block the passage of this 
     conference report if our request is not accommodated.
       Thank you both for your consideration of this matter. We 
     look forward to hearing from you.
           Sincerely,
                                                    ------ ------.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                  Washington, DC, October 5, 1994.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Hon. William S. Cohen,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Carl and Bill: As you know, a number of concerns have 
     been raised concerning the conference report on S. 349, the 
     Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1994. To help clarify the meaning 
     of some of the provisions in the conference report, I would 
     appreciate answers to the following questions:
       1. Section 103(2)(B) of the conference report defines the 
     term ``client'' to include the individual members of an 
     association when the association's lobbying activities are 
     financed by members outside of regular dues and assessments. 
     Would this provision require the public disclosure of the 
     name, address, and place of business of each member of an 
     organization that engages in lobbying activities, but 
     finances these activities through donations rather than 
     through regular dues and assessments?
       2. Section 104(b)(5) requires registered lobbyists to 
     publicly disclose ``the name, address, and principal place of 
     business of any person or entity retained by the registrant 
     to conduct grassroots lobbying communications on behalf of 
     the registrant or the client * * * (emphasis added).'' To be 
     covered by this provision, must a ``person or entity'' be 
     retained for compensation? Would this provision require the 
     disclosure of the names and addresses of volunteers who have 
     been ``retained'' for the purpose of conducting ``grassroots 
     communications?''
       3. Section 105(b)(5) requires ``registered lobbyists'' to 
     publicly disclose on a semi-annual basis ``the name, address, 
     and principal place of business of any person or entity other 
     than the client who paid the registrant to lobby on behalf of 
     the client.'' Would this provision require ``registered 
     lobbyists,'' including non-profit ``grassroots 
     organizations,'' to publicly disclose their lists of donors? 
     For example, if a grassroots organization solicits 
     contributions to help pass or defeat a specific piece of 
     legislation, must the names and addresses of those 
     individuals who responded to the solicitation be publicly 
     disclosed? If your answer is ``no,'' how can that answer be 
     reconciled with the text of the conference report and with 
     the conference committee's amendment to the Senate language?
       4. Section 104(b)(3) requires registered lobbyists to 
     publicly disclose the ``name, address, and principal place of 
     business of any organization, other than the client, that (A) 
     contributes more than $5,000 toward the lobbying activities 
     of the registrant * * * and (B) participates significantly in 
     the planning, supervision, or control of such lobbying 
     activities.'' What is meant by ``participating 
     significantly?'' Would this provision require the public 
     disclosure of an organization that contributes $6,000 to a 
     grassroots lobbying effort and requests that the contribution 
     be used to defray the cost of a television commercial or a 
     newspaper ad?
       5. Section 103(10)(B)(xviii) exempts from the definition of 
     ``lobbying communication'' any communication made by a 
     ``church, its integrated auxiliary, or a convention or 
     association of churches that is exempt from filing a Federal 
     income tax return * * *, ``if the communication constitutes 
     the free exercise of religion or is for the purpose of 
     protecting the right to the free exercise of religion 
     (emphasis added).'' Could you please elaborate on the meaning 
     of this provision? For example, if a church and its 
     membership contact Members of Congress in support of a 
     school-prayer bill or against abortion-rights legislation, 
     would these contacts constitute the ``free exercise of 
     religion'' or an effort to ``protect the right to the free 
     exercise of religion.'' Who ultimately makes this 
     determination?
       I want to emphasize that I have no objection whatsoever to 
     the section of the conference report that establishes new 
     rules prohibiting lobbyists and others from giving gifts to 
     Members of Congress. However, I believe it is imperative that 
     legislation such as S. 349, which seeks to impose broad new 
     regulations on individuals and which, if violated, could 
     result in fines up to $200,000, be as clear as possible on 
     its face. Quite simply, it should define exactly what is 
     expected of those we seek to regulate. Unfortunately, many of 
     my colleagues believe that S. 349 does not achieve this 
     clarity.
       If possible, I would appreciate a prompt response to the 
     questions I have outlined in this letter. Thank you for your 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Bob Dole.

     

                          ____________________