[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]

 
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the ``Law of Unintended Consequences'' is 
alive and well in Washington. And that is why it is critical to take a 
very close look at the fine print of the Lobbying Disclosure Conference 
Report.
  Earlier this Congress, I supported final passage of both the gifts-
ban and lobbying disclosure bills, and they were adopted by the Senate 
in overwhelming votes. But guess what? A funny thing happened on the 
way to the conference committee. New requirements were imposed. New 
provisions were added. Efforts were made to get at what is known as 
grassroots lobbying.
  One new provision would require citizens' organizations to publicly 
reveal all their so-called grassroots lobbying expenditures. Grassroots 
lobbying is defined to include such evil activities as communications 
that attempt to influence Federal legislation through contacts not with 
Congress, but with the general public. In other words, television, 
radio, and newspaper ads. How awful.
  Grassroots lobbying is also defined to include internal 
communications between organizations and their members with the goal of 
influencing public policy. In other words, internal organizational 
newsletters. Another terrible vice.
  A second provision added in conference would require the public 
disclosure of the names and addresses of any businesses retained by a 
citizens' organization to assist in grassroots lobbying. And, perhaps 
worst of all, a third provision could be read--could be read--to 
require citizens' organizations to publicly disclose the names and 
addresses of their donors.
  I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say the 
conference report does not require the public disclosure of donors. But 
I have read the disclosure provision and, at best, it is ambiguous. 
And, frankly, ambiguous is just not good enough, particularly when it 
comes to imposing new regulatory burdens on the American people's right 
to petition their government. We cannot solve this problem with a 
colloquy. We cannot solve this problem with a floor statement.
  Certainly, we do not expect the American people to go to their 
nearest library or bookstore, pick up a Congressional Record, and try 
to figure out what we actually meant when we passed a law. The law 
itself should be clear on its face.

  And again, Mr. President, when we talk about grassroots lobbying, we 
are not talking about high-priced lobbyist lunches in fancy Washington 
restaurants, or legislative deals being cut in smoky Capitol Hill Back 
rooms. We're talking about activity out there in America--in the 
grassroots--when people of like mind band together to let their elected 
representatives know where they stand on the issues that affect them.
  I want to emphasize that we are not, in any way, trying to make any 
changes to the new rules prohibiting lobbyists and others from giving 
gifts to Members of Congress. I support the gifts--ban provisions: No 
lobbyist lunches. No entertainment. No travel. No contributions to 
legal defense funds. No fruit baskets. No nothing.
  I might add that the conference report treats Members of Congress 
differently than it does other citizens. If you are a lobbyist and you 
knowingly violate the registration and disclosure requirements, you 
could face a maximum fine of $200,000. But if you are a Member of 
Congress and you knowingly accept a gift that is banned under the new 
rules, there are no maximum fines, no big-dollar penalties. Instead, 
you go to the Ethics Committee.
  And that is why I suggest we add language to the conference report 
directing the head of the new Office of Lobbying Disclosure to impose 
penalties on private citizens that are commensurate with the penalties 
imposed on Members of Congress.
  So, Mr. President, I hope my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle understand that we do not want to block the conference report. We 
don't want to filibuster. We want to pass a tough law, but one that is 
also targeted at the right activities.
  Earlier this week, I wrote to the distinguished majority leader 
requesting a unanimous-consent agreement allowing us to amend the 
conference report to deal with the grassroots lobbying issue. Im am 
still hopeful we can take this approach, make the necessary changes, 
and pass an amended conference report that satisfies all those 
concerned.

                          ____________________