[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 144 (Thursday, October 6, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 6, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               CONFERENCE REPORT ON LOBBYING REFORM BILL

  Mr. MATHEWS. Mr. President, in May, Mr. President, when the Senate 
first considered the lobbyist gift ban bill I expressed my reservations 
about the bill (Congressional Record, May 4, 1994, page S5165). Yet, 
like the majority of our colleagues, I voted to send the bill to 
conference because we hoped it would return with our reservations 
rectified.
  Since that time, Mr. President, I have had the opportunity to 
consider this issue more carefully. I took a look at my calendar for 
the last 10 months and found that had this proposal been law a number 
of Tennessee groups and associations would not be able to conduct 
business with their Congressional Delegation in their chosen manner. It 
is unusual that a week passes without an invitation from some Tennessee 
group to attend an early morning breakfast or a luncheon, less 
frequently dinner invitations are extended. And yes, the subject matter 
of these meetings is normally matters before Congress.
  Many of these members I have known for years. The Tennessee Press 
Association comes to Washington once a year where all the Tennessee 
delegation sits around a dinner table and discusses matters of 
importance, this year the telecommunications legislation was the main 
subject. The Tennessee Humanities Council and the Allied Arts Council 
of Chattanooga at separate times had me to a breakfast to talk about 
Federal contribution to the arts in Tennessee. The Lower Mississippi 
Valley Flood Control Association invited me to a reception to discuss 
wetlands issues and erosion problems in West Tennessee. The Farm Bureau 
and State Farm Insurance have an annual breakfast for the whole 
delegation. Various insurance and health care associations in Tennessee 
visited my office to discuss health care reform. All of these groups 
were here to lobby, but I don't think anyone could perceive them to be 
the well-heeled, high-powered, Gucci-wearing lobbyist which the general 
public is being led to believe influence our voting.
  Over the last several days, my office phones have been ringing off 
the hook with concerned constituents who believe that this bill is 
dangerously vague and that it would prohibit contacts such as this. 
Yesterday, a constituent from Hohenwald faxed me a plea to oppose S. 
349 because he believes that ``* * * in its present form, it's poorly 
written, badly motivated and would be a nightmare to enforce or to try 
and comply.'' Additionally, I received calls and letters from a myriad 
of national associations, but I believe this constituent best summed up 
the concerns which I shared with this body in May.
  I believe now as I did in May: that the people of Tennessee aren't 
outraged about my having meals with people who discuss the businesses 
and communities and workers and interests of Tennessee.
  I believe they expect me and my staff to meet with these people, a 
good majority of whom are Tennesseans, after all.

  I believe they expect me to set standards of decorum about gifts and 
gratuities, not erect a wall of inaccess and impenetrability out of a 
preoccupation with propriety.
  Most of all, I believe that the biggest part of my constituents' 
concern is in knowing exactly who I'm dealing with, who gives me what, 
and being able to determine whether my votes and my advocacy have been 
influenced. Along these lines, I have encouraged disclosure as a remedy 
to the perceived problems.
  I make public my weekly schedule so that the people of Tennessee can 
make fair judgments about my votes because I tell them whom my duties 
bring me into contact with. Additionally, my colleagues and I all fill 
out lengthy personal disclosures which are made available to the 
public.
  I regret, Mr. President, that this measure has not returned from 
conference in a form that addresses this critical element. What's 
worse, the language of the conference report has made it more difficult 
for Tennesseans to know what this measure means for their contacts with 
me. Judging by calls to my office, too many Tennesseans now believe 
this measure prevents them from contacting their Senators and 
Congressmen at all.
  Clearly, the intent of the original measure has backfired. We wanted 
to correct the impression of improper access. We wanted to banish 
uncertainty about boundaries governing contact with advocacy groups. 
Instead, we've multiplied the uncertainty.
  Mr. President, we don't need more deliberation, because what we have 
before us won't benefit from deliberation. Let's stop trying to 
legislate propriety and stop trying to replace judgment with 
commandments. I firmly believe the people of Tennessee are capable of 
making this judgment.

                          ____________________