[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]

 
           LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1993--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will now resume 
consideration of the conference report accompanying S. 349, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 349) to provide for the exposure of lobbying 
     activities to influence the Federal Government, and for other 
     purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the conference report.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The hour prior to the cloture vote 
will be equally divided and controlled by the majority and minority 
leaders, or their designees.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. We are going to have a 
historically significant vote--and I think that is said without 
exaggeration--at 10 o'clock today. It is going to be the crucial vote 
which determines whether or not we are going to pass the last major 
reform bill that is still left standing after all the efforts by reform 
opponents to kill campaign reform and other legislation designed to 
overhaul the way we do business here in Washington.
  Mr. President, this conference agreement on lobby and gift reform 
will make this process more accountable and more believable to people 
in the country. It has to do with whether or not we are going to end, 
really, the unacceptable practice of accepting gifts, free trips, and 
other perks from lobbyists and other special interests. It is just 
inappropriate. We do not need to do it. It gives people ample reason 
for the perception that there is too much access to influence by 
certain people who have lobbyists, and it is just wrong. I think for 
all of us who care about public service and do not want to see a 
denigration of public service, we should just decide once and for all 
to clean up this system.
  I want to start out my remarks by dealing with two arguments that 
have been made. I do not know whether I even want to call them 
arguments, because I think that dignifies them, but two really 
untruthful statements that have been made.
  I see Senator Levin, who is coming onto the floor, and I will be 
relatively brief since he is manager of the bill. I am sure he will 
want to address them at greater length by himself.
  The first of those untruths is that ordinary citizens in Minnesota or 
Michigan, when they contact Senators and Representatives, will have to 
register as lobbyists. That is simply not true. But as one wag put it, 
a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has time to put on 
its shoes.

  The second untruthful statement that has been made over and over 
again, on talk radio and by lobbyists across the country, originating 
in wilful misinterpretations and distortions by House Republican Whip 
Mr. Gingrich and his allies, is that if you belong to a grassroots 
organization, this reform bill will require you and all the 
contributors to your organization to register and publicly disclose 
contributor lists and other information.
  Mr. President, that is simply not true. That is not true at all. In 
fact, an effort to require disclosure of contributor lists was defeated 
on the floor months ago, and with good constitutional reason. What is 
going on here is that smokescreen arguments, if you want to call them 
arguments, are being made so that people can duck for political cover. 
It is as simple as that. No one should be misled by what is happening 
here.
  I say to my colleagues, you can duck for cover temporarily, but you 
cannot hide because what is really at issue is that there is an all-out 
effort to filibuster and to block and to obstruct, to make sure that we 
do not pass a gift ban, to make sure that Members of Congress do not 
end this egregious practice of accepting vacation trips and other 
special favors from lobbyists and others.
  That is really what many people who will vote against this cloture 
motion are opposed to--those who are trying to block this and 
filibuster it. That is really what is at issue.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record right 
before the cloture vote the vote on this bipartisan lobby bill passed 
May 6, 1993. It was passed 95 to 2. I would like to have each Senator's 
vote included, and the vote on May 11, 1994, with a 95 to 4 vote in 
favor of this piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent to have 
each Senator's vote included in the Record right before the cloture 
vote takes place.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 107 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--4

     Bennett
     Hollings
     Murkowski
     Wallop

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Shelby
       
                                  ____


                    LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1993

       The Presiding Officer. The hour of 4:15 having arrived, the 
     question is on the passage of the bill, S. 349, as amended.
       The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call 
     the roll.
       The legislative clerk called the roll.
       Mr. Ford. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. 
     Heflin], the Senator from Texas [Mr. Krueger], and the 
     Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily absent.
       The Presiding Officer. Are there any other Senators in the 
     Chamber who desire to vote?
       The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 116 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--2

     Smith
     Wallop
       

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Heflin
     Krueger
     Pryor
       So the bill, S. 349, as amended, was passed as follows:

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Finally, Mr. President, let me just simply say to my 
colleagues one more time, I do not believe that some Senators --I think 
relatively few--can hide behind these smokescreen arguments. They can 
seek the cover, the political cover, but they will not be able to hide 
forever. The reason they will not is it will become very clear to 
people what has happened here. This is an effort to block the reform 
bill, to block an egregious practice that should be ended, which is the 
acceptance of gifts and trips, which is just simply wrong. I say to my 
colleagues, let these perks go. Vote for the institution. We are here 
because we believe in public service. We do not want to see an across-
the-board denigration and bashing of public service.
  One of the ways we can begin to end that and one of the ways we can 
begin to restore confidence on the part of people in Minnesota and 
around the country in this process is to vote for this reform bill. Do 
not obstruct this. Do not block it. Do not filibuster it. Do not hide 
behind arguments that are simply not truthful. That is a huge mistake. 
I hope we will get a 95 to 4 vote again. I urge my colleagues to 
support the motion. I urge my colleagues to vote again for real reform.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Michigan 
[Mr. Levin].
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, my understanding of the time situation is 
the following: That the time is equally divided between now and 10 
o'clock under the control of the majority leader and the Republican 
leader or their designees. I assume that Senator Cohen will be 
designated, but I do not know that for sure. He is not in the Chamber 
so I am not able to confirm that. So I am not sure exactly how this 
time will be divided since Senator Cohen is a supporter of the 
conference report, and the opponents would want time under this hour as 
well. So with those uncertainties, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator 
from Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold].
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I would like to begin by commending my friend from 
Michigan, Senator Levin, for his tremendous effort in putting this 
conference report together. Senator Levin stood by the tough provisions 
that we passed here in the Senate, and the result is a conference 
report that I am convinced will begin to address public concerns about 
lobbying and the power of special interests in Washington.
  It has now been over 4 months since the Senate passed gift reform 
legislation and over 16 months since the Senate passed S. 349, the 
Lobbying Disclosure Act. During consideration of S. 349, my friend from 
New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, offered a resolution that expressed the 
sense of the Senate that the full Senate would consider during this 
congressional session changes in the way Members and staff are allowed 
to accept gifts, meals, and travel offered by certain individuals and 
organizations. This resolution passed by an overwhelming margin of 98 
to 1. Yet here we are just days before this congressional session is to 
end and the original problem that we set out to address is still very 
much alive. The time has come to act on legislation that will finally 
reform the way Congress deals with the thousands and thousands of gifts 
and other perks that are offered to Members each year from individuals, 
lobbyists, and associations that seek special access and influence on 
Capitol Hill.
  Before I discuss this particular bill, I think it is important to 
first examine why this legislation was originally proposed. As was 
stated numerous times during initial consideration of S. 1935, the 
original gift ban bill introduced by myself and Senators Lautenberg and 
Wellstone, we did not initiate this legislation because we believed 
that lobbyists and other interests were buying off Members of Congress, 
or conversely, that Members were somehow selling their votes for the 
price of a few nice meals or a weekend trip to some resort site. These 
were hardly the reasons why this legislation was pursued.
  The fundamental problem that this legislation seeks to address is the 
problem of public perception. It seems that some Members of Congress 
are ignoring the fact that public approval of the performance of 
Congress as an institution is embarrassingly low. According to a recent 
Time/CNN poll, 84 percent--84 percent--of the American people believe 
that officials in Washington are heavily influenced by special 
interests and out of touch with the average person. The public is 
speaking with a very clear voice on this very fundamental issue, and it 
is time that we as an institution seek out the causes of the 
disenchantment and skepticism expressed by our constituents.
  Also, during the debate on this issue last May, we heard the argument 
that the mere consideration of this legislation only fueled the dismal 
perceptions people back home have of this body. By banning these gifts, 
it was argued, we are sending a message to our constituents that our 
integrity and character is so vulnerable that we can be compromised by 
a nice dinner or a pair of theater tickets. It was apparent that some 
Members took our effort to ban these gifts personally and I regret 
this. I regret this, because if you look at these public opinion polls 
closely, you will see that--although respondents consistently give 
Congress as an institution low marks for qualities such as competence, 
integrity, and character--these same respondents consistently give 
their particular representatives much higher marks for the same 
attributes.
  One interpretation of these differences is that our constituents are 
sending us a message--a message that says, ``We may like our own 
representatives, but we don't like the system and the loose rules that 
Congress as an institution lives under.''
  Mr. President, when I decided to first run for political office, I 
recalled a term that Robert Kennedy had often cited when he referred to 
elected office as an ``honorable profession.'' In recent years, elected 
office has taken on an ever increasing negative connotation, to the 
point where a sitting Member of Congress is often referred to 
disdainfully as a professional politician. The image that has permeated 
our society is the image of a Congress obsessed with power and an 
ignorance or lack of understanding of the problems that ordinary 
Americans face each and every day.
  It may not be a fair perception but we have to recognize that the 
perception is out there and has perpetuated harmful images and beliefs. 
We have all seen the TV news programs with their hidden cameras showing 
pictures of legislators relaxing at a beach resort, all paid for by 
lobbyists or special interest groups. This sort of activity does have a 
damaging effect on this body--an effect that we can only hope is not 
irreparable.

  Let me illustrate this point by once again referring to the Time/CNN 
poll taken just a few weeks ago. Perhaps the most striking result of 
this survey was the responses to a question that asked, ``Which one of 
these groups do you think have too much influence in Government?'' 
Respondents were given a list of choices, and which groups did the 
American people believe have too much influence in public policy 
decisions? The wealthy, large corporations, foreign governments, and 
special interest groups.
  Now, we have all seen the large number of gifts that are delivered to 
our offices nearly every day. We receive--and I personally decline--
fruit baskets, artwork, fine wine--you name it. And who do these gifts 
come from? The answer is, usually, the wealthy, large corporations, 
foreign governments, and special interest groups.
  How often do we receive gifts from consumer advocates, middle-class 
individuals, and ordinary working Americans? Hardly ever, and it is no 
coincidence that respondents listed themselves as the group least 
likely to have a voice in their Government. I fined this something by 
which we should all be immensely troubled.
  I was a member of the Wisconsin State Legislature for 10 years. 
During that period, I lived under a set of rules that have been in 
place for over 20 years in Wisconsin. Simply put, legislators and staff 
do not accept anything of value. That's it--the rule is that simple. 
And it should be noted that the Wisconsin Legislature is considered one 
of the most ethical government bodies in the country. The Wall Street 
Journal, in fact, described it as ``squeaky clean.'' It is time to 
recognize and address the fact that this is an image that few people 
hold for the U.S. Congress. When I came to the U.S. Senate, I adopted 
those same Wisconsin rules for my U.S. Senate office. For the past 2 
years, since I took office, my staff and I have lived under the 
Wisconsin ethics rules, and I believe we have been effective in 
carrying out our work, without taking free meals and gifts from 
lobbyists.
  The conference report that is before us today takes a forceful step 
toward reversing the pessimistic and skeptical feelings the American 
public bears for this institution. First, new lobbying disclosure 
provisions will require lobbyists who spend at least 10 percent of 
their time lobbying Members of Congress or their staff to register with 
a new Office of Lobbying Registration and Public Disclosure. The 
current statute only requires registration of lobbyists who spend at 
least 50 percent of their time lobbying Congress, and this has resulted 
in nearly 70 percent, by some estimates, of the lobbying community 
failing to register with the Federal Government.
  In addition, these disclosure requirements will be bolstered by what 
I see as the crown of this legislation: a stiff prohibition against the 
providing of free meals, travel, and entertainment to Members of 
Congress. Most of these stringent rules will apply to nonlobbyists as 
well. Like the Wisconsin law, there are exceptions to these tight 
restrictions that will allow legislators and staff to carry out the 
day-to-day official responsibilities of a Member of Congress. For 
example, these exceptions do allow Members to be reimbursed for certain 
expenses incurred in the attendance of programs, seminars, and 
conferences related to official business. Those exceptions aside, the 
gift ban provisions contained in this legislation will take a hard line 
against those offered items that are completely unrelated to official 
business and serve only to fuel the negative perceptions of Congress 
that have permeated our society.
  In short, this is a well-balanced approach that is targeted enough to 
affect those who seek special access or influence with the U.S. 
Congress, but not excessively inclusive as to affect a Member's 
legislative duties.
  In closing, I would like to say that the skepticism and pessimism 
that the public holds for this body is unfortunate. It would not seem 
too difficult to ask as part of an effort to restore the lost trust and 
confidence the public holds for Congress that we live by a set of rules 
that our constituents live by. In other words, you pay for your own 
meals, travel, and entertainment. This seems to me to be a small price 
for the immense benefits that such a simple action could produce--
benefits that include a more optimistic and idealistic public and a 
system that doesn't suggest that certain individuals or groups retain 
special access or influence with the U.S. Congress.
  I would like to thank those Senators that have worked tirelessly to 
see this legislation brought to the floor for final passage. Senators 
Wellstone and Lautenberg, whom I joined in introducing the original 
legislation that initiated this effort, and again, Senator Levin, who 
was able to craft an alternative measure that was able to incorporate 
our original principles, and then skillfully steered the measure 
through the sometimes torturous legislative process.
  This legislation is long overdue and in many of our constituents' 
eyes is a significant piece of legislation.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first let me thank the Senator from 
Wisconsin. He and the Senators from Minnesota and New Jersey have been 
absolutely stalwart in this effort to try to reform the gift rules 
which so clearly need to be reformed if we are going to increase public 
confidence in this institution. I want to thank him and commend him for 
his strong and constant leadership in this battle.
  Mr. President, I want to yield myself 10 minutes.
  Mr. President, we are here today after 3 years of effort, after bills 
have passed both Houses of the Congress and a conference has resolved 
the differences between those bills. We have before us a conference 
report which is the product of lengthy committee consideration and 
hearings in both the House and the Senate. We are here after all that 
to do what the Congress has been unable to do for the last 50 years.
  This bill would totally overhaul the patchwork of loopholes and 
exceptions that currently masquerade as lobbying registration laws. 
Efforts to reform these laws, to close these loopholes, and to end the 
charade that we have effective lobbying registration laws for paid 
lobbyists--have been made in the forties, in the fifties, in the 
sixties, in the seventies. They have failed for various reasons. Now, 
today, despite overwhelming votes for lobbying reform and for gift 
reform in both the House and the Senate, there is a tremendous last-
minute effort to kill this reform the way it was stymied in the sixties 
and stymied in the seventies.
  Our existing lobbying registration laws have been characterized by 
the Department of Justice as ineffective and unenforceable. These laws 
breed disrespect for law itself because they are so widely ignored. 
They have been a sham and a shambles for decades. At a time when the 
American public no longer believes that their Government really belongs 
to them or is responsive to them, our lobbying registration laws have 
become a joke leaving more paid professional lobbyists unregistered 
than registered.
  The GAO estimates that fewer than 4,000 of the 13,000-plus 
individuals and organizations listed in the book ``Washington 
Representatives'' are actually registered as lobbyists even though at 
least three-quarters regularly lobby. This bill would change all of 
that and ensure that we will finally know, after decades of pretending, 
who is being paid, how much, by whom, to lobby what Federal agencies in 
Congress and on what issues.
  This bill would close the loopholes in existing lobbying registration 
laws. It would cover lobbyists of foreign and foreign-owned companies. 
It would cover all professional lobbyists whether they are lawyers, 
nonlawyers, inhouse or independent, whether they lobby the Congress or 
the executive branch, and whether their clients are profit or 
nonprofit. It would provide for the first time effective administration 
and enforcement.
  Senator Cohen and I introduced this bill. We had bipartisan support 
and still do have bipartisan support. Six Democrats and four 
Republicans were the original cosponsors of this lobby registration 
bill. The Senate approved the bill a year ago by a near unanimous vote 
of 95 to 2. The conference report before us was signed by all Senate 
conferees of both parties and passed the House last Thursday by a 
bipartisan vote of 306 to 112.
  So why are we faced with a filibuster? One reason is because real 
reform, Mr. President, does not come easy. As long as special-interest 
lobbying organizations thought this bill was not really going to make 
it, they held their fire. But now in the final hours the lobbying 
organizations have unleashed their forces. We are being barraged by 
lobbying campaigns because we are trying to get them out in the 
sunshine.
  This bill, Mr. President, is the work product of 3 years of committee 
consideration and deliberation. Many provisions which are now being 
attacked were in the original Senate bill that passed 95 to 2. Scare 
tactics are used, fictionalized versions are being promulgated to make 
the average citizen believe that this bill would require them to 
register when they express their opinion.
  The only way this bill will affect the average citizen is by arming 
that average citizen with information on the amount and the purpose of 
the paid professional special interest lobbying in Washington so the 
public can know what is going on. The opponents say the average citizen 
will have to register and be regulated by a bureaucratic agency. That 
is not so. Only paid professional lobbyists would have to register. As 
a matter of fact, that is what the current laws on the books are 
supposed to require.
  Because of the loopholes in them--for instance, one law excluding 
lawyers who are lobbyists--we do not have paid professional lobbyists 
who are registering now. At least most of them do not. Opponents say 
lobbying organizations will have to disclose their membership list. 
That is not so. Senator Cohen and I have consistently taken the 
position that disclosure of membership lists would be violative of the 
Constitution. We have successfully opposed efforts on this floor to 
require organizations to disclose their membership lists. Why is so 
much disinformation employed at this last minute to kill this bill? One 
of the reasons is because it is real reform. It bites. It bites the 
special interests and it bites us.
  Let us take a quick look at each of the claims that have been made 
against this conference report and see just how erroneous each one is. 
Contrary to what opponents are representing, the bill would not require 
citizens who call Congress or come to Washington to express their own 
views to register as lobbyists. It would not require grassroots 
organizations to disclose their membership lists or their contributors. 
It would not require churches to register as lobbyists. No one who 
lobbies on his or her own behalf or on behalf of someone else as a 
volunteer would be required to register. You would not have to register 
if you call your Member of Congress. You would not have to register if 
you write your Member of Congress. You will not have to register if you 
meet with your Member of Congress. You would not have to register if 
you join an organization that lobbies Congress. You would not have to 
register if you contribute to an organization that lobbies Congress. 
You would not have to register if you sign a petition, join a picket 
line or march in a parade. You only have to register if you are paid by 
a client to lobby on behalf of that client. Again, that is what the 
existing laws that have been ignored and loopholed to death are 
supposed to require.
  Second, this bill would not place any limitation on grassroots 
lobbying by citizens who organize to present their own views to the 
Congress. What this bill would do is require the disclosure if a 
registered lobbyist pays someone to organize grassroots lobbying and 
then the registered lobbyist would have to disclose who was hired and 
how much was spent.
  The suggestion has been made, Mr. President, that section 105(b)(5) 
would require organizations employing lobbyists to disclose their 
membership lists or their contributors list. That is not true. No 
membership or contributors list would be required to be disclosed. The 
provision which is being used to make that argument does not refer to 
the contributors or members of an organization. It simply requires the 
disclosure of ``any person or entity other than the client who paid the 
registrant to lobby on behalf of the client.''
  The question is, who paid for the lobbying? Was it the client, or was 
it someone other than the client? If the client paid for its own 
lobbying activities, the question ends there and the provision does not 
apply. The provision only comes into play if someone other than the 
client pays the lobbyist. In other words, the provision applies if the 
organization does not pay for its own lobbying activities and someone 
else pays the lobbyist instead. Then the organization would have to 
disclose who sent the check to the lobbyist. A member of an 
organization is not paying a lobbyist to lobby simply because the 
member contributes to the organization, by any commonsense meaning of 
these words.
  Again, the subject of a membership and contributors list was 
discussed extensively in the Governmental Affairs Committee hearings on 
the bill, and a decision was made that no such disclosure should be 
required.
  Mr. President, if that 10 minutes is up, I would at this point yield 
the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Nickles] is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will make a statement, and I would like 
to discuss some of the statements made by my friend from Michigan as 
well as my friend from Minnesota. I believe we have some real 
disagreement on what the language says. First, let me say I do not 
doubt the intent of the sponsors of the legislation. I compliment them 
for much of what they have tried to do in this bill.
  I totally disagree with some of the thrust of what they are saying 
and what its impact would be on grassroots lobbying. I am reading from 
the legislation here, and I hear their intent, and they are saying this 
legislation would not require disclosure of a contributor list.
  Frankly, that is not what the legislation says. The legislation 
before us was changed between the Senate bill and the conference 
report--and I noticed that the comments that were made by the Senator 
from Michigan and others referred to Senate language and Senate debate, 
but not to the conference report. The conference report, very 
specifically, is going to require individuals who contribute to 
organizations which employ a lobbyist to have their names publicly 
disclosed to the federal government. Let me site some of the language, 
and I will put in some substantiating facts that deal with my points.
  Mr. President, as you know, many concerns regarding coalitions and 
associations and grassroots efforts were raised on the House floor 
regarding this legislation. The rule on the bill narrowly passed the 
House by 216 to 205. A close reading of the legislation and its 
definitions and requirements validate these concerns. I might mention 
that just because the House had a close vote, it did not convince me 
they were right. It made me think we should look at the legislation. 
This was not raised as an issue when we debated this on the Senate 
floor. The Senate bill did not have the language we now have in the 
conference report.
  Some of this is technical but I am going to read directly from the 
bill. Section 104(A)(2) requires organizations which employ one or more 
lobbyists to register with the Office of Lobbying Registration and 
Public Disclosure. Under section 104(B)(2), each registration must 
contain the name, address, and the principal place of business of the 
registrant's client along with other information. Similarly, under 
section 105(B)(1), the name of the client must be disclosed in 
semiannual reports by the registrants.
  Who is defined as a client, whose name, address, and place of 
business are to be disclosed? The term ``client'' is defined in 103(2). 
It states that in the case of a coalition or an association of 
employees lobbyists, the organization itself is the client, providing 
the lobbying is paid for through regular dues and assessments.
  However, in 103(2)(b), the client is defined as individual members of 
the organization if lobbying activities are financed by members outside 
of regular dues and assessments. Specifically, it states:

       In the case of a coalition or association that employs or 
     retains other persons to conduct lobbying activities, the 
     client is, (B), an individual member or members, when the 
     lobbying activities are conducted on behalf of, financed 
     separately by, one or more individual members and not by the 
     coalition's or association's dues and assessments.

  Think of all the organizations which, in addition to regular dues, 
call upon their members to help finance the organization's efforts. 
Under this bill, those individual Americans would have to be publicly 
disclosed by the Federal Government, basically because they stood up 
and spoke out for something they believed in.
  Mr. President, that is the language in the bill. For proponents of 
this conference report to say this legislation does not require 
disclosure of names of people who contribute to these groups is just 
wrong. The bill states that a client is somebody outside the 
organization that contributes to a cause.
  Let me give a couple of examples. I have a lot of organizations that 
I will read into the Record that are opposed to this bill for this very 
reason. Let us say an organization is opposed to or supportive of 
particular legislation--and I notice we have family groups, prolife 
groups, and proabortion groups, that are against this legislation.
  Let us take an issue like the Freedom of Choice Act; it is a bill 
that deals with abortion. The Right to Life Committee is adamantly 
opposed to it, and Planned Parenthood of America is in favor of it. If 
these organizations write letters to their members and say, ``This is a 
special effort and we have to defeat this bill or we have to pass this 
bill, please send in $20,'' then those individuals who send in money in 
addition to their dues are covered by this bill. If somebody 
contributes, and let us say they are not a member--or maybe they are a 
member--they are defined as a client on the second page of the bill. I 
will read it again:

       A client is an individual member or members, when the 
     lobbying activities are conducted on behalf of, or financed 
     separately by, one or more individual members and not by the 
     coalition's or association's dues and assessments.

  We are not talking about dues. Not everybody at Right to Life or 
Planned Parenthood will be disclosed because they are a member, I 
agree. But if they contribute over and above what their dues and 
assessments are, because they want to have special input and a special 
lobbying effort to defeat or pass legislation, then they are defined as 
a client under this bill. No question. That is not really even 
debatable. They are defined as a client, and a client under this bill 
has to be disclosed.
  I have heard a couple of our colleagues say there is no disclosure. 
``We are not going to disclose people who contribute to causes if they 
want to affect legislation.'' That is not factual. It may not be the 
intent. That is not the way it passed the Senate, but it is the way it 
came back from conference. I regret that.
  I might mention, Mr. President, again, my interest in this did not 
really even come up until I heard it on a radio program. A lot of 
people tend to blast those rightwing radio programs. Well, I was 
listening to ``Focus on the Family'', and Gary Bowers said that this 
would require his listeners, if they responded to our radio messages 
that they should be involved and contribute money, but not if they 
call. I will grant the authors of the legislation that if an individual 
simply calls their Congressman, they would not have to be disclosed. Or 
if they drop by the office, they would not have to be disclosed. But if 
they write a check over and above dues and assessments to an 
organization which employs a lobbyist, they are defined as a client 
under this legislation. Therefore, their names will have to be 
disclosed.
  I do not think that is disputable. I do not think that is contested. 
I do not think there is any other interpretation of this language, 
despite the fact that the proponents may say, ``That is not our 
intent.'' We are not talking about intent. We are talking about 
legislative language. And so if those names are disclosed, you are 
going to have a very chilling impact on grassroots organizations and 
their communication with their Representatives.
  Mr. President, this is not just Don Nickles' opinion. I asked my 
staff to look at the language in the conference report and the legal 
counsel that works with me over at the Republican Policy Committee. 
They came to the same conclusion. We have reviewed it. I have asked 
other people, and we have found organization after organization that 
concurs with this.
  Let me read a very short letter that came to my attention, and again, 
made me say we have to look at this legislation a lot closer. This was 
addressed to all Senators and Representatives of the conference 
committee on this legislation:

       The undersigned nonprofit groups have very different 
     memberships, represent a variety of viewpoints, and are often 
     in opposite corners when debates on public policy get 
     underway. Despite these differences, we find ourselves united 
     in our concern over the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1994 and 
     the adverse impact it will have on our ability to convey our 
     members' views to the Congress and the Executive Branch.
       As currently drafted, the lobbying reform legislation, S. 
     349 and H.R. 823, will place an undue and unnecessary burden 
     on the exercise of our First Amendment freedoms. The 
     legislation's registration and reporting requirements will 
     jeopardize the fundamental right of all citizens to 
     communicate with and lobby their government through 
     associations by imposing time-consuming and costly 
     recordkeeping and paperwork demands on all groups that inform 
     their members or urge them to give the government their views 
     on the issues. As organizations struggle to comply with the 
     legislation's directives, the diversion of both manpower and 
     financial resources to meet the recordkeeping and paperwork 
     demands will undermine the ability of all groups to 
     communicate with Congress and the Executive Branch on the 
     important issues facing this country.
       The impact of this legislation will reach well beyond 
     Washington, D.C. and will adversely affect organizations 
     across the country. There is not an issue under discussion in 
     Congress or the Administration today that does not elicit the 
     views of organizations from all 50 States. The proposed 
     lobbying disclosure reforms will make it extremely difficult 
     for many of these organizations to continue to make their 
     opinions known to their elected representatives. The problem 
     is exacerbated for those nonprofit organizations impacted by 
     the recently enacted tax law changes regarding 
     nondeductibility of lobbying expenses, since that legislation 
     also contained extensive recordkeeping requirements. The 
     overall result is that fewer associations and, hence, fewer 
     Americans, will get their voices heard in Washington, D.C.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                               September 21, 1994.
     Members of the House-Senate Conference Committee on the 
       Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1993,
     Members of the House and Senate Leadership,
     U.S. Congress,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators and Representatives: The undersigned 
     nonprofit groups have very different memberships, represent a 
     variety of viewpoints, and are often in opposite corners when 
     debates on public policy get underway. Despite these 
     differences, we find ourselves united in our concern over the 
     Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1994 and the adverse impact it 
     will have on our ability to convey our members' views to the 
     Congress and the Executive Branch.
       As currently drafted, the lobbying reform legislation, S. 
     349 and H.R. 823, will place an undue and unnecessary burden 
     on the exercise of our First Amendment freedoms. The 
     legislation's registration and reporting requirements will 
     jeopardize the fundamental right of all citizens to 
     communicate with and lobby their government through 
     associations by imposing time-consuming and costly 
     recordkeeping and paperwork demands on all groups that inform 
     their members or urge them to give the government their views 
     on the issues. As organizations struggle to comply with the 
     legislation's directives, the diversion of both manpower and 
     financial resources to meet the recordkeeping and paperwork 
     demands will undermine the ability of all groups to 
     communicate with Congress and the Executive Branch on the 
     important issues facing this country.
       The impact of this legislation will reach well beyond 
     Washington, D.C. and will adversely affect organizations 
     across the country. There is not an issue under discussion in 
     Congress or the Administration today that does not elicit the 
     views of organizations from all 50 states. The proposed 
     lobbying disclosure reforms will make it extremely difficult 
     for many of these organizations to continue to make their 
     opinions known to their elected representatives. The problem 
     is exacerbated for those nonprofit organizations impacted by 
     the recently enacted tax law changes regarding 
     nondeductibility of lobbying expenses, since that legislation 
     also contained extensive recordkeeping requirements. The 
     overall result is that fewer associations and, hence, fewer 
     Americans, will get their voices heard in Washington, D.C.
       We are concerned that much of the momentum for lobbying 
     reform springs from the misconception that nonprofit 
     organizations harm, rather than help, the policy-making 
     process. Nonprofit groups provide information and resources 
     that are both useful to and needed by Congress and the 
     Executive Branch--information and resources which help to 
     keep government officials in touch with the citizens of this 
     country. An interactive democracy, such as ours, requires 
     citizen participation, and nonprofit groups are essential in 
     allowing Americans from every part of our nation to register 
     their views with their government.
       It is unprecedented for such a diverse array of groups to 
     stand together in opposition to a single legislative 
     proposal. Our doing so is evidence that we believe this 
     legislation will seriously impair our ability to exercise our 
     rights guaranteed under the First Amendment. We, therefore, 
     respectfully urge that you oppose S. 349 and H.R. 823 as 
     currently drafted, and consider revising the legislation by 
     making the changes that are outlined on the attached page.
       A similar letter has been sent to the other members of the 
     House and Senate leadership and to the members of the 
     conference committee on the lobbying disclosure bills.
           Sincerely,
         Alliance for Educational and Cultural Exchange, American 
           Family Association, Americans United for Life, Center 
           for Science in the Public Interest, Child Protection 
           Lobby, 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, Doris Day Animal League, English First, 
           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, 
           International Freedom Foundation, National Right to 
           Life Committee, National Rifle Association, National 
           Legal And Policy Center, National Association of 
           Housing Cooperatives, Ohio Citizen Action, Safe Streets 
           Coalition, Planned Parenthood of America, Population-
           Environment Balance, United Seniors Association, Inc., 
           U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

       [Note: The following was sent to the members of the 
     conference committee on the Lobbying Disclosure bills and 
     Members of the House and Senate Leadership.]

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I might mention this letter is signed by 
a bunch of different groups with totally opposite philosophical bases: 
Alliance for Educational and Cultural Exchange, American Family 
Association, Americans United for Life, Center for Science in the 
Public Interest, Child Protection Lobby--and I will skip several of 
these--Coalition Against Gun Violence, Doris Day Animal League, English 
First, Family Research Council, which I alluded to, The Feminist 
Majority, Federation of American Scientists, Gun Owners of America, 
Humane Society of the United States, National Right to Life Committee, 
National Rifle Association, National Association of Housing 
Cooperatives, Ohio Citizen Action, Safe Streets Coalition, Planned 
Parenthood of America, Population-Environment Balance, United Seniors 
Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
  Mr. President, I have another list of organizations even more 
extensive which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                    Organizations Opposed to S. 349

       Alliance For Educational and Cultural Exchange.
       Alliance For America.
       American Civil Liberties Union.
       American Farm Bureau.
       American Family Association.
       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.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this list includes the American Farm 
Bureau, the National Association of Realtors, the Feminist Majority, 
the Environmental Policy Task Force, and on and on, because these 
groups have realized that if they send out a letter and they ask for 
money to defeat legislation or to pass legislation, those contributors 
are going to be listed as clients and those clients are going to have 
to be disclosed. Those are the facts.
  That was not in the Senate bill. That is a new addition that came in 
the conference report. You can look on page 353 of the conference 
report for that explanation.
  So, Mr. President, I just make the comment that this legislation will 
have a very chilling, negative impact on lots of individuals who want 
to participate and contribute to causes, to legislation, and I think it 
is a serious mistake.
  I will just mention to the supporters of the legislation I heard most 
of the rhetoric that was directed against the legislation saying we 
need to ban gifts and Congress is on the take, and so on. Let us ban 
it. Let us pass legislation or let us pass the Senate rule--I think we 
can pass that overnight--and say, hey, let us not take gifts; let us 
ban gifts from lobbyists. Let us do it.
  That is not my objective. My objective is to stop very intrusive 
governmental expansion that will really stifle the peoples' 
participation in the legislative process by telling them, if you 
contribute to these organizations, if you contribute to a cause outside 
of your dues to defeat or pass legislation, your name is going to be 
filed, your name is going to be registered, your name is going to be 
disclosed and probably abused by the fact that it is going to be out in 
the public record.
  I think that is a serious mistake, and that is the reason why this 
legislation at this point needs to be defeated.
  I hope that the sponsors of the legislation will work with me and 
other people and say, hey, let us get rid of this grassroots lobbying 
extension that was made in conference. Let us eliminate that. Let us 
pass the gift ban, or let us pass a rule change that would prohibit 
gifts to Members of Congress and do that and be done and not do harm to 
countless individuals who want to participate in this political 
process.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). The Senator from Oklahoma yields 
the floor.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, let me just start out by saying that I find 
lobbying in the Congress valuable and useful. In the context of what we 
are discussing here today, that may be an unusual statement, but many 
times I have called some lobbyists to get detailed information about 
their industry or what they are doing. I find that a valuable resource. 
Lobbyists do not have to take me to free lunches or ball games or the 
opera, or anything else, to get access to my office. I welcome their 
views and by all means consider them.
  But this legislation had already passed the Senate with a 95-to-2 
vote, I believe it was, then went to conference with the House, and now 
we find ourselves with a proliferation of disinformation that Senator 
Levin already addressed in detail this morning along with the opinions 
being expressed by people all over this country about the problems with 
lobbying and what their perception of it is. I think Senators Levin and 
Cohen, who have been so diligent in the process, deserve a tremendous 
amount of credit for what they have been doing.
  I say to Members who voted before, those who voted 95 to 2, to send 
this legislation through, I ask them now, if they are going to vote the 
other direction, why they have changed their minds. Do they just follow 
the winds out there? Do they follow what the talk show hosts are saying 
with their disinformation? Are they saying the lobbying in itself by 
the talk shows and the disinformation campaign that has been put 
forward is to prevail over their vote before? If they are going to vote 
against this today, why did they change their minds? If anything, it 
has been made better after it went through here and went to conference.
  I was not in every conference meeting. I am a member of the 
conference committee though and I say Senators Levin and Cohen did an 
exceptionally good job.
  Are Members of Congress up for sale? No. I think that is so far 
overdone I cannot believe it. Should we correct some perceptions that 
are common across the country about how the lobbyists work? Absolutely, 
we should. It does not hurt the lobbyists in doing their jobs to say 
there will be some limitations on lunches, and so on. These are the 
registered lobbyists we are talking about here now, people who have to 
register.
  If we really wanted to attack the notion of special interest access 
and how it is tilting the Congress one way or the other on a particular 
issue, we would have passed campaign finance reform. I think we would 
have gone to Federal financing of campaign, obnoxious as that seems to 
be to many Members here. They do not want to vote for it. That would do 
more to clean up politics around Washington, DC, than anything else we 
can do with this legislation. While I think it is important, we are 
sort of nibbling around the edges. I find it a bit hypocritical to say 
that a Member could be bought for a $20 lunch and you turn around and 
ask that same person who took you to the $20 lunch for a $5,000 PAC 
contribution--$5,000. We are going to be bought for 20 bucks and turn 
around and ask the person for a $5,000 PAC contribution.
  But, it goes without saying that the American people have lost their 
faith and confidence in government. If banning gifts and other 
lobbyists amenities is what it takes to begin restoring public trust 
and integrity, then act we must.
  Do I think the gift ban will actually make a difference in how things 
are done around here? Most certainly. It puts everything above-board. 
In fact, we can do business the true old-fashioned way--by meeting 
concerned citizens, as well as special interest lobbyists--in the 
pleasant ambience of our own offices. We don't need the strolling 
violinists.
  I recognize that in the world of politics we must deal with 
perceptions. It is high-time we owned up to those realities. This 
institution, which ought to be revered and respected by all Americans, 
is subject to daily scorn and ridicule. We're depicted as out-of-touch 
Members, being wined and dined by special interests, and caring not for 
the Nation or our State, but only for our own reelection. And we 
certainly deserve much of the blame for letting this happen. So it is a 
big step we take today, one which will hopefully show we are serious 
about improving this body's reputation and standing with the public.
  Let me also just say that the main guts of this bill, in my book, is 
the Lobbying Disclosure Act, which Senator Levin has worked on so hard 
for so long. This--more than the gift ban--will probably have a greater 
impact in rebuilding the peoples' trust in their Government. Finally, 
everyone will be able to know who's paying what to lobby whom on which 
issue. Sunshine is always the best disinfectant. Or in some cases, 
repellant.
  I am disturbed however, at the recent attack on this legislation 
based on a complete falsehood regarding its application to grassroots 
lobbying. Never would I be privy to anything that would inhibit the 
free exercise of religion or hinder the right of the citizenry to 
petition their Government.
  This whole bill is about giving people the power of knowing who is 
really footing the bill for someone lobbying on behalf of a technical 
tax break or special pork-barrel project. In fact, I believe most of us 
would much rather listen to our own constituents rather than some 
smooth-talking Washington lobbyist. I was elected to represent the 
people of Ohio and it is them that I want to hear from and give top 
priority to.

  I believe Senator Levin specifically addressed these concerns in a 
speech on the Senate floor the other day. But the following points 
should be made. First, only paid, professional lobbyists are required 
to register under this bill. 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 spends money on 
grassroots lobbying--that is, an effort to get individuals to contact 
Members of Congress or the executive branch--the lobbyist must estimate 
the money so spent and disclose the name of any person or group hired 
by them to conduct such a campaign. The names of unpaid individuals or 
volunteers involved in or contacted pursuant to such a grassroots 
effort are not required to be disclosed. Similarly, there are 
absolutely no requirements placed on any person who calls, writes, or 
just stops in to express his or her own views to Members of Congress or 
the executive branch. I wouldn't stand for such a patently 
unconstitutional measure.
  In addition, there is a requirement for paid professional lobbyists 
to disclose the name of any person or entity who is paying for such 
services, if other than the client himself. It does not require 
organizations employing lobbyists to disclose their membership lists, 
which would raise serious first amendment concerns. Finally, the bill 
explicitly exempts religious organizations, such as churches or 
associations of churches, from having to register in the first place, 
even if they have paid professional lobbyists on their staff.
  I would note that these issues were given the primary consideration 
they were due by the committee in developing its version of this 
legislation. No one, not in the committee's markup, nor on the Senate 
floor, suggested our constitutional safeguards infringed on either free 
speech or the exercise of religion. I recognize and appreciate the 
nature of these concerns, and it is my hope that they have been 
voiced--and addressed--in all sincerity and good faith. I would hate to 
see them misused by those who deep down do not really want this piece 
of legislation and hold out hopes of continuing business as usual. In 
that case, it would be a shame and a loss for the American people and 
those of us who have worked so hard to get here in the first place.
  In closing, I want to thank again my colleagues, especially Senators 
Levin and Cohen for their leadership and indefatigable efforts. As an 
original cosponsor and chairman of the committee which originally 
passed these bills, I was both proud and pleased to lend my full 
support and help. And more importantly, to stand behind them and 
finally see the fruition of all our hard work.
  The scorched earth policies or politics having to do with this I find 
deplorable. I think this is good legislation. I am glad to support it. 
It came through the committee. I thank Senators Levin and Cohen for the 
job they have done on this all the way through.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank very much Senator Glenn for his 
leadership.
  I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] is 
recognized.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I think we should begin this debate with 
the proposition that the current lobbyist registration laws which are 
on the books today are a joke. We have thousands of lobbyists in this 
town. Only a small percentage actually register according to the 
existing law, and of those few that do, the information they provide is 
meaningless.
  If we are trying to find out why the American public is cynical about 
the political process, take a look at what happens outside, for 
example, when the Finance Committee takes up a tax bill. The streets of 
downtown Washington spring into action. It has been described as Gucci 
gulch. That corridor in downtown Washington is lined with paid 
professional lobbyists who are paid huge sums of money to lobby on 
behalf of their clients. The public, we feel, would like to know who is 
being paid how much to lobby whom on what issues. The public has a 
right to know.
  That was exactly the intent for which Senator Levin and I, and 
others, set out some time ago to try to write legislation which 
offered, we hoped, simplicity and clarity in mind, as well as 
comprehensiveness.
  A number of inaccurate statements have been made about this proposed 
law. For example, one statement brought to my attention indicated that 
this bill would require individual Members of Congress to be listed 
among the contacts of registered lobbyists. That statement is not true. 
This bill does not require lobbyists to disclose the names of the 
individual Members contacted by the lobbyist. We debated that issue 
earlier and discovered a number of legitimate concerns. Specifically, 
there was a concern that, if lobbyists were to file a public disclosure 
form that says ``I contacted Senator X on this bill,'' it may raise 
more questions than it answers and could be misused for political 
purposes. For example, during an election the information in the 
disclosure could be distorted by suggesting that a brief meeting with a 
Member had an effect on a Member's vote or position on a particular 
issue. In fact, the disclosure would also have been entirely in the 
hands of the lobbyist. What if a disclosure was made in error, or a 
false disclosure was made specifically to embarrass a Member? These 
issues were debated and we came to the conclusion that adequate 
protections against errors and misuse could not be provided. 
Consequently, we did not require lobbyists to list their individual 
contacts with specific Members. Instead, lobbyists are only required to 
disclose the committee or House of Congress they contacted.
  Mr. President, first let me state that I do not want to question nor 
do I question the motivations of any of the Members who oppose this 
legislation. In addition, there are some legitimate organizations who 
are also sincerely opposed to this legislation. I do, however, think 
that some groups are opposed because they are under a misapprehension 
about the terms of this legislation. I want to be clear that I do not 
question the motives of the opposition to this bill.
  What I do suggest, however, is that a failure to invoke cloture on 
this bill is effectively going to kill lobbying reform in this 
Congress.
  I do not think it is necessary to do that. I believe that by invoking 
cloture, we can take whatever time is necessary under that 30-hour 
period and debate whatever ambiguities, perceived or real, exist in the 
law and see if we cannot correct them through compromise.
  I find it somewhat ironic or unfortunate that the Senate rules in 
this particular case call for a two-thirds majority to invoke cloture 
as opposed to the a three-fifths majority, especially in light of the 
fact, as my colleague from Oklahoma just mentioned, that no one is 
taking issue with the rule change. And yet here we are having to invoke 
cloture with a two-thirds vote, when, in fact, no one is challenging 
the rule change. Some are arguing that we should just take up the rule 
change and pass it in order to satisfy the public that we are not being 
unduly influenced by the personal largess of these lobbyists.
  Let me say, on behalf of the proponents of the bill, which I consider 
myself, that there is at least one statement made by some opponents to 
the bill which I believe to be completely inaccurate. Specifically, the 
suggestion that the bill would require religious organizations to 
register as lobbyists is simply wrong. We wrote in a specific exemption 
for religious organizations. In fact, the Baptist Joint Committee, the 
U.S. Catholic Conference, and the Religious Action Center of Reform 
Judaism have all provided letters endorsing the language.
  So we tried to accommodate the religious groups to make sure there 
was no question about their being covered by this law. But, 
nonetheless, we have a number of groups that now maintain our language 
is inconsistent with our intent.
  Let me say, on behalf of the opponents of this legislation, that the 
grassroots lobbying provision was not in the Senate version of the 
bill. It was added because of the House insistence on its addition. And 
there may be some question, as raised by my friend from Oklahoma, in 
terms of what the words actually mean and what the intent is. I think 
it is clear what our intent is, and the intent is not to require the 
listing of all the clients who may be contributing to organizations 
outside of dues and assessments. I think that could be corrected. If it 
is indeed a problem, it could be corrected easily. All we have to do is 
add two words to section 103(2)(A) of this bill--``or contributions.'' 
That would clarify the language to ensure that it is consistent with 
our intent and, I believe, remove the objections the Senator from 
Oklahoma is raising.
  So we can deal with this issue.
  May I have 1 more minute?
  Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield an additional minute to my friend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for an additional 
minute.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, we can remove, I believe, the challenge to 
the law based upon the question as to grassroots lobbying. What we need 
to do is invoke cloture in order to do that.
  I believe if we take just a few hours of debate to raise the 
questions and provide the answers to our colleagues, we can address 
these concerns and, in fact, pass this legislation which is badly 
needed. It is long in the making. I think our failure to do so is only 
going go solidify the cynicism that is out there today that Congress 
really, when it comes down to measuring up to our responsibilities, is 
not willing to do so. I think we can clear this issue up and if 
necessary make minor modifications to the language to ensure that it is 
consistent with our intent.
  I know the courts are somewhat insistent on ensuring that the intent 
is stated in the language of the law itself. Justice Scalia, for 
example, will hold us to the language of the bill and not to our 
intent. Others will do the same. So we can clarify any inconsistencies 
if we need to and do so in a very short period of time. It may also 
require asking the other body to adopt the same changes, but it can be 
done. First, we need to invoke cloture to begin this debate and address 
these concerns. I urge my colleagues to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Kentucky.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] is 
recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from Oklahoma.
  Mr. President, what we have this morning is the marrying up of two 
separate measures: One, the Lobbying Disclosure Act, which would be a 
law passed by the House, passed by the Senate, and signed by the 
President; the other, rather awkwardly attached, is the Senate rule 
regulating gifts to Members of the Senate.
  We had a very spirited debate last May about the appropriateness of 
the rules change with regard to gifts. I think the Senate fully 
understood what we were about to do, because I was engaged in that 
debate as vice chairman of the Ethics Committee, just pointing out some 
of the regulatory problems here in the Senate with the proposal. But we 
had a good debate. Everybody understood the issue. We voted on it and 
it is over. It would be my hope, Mr. President, that we would pass the 
Senate rule related to gifts to Senators.
  The second portion that we are discussing today, the Lobby Disclosure 
Act, was studied in great detail, obviously, by the sponsors of the 
amendment, Senator Levin, Senator Cohen, and others. They understood it 
fully. But I think a lot of the rest of us did not focus on that 
portion of these two issues that were moving in tandem last May through 
the Senate. Now we have had a chance to focus on it.
  I was particularly offended--somebody may have already mentioned 
this--by the Washington Post treatment this morning of the opposition 
to this bill. This is not just from conservatives, Mr. President. The 
American Civil Liberties Union, the Child Protection Lobby, the Doris 
Day Animal League, the Feminist Majority, the Humane Society of the 
United States, and Planned Parenthood are all opposed to this bill.
  So the opposition to this bill is not being spurred by some kind of 
right-wing cabal here. There are a lot of groups out in America who 
feel that they ought to be able to influence us, ought to be able to 
petition the Congress, as the Constitution puts it, who do not find 
this is a very good bill.
  Now I am not quite sure about all the dispute between what is in the 
plain meaning of the statute and what the sponsors of the bill want it 
to mean. We know the Supreme Court is increasingly not of a mind to 
deal with legislative intent. They read the thing. Their inclination is 
to read the plain meaning of the statute and interpret it in that way, 
rather than getting into what we might have meant, even though we did 
not say it specifically.
  So the American Civil Liberties Union, which is certainly not an arm 
of the Republican Party, has taken a look at this, Mr. President, and 
their view is that the plain meaning of the lobby disclosure bill as 
written leads to some catastrophic consequences in terms of the rights 
of citizens to influence us, which is a perfectly legitimate process.
  The American Civil Liberties Union has said:

       The extensive paperwork and reporting requirements may 
     cause some groups not to participate in lobbying merely 
     because they are likely to reach the reporting threshold 
     sooner by virtue of their geographic location.

  They have said further: ``We are gravely concerned''--this is the 
American Civil Liberties Union.

       We are gravely concerned about requirements that lobbyists 
     and their organizations disclose contributor information 
     including name, address and principal place of business. 
     Although Senator Levin said that contributor and membership 
     lists would not be subject to disclosure, we believe that 
     Section 105 will lead to such disclosure in violation of the 
     constitutional protections against it recognized in the 
     Supreme Court's landmark decision in NAACP v. Alabama.

  Well, that is a rather lengthy opinion by the American Civil 
Liberties Union about the lobby disclosure measure. In short, I think I 
am not misrepresenting their views to say they find it fatally flawed 
in a lot of respects; not just a little bit bad, but fatally flawed 
throughout.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield me 30 more seconds?
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield the Senator an additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 additional 
minute.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I wish we could get away from the 
notion that every time some so-called reform measure is proposed it is 
being opposed by conservatives in America.
  This bill is hotly contested, deeply resented, and vigorously opposed 
by a variety of different organizations in this country across the 
political spectrum. The American Civil Liberties Union, it seems to me, 
a group with outstanding constitutional lawyers, speaks best on this 
issue.
  I ask unanimous consent that their letter of October 5 that each of 
us received in opposition to the lobby disclosure portion of this 
package before us be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                         ACLU,

                                  Washington, DC, October 5, 1994.
       Dear Senator: The American Civil Liberties Union urges you 
     to reject the conference report on S. 349, the Lobbying 
     Disclosure Act of 1994. In our view, this bill raises serious 
     constitutional concern. While the goal of eliminating real 
     and perceived corruption in dealing with Congress and the 
     Executive Branch is laudable, this bill threatens important 
     First Amendment rights and raises other constitutional 
     concerns. We are very concerned that this legislation will 
     impose far-reaching and substantial burdens on public policy 
     advocacy that will make participation by grassroots 
     organizations costly and thus unlikely. This will be 
     especially true for small grassroots organizations whose 
     voices are those heard least often in our national debates.
       The authors of S. 349 implicitly recognize the burdens 
     imposed by its reporting requirements by including an 
     exemption for religious organizations as a class from some of 
     these requirements. But the burdens imposed by this 
     legislation will likely inhibit a wide range of groups, 
     especially those that are under-resourced from exercising 
     their right to lobby. In exempting only religious 
     organizations, S. 349 unfairly favors religious groups and 
     thereby violates the Establishment Clause.
       This Establishment Clause problem is only one of our 
     concerns. We believe this legislation merits further 
     deliberation and analysis. Some of the ACLU's objections 
     include, but are not limited to the following:
       This legislation unfairly and unreasonably burdens those 
     who engage in grassroots lobbying. The extensive paperwork 
     and reporting requirements may cause some groups not to 
     participate in lobbying merely because they are likely to 
     reach the reporting threshold sooner by virtue of their 
     geographic location. For example, a California based 
     grassroots organization will have much higher travel-related 
     expenses for direct lobbying contacts than a similarly 
     situated organization in Northern Virginia. This unfairly 
     discriminates in favor of locally based groups and against 
     those that may have to travel to meet with a Member of 
     Congress or an Executive Branch official. Likewise, non-
     profit organizations that can provide expertise on 
     complicated legislation, may not choose to do so because 
     their time and expenses will be greater than if they were 
     to only make known their position on final passage. 
     Congress risks losing valuable input during its 
     deliberations prior to the adoption of legislation in 
     committee or by the full House and Senate. Should 
     complicated legislation such as health care reform or 
     welfare reform receive a reduced level of public input 
     because the paperwork requirements (and civil penalties 
     for failing to report) inhibit such input? Whatever large 
     scale corruption this bill seeks to address, surely there 
     is a much reduced threat of that from small non-profit 
     groups.
       Churches, associations of churches and related 
     organizations are exempted on the basis of their tax-exempt 
     status, even though other tax-exempt organizations are not. 
     If it violates the ``free exercise of religion'' to require 
     lobbying reports by church lobbyists, then it violates the 
     right ``to petition the government,'' also contained in the 
     First Amendment, to require it of others. If, on the other 
     hand, the government has a compelling interest sufficient to 
     overcome the petition right, the same interest is sufficient 
     to overcome any free exercise claim. Thus, no special 
     exemption is required. Moreover, the bill states that its 
     purpose is to provide the public with information on ``the 
     efforts of paid lobbyists to influence the public decision 
     making process'' and to disclose ``the identity and extent of 
     the efforts of paid lobbyists to influence'' federal policy. 
     To exempt some organizations, which may in fact outspend 
     those required to report, is to provide a distorted picture 
     to the public of who is involved in lobbying, thereby 
     undermining the very purpose of the legislation.
       Finally, by providing special favorable treatment of 
     religious lobbyists, the legislation impermissibly advances 
     religion, thereby violating the Establishment Clause. In Walz 
     v. Tax Commission, 397 U.S. 664 (1970), the Supreme Court 
     upheld the property tax exemptions for church property only 
     because the same tax exemptions were available as part of a 
     general taxation scheme exempting all nonprofit or socially 
     beneficial organizations. This legislation may not 
     constituionally treat churches specially.
       We are gravely concerned about requirements that lobbyists 
     and their organizations disclose contributor information 
     including name, address and principal place of business. (See 
     Section 105(b) 1-5.) Although Senator Levin said that 
     contributor and membership lists would not be subject to 
     disclosure, we believe that Section 105 will lead to such 
     disclosure in violation of the constitutional protections 
     against it recognized in the Supreme Court's landmark 
     decision in NAACP v. Alabama 357 U.S. 449, (1958). In this 
     case, a unanimous Court ruled in 1958 that members of the 
     NAACP had a right of association that would be jeopardized by 
     such a governmental intrusion and that their list was 
     protected from the state.
       Given that the Lobbying Disclosure Act will not eliminate a 
     number of current federal laws affecting advocacy by non-
     profits, unclear and conflicting definitions of lobbying will 
     result. Moreover, confusing jurisdictional issues are created 
     between the Office of Lobbying Registration and Public 
     Disclosure, the Select Committee on Ethics and the Internal 
     Revenue Service (IRS). We believe the lack of clarity as to 
     agency jurisdiction combined with the threat of civil 
     penalties up to $200,000 for ordinary citizens creates an 
     environment that will have a chilling impact on the rights of 
     citizens to lobby. In particular, charities that now have to 
     comply with complex IRS rules issued in 1990 will still be 
     forced to comply with additional and conflicting federal 
     rules required by this Act outlining the conditions of their 
     contact with Congress and the Executive Branch.
       We believe that information collected by the Office of 
     Lobbying Registration and Public Disclosure is not subject to 
     adequate privacy protections. It is a long standing principle 
     of the Privacy Act of 1974 that information collected by the 
     government for one purpose should not be available to other 
     government agencies for use for other purposes. The Privacy 
     Act was based on a congressional finding that the right to 
     privacy, a personal and fundamental right protected by the 
     United States Constitution, was ``directly affected by the 
     collection, maintenance, use and dissemination of personal 
     information by federal agencies.'' S. 349 contains no such 
     safeguards consistent with Privacy Act principles. Thus, 
     information could be used by the Internal Revenue Service or 
     the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for example.
       Congress is correct to be concerned about actual and 
     perceived corruption, for public mistrust of government can 
     seriously undermine a democracy. But, overregulating 
     individuals or organizations, especially small organizations, 
     who engage in core political speech is not the answer. 
     Lobbyists enrich and invigorate the legislative process, 
     providing a wealth of information and technical expertise to 
     Congress.
       While we appreciate the efforts by Senator Levin and others 
     to develop a workable disclosure scheme, and to address the 
     concerns of the ACLU and others, for the reasons stated above 
     we urge your opposition to S. 349. These issues require more 
     deliberation than is possible under current circumstances.
       Thank you for your consideration of our views.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Laura Murphy Lee,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor and I thank my friend from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCONNELL. How much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has 11 minutes 3 
seconds.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains for the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty seconds.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Wyoming 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop], is 
recognized.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I would 
say to my friend from Kentucky that I, too, was offended by the 
Washington Post article because I know we supplied them the list of 
organizations opposing this legislation, and they chose to editorialize 
in their report. I do not know why that comes as a surprise. I guess in 
truth it does not.
  Mr. President, I already spoke pretty significantly yesterday on this 
legislation, so let me only take a moment to respond to the ``Dear 
Colleague'' from the sponsor of this legislation, the Senator from 
Michigan.
  I discussed this yesterday. The main concern of grassroots 
organizations is section 105(B)(5). The ``Dear Colleague'' of the 
Senator from Michigan says that the suggestion that these groups would 
have to expose their membership lists is untrue. The letter goes on to 
reference language from a Congressional Record statement of May 5, 
1993, to support this assertion.
  The language that is quoted in the ``Dear Colleague'' from May 5, 
1993, may reflect the Senate bill, but this language was changed. That 
is the point of the debate we engage in today. The Senator from 
Michigan is quoting from the Senate report which had applied to 
lobbying firms. But page 53 of the conference agreement, the relevant 
bill before this body, states:

       The conference amendment would adopt the Senate language 
     with a clarifying amendment. Under the conference amendment, 
     all registrants, (regardless whether they are lobbying firms 
     or use in-house lobbyists) would be required to identify any 
     person other than the client who paid the registrant to lobby 
     on behalf of the client.

  Let me repeat the operative words: ``Regardless whether they are 
lobbying firms or use inhouse lobbyists.''
  It is clear the language was changed in conference and has a much 
broader meaning than that contained in the approved Senate bill. I find 
it ironic that the Senator from Michigan attempts to justify new 
language in a conference agreement by referencing the obviously very 
different Senate language.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that page 53 of the conference 
report be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the page was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

       In the case of in-house lobbying, a good faith estimate, by 
     category of dollar value, of all expenses incurred by the 
     registrant and its employees in connection with lobbying 
     activities.
       Section 5(b) of the House amendment contains similar 
     reporting requirements, which differ from the Senate bill, in 
     that the House amendment would: (1) require a list of all 
     specific issues upon which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
     activities; (2) require the identification of the specific 
     issues on which an outside firm retained by the registrant 
     engaged in grass roots lobbying communications on behalf of 
     the client; (3) require a separate good faith estimate, by 
     category of dollar value, of the total expenses that the 
     registrant and its employees incurred in connection with 
     grass roots lobbying communications (including any amounts 
     paid to an outside firm retained to make such 
     communications); and (4) delete the requirement in the Senate 
     bill to identify any person other than the client who paid 
     for the lobbying activities (while adding such persons to the 
     definition of ``client'').
       On the first issue, the conference amendment would strike a 
     compromise between the Senate bill and the House amendment. 
     The conference amendment, like the House amendment, would 
     require a listing of all specific issues that were the 
     subject of lobbying activities; unlike the House amendment, 
     however, the conference amendment would limit this list to 
     issues on which lobbyists employed by the registrant engaged 
     in lobbying activities. Under this compromise approach, 
     lobbyists would be required to identify all of the issues on 
     which they lobbied, but registrants would not be required to 
     list the issues on which employees other than lobbyists may 
     have engaged in incidental lobbying activities.
       On the second and third issues, the conference amendment 
     would adopt the House language, requiring the disclosure of 
     grass roots lobbying issues and expenses.
       On the fourth issue, the conference amendment would adopt 
     the Senate language with a clarifying amendment. Under the 
     conference amendment, all registrants (regardless whether 
     they are lobbying firms or use in-house lobbyists) would be 
     required to identify any person other than the client who 
     paid the registrant to lobby on behalf of the client.
       Section 105(c): Estimate of Income or Expenses.--Section 
     5(d) of the Senate bill would establish the categories of 
     dollar value for estimates of income or expenses; authorize 
     registrants that are required to report lobbying expenses to 
     the Internal Revenue Service under section 6033 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code to report the same amounts to the 
     Office of Lobbying Registration and Public Disclosure; and 
     provide that estimates of lobbying income or expenses need 
     not include the value of volunteer services or expenses 
     provided by independent contractors who are separately 
     registered and separately report such income. Section 5(c) of 
     the House bill contains similar provisions, with minor 
     clarifying changes. The conference amendment would adopt the 
     language of the House amendment, with a further amendment to 
     clarify the treatment of ***

  Mr. WALLOP. Even if the Senator from Michigan believes that the 
intent is not to require disclosure of membership lists, the language 
of the conference report can be interpreted very differently. The ACLU 
has indicated its grave concerns with the disclosure of membership 
lists. In fact, ``They believe that section 105 will lead to such 
disclosure in violation of the constitutional protections against it 
recognized in the Supreme Court's landmark decision in NAACP versus 
Alabama.'' Obviously grassroots organizations believe their rights are 
being violated or why else would such a diverse group of these 
organizations be opposed?
  Today's New York Times has a interesting article talking about what 
took place in a recent Supreme Court argument. The question before the 
court was, should the Court save the Congress from itself by reading 
the law in the way that Congress almost certainly intended, but did not 
quite say. The Court generally was unmoved by the argument. Justice 
Scalia said, ``Don't you think it might be useful in causing Congress 
to be more careful'' in the future, he said, if the Court showed 
lawmakers it would ``read the law the way it's written.''
  ``What the legislative history proves to me is that Congress made a 
mistake.'' No matter Congress' intent, he said, what the law actually 
says is that ``all a person has to know is that he is shipping a visual 
deception .''
  I ask unanimous consent this article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Oct. 6, 1994]

              Which Counts, Congress' Intent or Its Words?

                         (By Linda Greenhouse)

       Washington.--A Supreme Court argument today in a child 
     pornography case provoked a spirited debate among the 
     Justices over how the Court should respond when faced with a 
     carelessly written law that if taken literally may well be 
     unconstitutional.
       Should the Court save Congress from itself by reading the 
     law in the way that congress almost certainly intended but 
     did not quite say? Or should the Court teach Congress a 
     lesson by holding the legislators to their poor choice of 
     words?
       At issue was a 1977 Federal law, the Protection of Children 
     Against Sexual Exploitation Act. Under the law, ``any person 
     who knowingly transports or ships'' a ``visual depiction'' of 
     a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct faces up to 10 
     years in prison and a fine of up to $100,000.
       The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 
     in San Francisco, overturned the conviction of the owner of a 
     Los Angeles adult video store for mailing pornographic films 
     starring a 15-year-old actress. In its 1992 ruling, the 
     appeals court held that the law violated the First Amendment 
     because it did not require the Government to prove that a 
     defendant knew that the explicit films showed performers 
     under the age of 18.
       The appeals court found that from its placement in the 
     statute, the word ``knowingly'' applies only to transporting 
     or shipping a ``visual depiction,'' and not to the succeeding 
     clauses about the nature of the films and the age of the 
     performers. The court then based its conclusion that the law 
     was unconstitutional on the Supreme Court's obscenity 
     precedents, which require proof that defendants are aware of 
     the obscene nature of the material they are accused of 
     possessing.
       Trying to salvage the law, Solicitor General Drew S. Days 
     3d argued today in the Government's appeal that the word 
     ``knowingly'' should be understood as applying also to the 
     age of the performers, not just to the act of shipping the 
     films. But several Justices were skeptical. ``We're not in 
     the business of rewriting statutes,'' Justice Antonin Scalia 
     said.
       When Mr. Days said that the legislative history showed that 
     Congress meant ``knowingly'' to apply to the age of the 
     performers, Justice Scalia replied: ``What the legislative 
     history proves to me is that Congress made a mistake.'' No 
     matter what Congress's intent, he said, what the law actually 
     says is that ``all a person has to know is that he is 
     shipping a visual depiction.''
       Mr. Days said the Court should ``help Congress avoid moving 
     into an unconstitutional realm'' by interpreting the law 
     according to what Congress meant to say. ``Congress wanted to 
     move within the boundaries of the Constitution,'' the 
     Solicitor General said. ``It was not trying to test the 
     boundaries.''
       Justice Scalia was unmoved. ``Don't you think it might be 
     useful in causing Congress to be more careful'' in the 
     future, he said, if the Court showed lawmakers that it would 
     ``read the law the way it's written.'' Solicitor General Days 
     replied that while the Court could take that view if it 
     wished, it would be abandoning its historic approach of 
     interpreting statutes in light of Congressional intent.
       Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, calling the statute 
     ``peculiar,'' also appeared inclined to take it literally. 
     ``The most natural reading of the statute may be the one the 
     Ninth Circuit adopted, isn't that so?'' she asked.
       Taking the other side of the argument, Justice David H. 
     Souter said that if all Congress had meant to criminalize was 
     ``knowingly shipping,'' the law would be a ``waste of ink'' 
     as well as incomprehensible, because most ``visual 
     depicitions'' are entirely innocent. ``Surely Congress had a 
     serious purpose in mind,'' Justice Souter said, as well as a 
     desire to follow the Constitution.
       Stanley Fleishman, the lawyer for the defendant in the 
     case, Rubin Gottesman, argued that the appeals court had 
     given the correct interpretation to a ``badly drawn 
     statute.'' Justice Souter replied that this ``grammatical 
     point doesn't answer the problem of meaning.''
       Mr. Fleishman, who argued several landmark obscenity cases 
     in an earlier era when the Court dealt regularly with 
     obscenity, addressed the Justices in a breezy manner that 
     they appeared to enjoy. When Chief Justice William H. 
     Rehnquist asked him, ``What if we didn't agree with you that 
     the law is unconstitutional?'' Mr. Fleishman answered, 
     ``Well, then, you wouldn't say that.''
       He told the Court that the law was so broadly written that 
     ``it's a statute that endangers all of us.'' Referring to a 
     section of the law that also criminalizes receipt of child 
     pornography, Mr. Fleishman said to the Justices: ``You're all 
     child pornographers. I don't mean to say it quite that way, 
     but you've all received this material.'' Earlier, Justice 
     O'Connor had observed that the clerk of the Supreme Court 
     might be convicted under a literal reading of this section 
     for opening pornographic material sent to the Court in 
     connection with a case.
       Among the Justices, Stephen G. Breyer is perhaps the 
     Government's most obvious ally in the case, U.S. v. X-
     Citement Video, No. 93-723. Last February, as a judge on the 
     Federal appeals court in Boston, he wrote an opinion in an 
     unrelated case interpreting the same law to require knowledge 
     of the age of the performer.
       ``Without such a requirement, the statute would severely 
     punish purely innocent conduct,'' Judge Breyer wrote in that 
     case, U.S. v. Gendron. ``Congress could not have intended 
     these results.'' As an appeals court judge, he took part in 
     several lively debates with Justice Scalia before audiences 
     of lawyers over how judges should interpret statutes, and 
     came down on the side of considering intent.
       Mr. Gottesman, the defendant in today's case, in 1987 sold 
     an undercover agent more than 100 videotapes featuring Traci 
     Lords, a well-known pornographic movie actress whose career 
     began when she was a minor. He can pursue several other 
     challenges to his conviction even if the Government wins this 
     round at the Court.

  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, what the ACLU said in its letter to the 
Senate is that there is nothing so good in this legislation that it 
justifies trampling on the rights of Americans. And it also listed the 
number of concerns it has with the bill, aside from section 105, that 
raised significant constitutional questions. They believe it has a 
chilling effect on the first amendment rights of Americans. Let me 
quote again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has spoken for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield the Senator an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. WALLOP. The ACLU said:

       Congress is correct to be concerned about actual and 
     perceived corruption, for public mistrust of Government can 
     seriously undermine a democracy. But, overregulating 
     individuals or organizations, especially small organizations, 
     who engage in core political speech, is not the answer.

  It is the opinion of the Senator from Wyoming that this Congress, 
knowing that this bill raises constitutional questions, should not pass 
the obligation to prove them wrong to the people of the United States 
and to the pocketbooks of individual Americans. When we know a 
constitutional question has been raised and has not been answered, we 
have an obligation not to say to Americans, ``Dig it out of your own 
hip pocket. You go do it and prove us wrong.'' We have an obligation to 
try to do right and to try to do what we know to be constitutionally 
correct.
  The public's mistrust and fear of Government generated by this 
legislation could itself undermine our democracy more than perceived 
fears about corruption in the Senate. And I know of no Senator here who 
believes--or will name any colleague that he believes or she believes 
to have been corrupted.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture and to protect the 
constitutional rights of Americans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has 4 minutes 20 
seconds.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment my colleagues from 
Kentucky and Wyoming for their statements. I hope, again, people would 
look just a little bit beyond some of the rhetoric and say: What is at 
stake? We are talking about passing a bill that does infringe upon the 
rights of thousands if not millions of Americans who want to 
participate in the political process by becoming a part of that 
process. If they contribute, under this bill they are going to be 
listed as a client. If they contribute, if they are a member of an 
association and they contribute in addition to their dues outside of 
their dues, they are going to be listed as a client. They are going to 
be registered. Their name is going to have to be disclosed.
  That is not what the Washington Post reported this morning. That is 
not what some of our colleagues stated on the floor. But it is a fact. 
It is what the bill says.
  The Senator from Wyoming talked about the New York Times article, 
``Which Counts, Congress's Intent or Its Words?'' Clearly, the Supreme 
Court, as mentioned by Senator Wallop, is ruling by what the law says, 
by legislative language not intent or legislative history. And the 
legislative language states if a person contributes outside of their 
dues they are a client and therefore their names have to be disclosed. 
So these groups, which cover the entire spectrum philosophically from 
conservative to liberal, say: We do not want that to happen. That 
suffocates free speech. That inhibits free speech.
  Then I have to touch on section 105, where people said: No, this 
would not be required because of contributions. If you read section 105 
it says that any person or entity who makes a contribution, their names 
will have to be disclosed twice a year, any person. So if they 
contribute, not because they happen to be a member of a group, but if 
they contribute to a cause to defeat legislation or to pass 
legislation, then their names are going to be listed. That is not 
really in dispute. It says ``shall.'' Their names will be listed. It is 
not really, in my opinion, there are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. 
Their names shall be disclosed.
  So I urge my colleagues, let us take out this prohibition. Let us 
pass rule changes. If we want to prohibit gifts, let us pass some rule 
changes. Those of us who are objecting to this will support that. I 
have just cosponsored a resolution by Senator Dole that says let us 
pass a rule change and ban gifts. We can pass that. We do not even have 
to pass an act of Congress. We can do that in the Senate. We do not 
have to wait on the House. We can do that today and I think we will 
have bipartisan support in the Senate to make that happen. But to go so 
far as to say we are going to go in and hit grassroots lobbying, which 
was not in the Senate bill--that came in extraneously, in the 
conference report--I think is a serious mistake.
  When we see this entire list of organizations that are opposed to 
this, from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Right To Work 
Committee to the Right To Life Committee to the Planned Parenthood of 
America, these groups are opposed to it because they see this as 
stifling free speech of their members. They see this as inhibiting 
their ability to be able to write letters and say, ``Please contribute 
$20 to pass legislation or defeat legislation.'' Because they know 
under this legislation their members' names will be reported.
  That is a serious mistake. We should not pass this legislation as it 
is. Let us defeat this, let us vote against cloture, and then let us 
pass a Senate rule to prohibit gifts to Members. And let us go home.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today with a mind troubled by the 
difficulties of the Lobbying Disclosure Act. I commend the sponsors of 
this bill, particularly the Senator from Michigan, for making an effort 
to restore the public's confidence in the political process and in our 
governing structures. However I am troubled by many of the provisions 
included in this bill.
  I served as chairman of the Ethics Committee for several years and on 
the committee for several more. During my tenure, I had the unfortunate 
duty of prosecuting one of our colleagues in connection with ABSCAM. My 
duties on this committee strained personal relationships and working 
alliances, but I served in such a capacity because I felt it was part 
of our constitutional responsibility regardless of how unpleasant it 
might be in the short term.
  So I have some background in working to rid our body of unethical and 
inappropriate behavior. In fact I dare say that, as much as any Senator 
here today, I have had the unfortunate responsibility of sitting in 
judgment of my peers. Because of this, I refuse to accept the 
suggestion that the only reason to oppose this legislation is because 
one is trying to take inappropriate and influence-buying gifts and 
trinkets.
  With all this in mind, I rise today to present some of the concerns I 
have about the conference report's provisions.
  I have listened to the arguments made in regard to the impact of the 
bill on grassroots lobbying activities. The rhetoric has been 
exaggerated; however, I do worry that individuals who are only slightly 
involved in lobbying will be forced to engage in costly and tedious 
recordkeeping if it is to contact the Federal Government and exercise 
their right to free speech. They will do this, if for no other reason, 
than to prove that they are not required to report their activities.
  Some may not agree with me, but we cannot forget that the size of the 
penalties for violating this law can be $200,000. That is $200,000 for 
not being precise enough in accounting for one's speech activities. I 
will admit that at first I was not sure if this concern was well 
founded, but I know that the Director of this new Federal agency will 
be the one laying out the fine print for the implementation of this 
law. Having worked against some of the misguided proposals of the EEOC 
earlier this year, I do not feel safe in saying to my constituents that 
they will never be forced to pay an enormous penalty because of some 
ludicrous lobbying law lapse.
  I recall that during the Base Closure Commission's decisionmaking 
process many communities in my State worked very hard to keep the bases 
in their communities open. Americans should not have to worry that if 
they exercise their right to participate in the Commission's 
deliberations that they will be responsible for exhaustive 
recordkeeping or the possibility of an enormous penalty. I acknowledge 
that by some interpretations of the law they may not be effected, but 
many will see the size of the penalties and decide that the threat of 
being fined $200,000 is just too much to take.
  I am also concerned about provisions, well intentioned though they 
may be, that could adversely impact organizations in attempting to 
maintain the privacy of their membership lists. Here again, there has 
been some exaggerated rhetoric, but I do see some sincere concerns with 
regards to provision 105(b)(5). Given the methods used by some groups 
for fundraising, I think many organizations could be effectively 
required to disclose large numbers of their participating members, 
issue by issue. This may not happen, but the law is vague and needs to 
be corrected.
  I am also concerned about the impact this law will have on nonprofit 
organizations. Groups such as the March of Dimes Birth Defects 
Foundation, the Lupus Foundation, and the Leukemia Society of America, 
have through their representative associations, voiced concern that 
this bill does not address concerns that they made known with regard to 
the paperwork burdens that such organizations face. Organizations as 
divergent as the ACLU and the Christian Coalition and the Family 
Research Council oppose this bill; groups as divided as Planned 
Parenthood and the National Right to Life Committee oppose this bill.

  Our Nation is founded on institutions ranging from the local to the 
national level. Part of the activity of these institutions in a 
participatory democracy is the dialogue and communication that groups 
do on behalf of their membership. While this bill certainly does not 
prohibit such communications, it could have what some, including the 
ACLU, have called a chilling effect on activities that have long been 
protected in our society.
  Relative to charitable organizations, I have for many years, long 
before I came to the Senate, worked to raise money for groups that 
assist in worthy causes. I regret that charitable work is seen in some 
way as tainted by the suggestion that undue influence is being bought 
when an organization gives to a university scholarship fund or a 
homeless shelter. I wonder what the impact of this bill will be on many 
groups. I have to think that this bill may end up being the ``Grinch 
Who Stole Christmas.'' I just hope we all realize that before voting.
  Mr. President for these reasons I will oppose this legislation and 
support the reworking of this bill at the earliest possible time. I 
regret this because I have a good idea of how the failure of this bill 
will be portrayed in the media and how that could worsen the public's 
already grim view of Congress.
  The public's anger over the way business is done in Washington could 
be lessened with a lobbying reform bill. However, in trying to achieve 
this goal, we cannot unfairly restrict free speech even indirectly, nor 
should we require organizations that petition the government to 
disclose their membership in whole or part.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise briefly to express my opposition 
to the conference report in its current form.
  This legislation started out with the best of good-faith intentions. 
Its purpose was to combat the perception that Congress is too 
influenced by big time lobbyists. Therefore, the authors reasoned, we 
should draft legislation which requires greater public disclosure of 
lobbying activities. We should eliminate the perception that 
Congressmen can be influenced by lobbyist lunches by cutting them out 
entirely.
  I am a bit offended with the premise of the so-called gift-ban 
legislation. Eating lunches or dinners with lobbyists is really not a 
part of my life. These provisions will not affect me. The votes I cast 
here are based on what I believe is the best policy for the country, 
determined with particular consideration to the views of the people of 
my State. I form my opinions based on Wyoming town meetings, letters, 
and phone calls from constituents, testimony presented in committees, 
and floor debate. There is not a sandwich made in this world which some 
lobbyist might offer me that would affect my vote. Nevertheless, 
perception is often reality, and I have no objections to the gift-ban 
portion of this legislation. At least that section of the conference 
report was true to the purpose of this legislation because it addressed 
a concern of the average American.
  I also believe in greater disclosure of certain lobbying activities. 
Let's face it. The real reason for this portion of the legislation is 
to provide some greater level of disclosure to the American public of 
what exactly the high-rolling, Gucci-wearing, French restaurant-eating, 
best country club-schmoozing lobbyists in this town are really up to. 
Once again, that's fine with me.
  But just like so many pieces of legislation which passed the Senate 
overwhelmingly and were true to their purpose when they left this 
body--a completely different brew was concocted in the cauldron of the 
conference committee.
  It was never the purpose of this bill to limit or chill the political 
activities of average Americans. The target here was the so-called fat 
cat lobbyist, not the local political activist who is more visible in 
our neighborhoods than in Washington. The reason I believe that this 
administration and the Democrats who control both Houses of Congress 
have been enduring bad polling numbers lately is that the average 
American doesn't believe they are really listening to their concerns. 
They want a health care bill, but not one that would be controlled by a 
huge new Federal bureaucracy. They want Federal funds to support local 
school board initiatives, not with huge Federal strings attached to the 
money which limits local control. And they don't want the Federal 
Government to maintain a registry of their political activities. And 
that's what will happen here. They want less Federal intrusion into 
their lives, not more.
  When groups as diverse as Planned Parenthood, the National Right to 
Life Committee, the National Rifle Association, the ACLU, and the 
feminist majority tell me that this legislation will seriously impair 
our ability to exercise our rights guaranteed under the first 
amendment, I intend to listen. Like everyone else, I have also been 
inundated by letters, faxes, and phone calls from my constituents. Not 
one person has expressed support for this conference report as long as 
it contains the provisions which would increase the regulation of 
lobbying at the grassroots level.

  Last night, Senator Dole sent to the desk a portion of this 
conference report which I am willing to vote for today. It would change 
Senate rules in exactly the way this conference report provides. Gifts 
from lobbyists to Members and staff would be eliminated. The Senate 
could pass that internal rule without obtaining the approval of the 
House. Let's do that one today.
  The lobbying disclosure title of the conference report would not have 
gone into effect until January, 1996 anyway. We will have proper time 
to craft a better product next year, and make it effective at the same 
time that this law would have taken effect.
  Unless changes are made to the limitation of grassroots lobbying 
provisions in this conference report, I will vote against cloture. That 
is the only way we shall be able to achieve the laudable goal of 
getting rid of these provisions.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, after listening to the views expressed by 
many people in my home State of Washington, investigating the issue and 
carefully considering this legislation, I have decided to vote against 
cloture on the conference report to S. 349, the Lobbying Disclosure Act 
of 1994. I came to this decision after the majority party made clear 
that it will not let us pass the type of bill that the Senate passed 
earlier with my full support.
  My vote against this conference report has absolutely nothing to do 
with the gift ban contained in it. When the Senate considered S. 1935, 
the Gift Ban bill, earlier this year, I joined with an overwhelming 
majority of my colleagues and voted for final passage. I support a 
strong gift ban and do not object to the gift ban language in the 
conference report. My support of S. 1935 proves that point.
  I also support tightening up the disclosure and reporting 
requirements for paid lobbyists. Under current law, many lobbyists who 
should be reporting are not. The laws need to be changed. And again on 
this issue, I joined an overwhelming majority of Members in voting for 
final passage of the Senate version of S. 349.
  But what does concern me greatly is the product of the conference 
committee, and specifically the provisions relating to grassroots 
lobbying. My constituents are understandably in an uproar over what has 
been termed the ``grassroots gag rule.''
  The clearest indication that the conference committee failed in its 
endeavor to craft an acceptable bill is the strong opposition coming 
from all sides of the political spectrum. Groups like the American 
Civil Liberties Union, the Family Research Council, the Feminist 
Majority, the National Right to Life Committee, Planned Parenthood, the 
Christian Coalition and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have all expressed 
opposition to this bill.
  To that list I add, from my home state of Washington, the Washington 
State Grange, the Okanogan County Commissioners, the American Land 
Rights Association, the Washington Society of Association Executives, 
the Washington State Medical Association and countless constituents who 
have flooded my office with calls and faxes. All of these groups and 
people stand united in their opposition.
  They are concerned with the overbroad definition of the term 
``grassroots lobbying.'' This term, which comes from the House bill and 
not the Senate, is defined to include almost anything, including 
communications that try to influence a government-related matter by 
attempting to influence general public opinion.
  They are concerned with the requirement that organizations employing 
a grassroots operation would have to reveal the names, addresses and 
principal places of business of those retained in conducting grassroots 
lobbying. This could include even volunteers. Here again, this 
provision was not in the Senate bill.
  They are concerned that the bill could require any organization that 
sponsors a legislative weekend in Washington, DC, to register and 
report to the government if the legislative weekend involved what could 
be interpreted as a lobbying contact. They are concerned that the bill 
includes a great deal of vague and unclear language that can be 
interpreted in a manner damaging to grassroots lobbying.
  And in one of the most compelling reasons to oppose this bill, many 
groups are concerned that it will require them to turn over their 
entire membership or donor list to a political appointee every time 
they file a report. While proponents of this bill argue that this exact 
provision was included in the Senate-passed bill, this is not true. The 
original Senate language pertained only to lobbying firms. The 
conference committee significantly broadened this language to include 
``any person other than the client who paid the registrant to lobby on 
behalf of the client.'' This has my constituents rightly worried.
  The conference report we are debating today is very different from 
the bill I voted in favor of earlier this year. Provisions were added 
to the Senate-passed bill that I believe are real problems for my 
constituents. When you add all these provisions together, the result is 
a chilling effect on grassroots communication and on the exercise of 
first amendment rights. By imposing onerous disclosure and reporting 
requirements, this conference report jeopardizes our constituents' 
rights to petition their government through associations.

  Mr. President, I want to go back and pass the bills that earlier 
cleared this Chamber, the bills for which I voted. That is why I 
supported the call to open up this conference report to amendments--
amendments limited to grassroots lobbying only. In that way, we could 
pass legislation to provide for strong lobbying disclosure and a strict 
gift ban. I had hoped the majority party would let us do that, but it 
did not.
  It did not let us pass legislation that enjoys broad bipartisan 
support, and has forced us to vote on a bill that my constituents find 
unacceptable. I therefore must vote against cloture. But let me say 
that I have always stood ready to work with Senators on both sides of 
the aisle to craft an acceptable lobbying disclosure bill, including a 
gift ban. I had hoped that we could accomplish that goal today. It is 
my regret that we did not.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I intend to vote for cloture on S. 349 in 
order to move forward on what may be our last and best chance at 
congressional reform in this Congress. I am concerned, however, that 
certain provisions relating to grassroots lobbying, some of which were 
written very recently in conference, are not as clear as they should 
be.
  However, one must understand that this reform legislation covers a 
broad range of issues. It creates for the first time a rational scheme 
for informing the American people about how much paid, professional 
lobbyists are spending to influence policy in both the legislative and 
the executive branches. It also promulgates a tough and comprehensive 
ban on gifts to Members of Congress and their staffs from lobbyists and 
other persons. These reforms taken as a whole are a step forward, a 
step that I support.
  Are the concerns with grassroots lobbying that have been discussed 
this morning valid? Are opponents pretending there are problems to 
bring down this reform legislation? Are proponents pretending not to 
see problems that exist in order to save this product of a 2-year 
effort? We have all received letters of concern from grassroots 
organizations from all shades of the political spectrum. I find it 
difficult to believe that such diverse organizations contrived phony 
problems at the last minute in order to kill this broad reform.
  If the problem is real, how do we address it? What is the responsible 
thing to do?
  The Lobbying Disclosure Act does not take effect until January 1996. 
Rather than vote against cloture and bring down this entire reform, I 
believe the better course to be to pass the bill and then amend it to 
take care of the grassroots problem. This could be done in either of 
two ways. A joint resolution could be passed in both Houses changing 
the language of the bill to be sent to the President for signature. Or 
if there is not sufficient time in this Congress, legislation could be 
passed in 1995 to eliminate this problem before the Lobbying Disclosure 
Act takes effect in January 1996.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, recently, I have heard from a number of West 
Virginians who are sincerely concerned about certain provisions 
contained in the conference report on S. 349, the Lobbying Disclosure 
Act of 1994--provisions specifically dealing with grassroots lobbying.
  These West Virginians who have contacted me--most certainly members 
of grassroots organizations of one kind or another--believe that the 
reporting provisions of the bill unduly burden their fundamental right 
to ``petition the government for redress of grievances.''
  Let me make clear that my concerns about this measure do not center 
on the gift-ban provisions of S. 349--provisions that were approved by 
the Senate by an overwhelming majority last spring. I do not play golf. 
I do not play tennis. And I certainly enjoy my wife's cooking more than 
the cuisine of any elegant restaurant in Washington. While I do not 
believe any Member of this body can be ``bought with a cup of coffee,'' 
I would certainly support efforts that might eliminate the 
misperception that our votes are on sale for a good filet mignon. 
However, the conference report accompanying S. 349 goes far 
beyond the laudable goal of eliminating gustatory lobbying.
  The West Virginians from whom I have heard have heartfelt concerns 
regarding the disclosure requirements for those people who contribute 
to grassroots organizations. The West Virginians from whom I have heard 
fear that once information on contributions to grassroots organizations 
is obtained by the newly created Office of Lobbying Registration and 
Public Disclosure, the privacy of the contributors--who are American 
citizens--will not be adequately protected. I do not believe that these 
concerns are warranted. Further, I believe that they are based on a 
deliberate campaign of misinformation. However, my constituents 
sincerely are concerned and for that reason, I voted against the motion 
to invoke cloture on the conference report on S. 349, the Lobbying 
Disclosure Act.
  The right to ``petition the Government for a redress of 
grievances''--or lobby our government--is a right specifically 
enumerated in article I of our Bill of Rights. The input that the 
legislative process receives from lobbyists can be invaluable. Many 
lobbyists are experts in their fields, some provide information that we 
in the Senate would not have the resources to gather. However, the most 
important ``lobbying'' input that we receive is from our constituents. 
No matter how much proponents of the disclosure requirements in S. 349 
may defend the provisions in S. 349, perception is sometimes 
overpowering. Marie Antoinette may have never actually said, ``Let them 
eat cake,'' but the people of Paris in 1793 believed that Marie 
Antoinette did say, ``Let them eat cake.'' Perception matters. To 
dampen substantially the enthusiasm that grassroots organizations from 
across the political spectrum engender would be a loss to this 
institution and a loss to our Nation.
  Next year when this legislation is again before the Congress in some 
altered form, which I believe it will be, I may well be able to give it 
my support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted 
to use 5 minutes of my leader time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President and Members of the Senate, lobbying 
disclosure legislation passed the Senate by a vote of 95 to 2.
  The gift reform legislation passed the Senate by a vote of 95 to 4. 
Now a conference report returns to the Senate in a form nearly 
identical to that which passed originally by overwhelming margins. And 
all of a sudden, a fictional objection has been raised over changes 
that were made in the conference which now are used to construct an 
argument that will enable Senators to reverse their positions 
previously taken and claim there is some rational basis for doing so.
  There is, of course, no such rational basis. The arguments made this 
morning and over the past few days against this bill are really 
fictional: Exaggerated claims, exaggerated fears, trying to whip up a 
segment of the public with suggestions of hostility to religious 
organizations, embarking on the recent technique of urging one's 
supporters to call and then citing the calls as the reason for 
reversing one's position, a most transparent political technique with 
which anyone involved in politics is familiar.
  Mr. President, this is a good bill. The votes in the Senate earlier 
to which I alluded makes that clear. No bill passes the Senate by 95 to 
2 or 95 to 4 unless there is overwhelming support for it.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this motion to end this 
filibuster. We ought to be permitted to vote on this bill. We ought not 
to be deterred by the fictional arguments being presented today about 
the extreme hypothetical consequences that might occur under certain 
circumstances.
  This bill involves real reform--disclosure of lobbying activities, 
gift reform. It ought to pass. It has passed the Senate already by an 
overwhelming margin, and there is no rational or logical basis for any 
Senator to now reverse his vote. Those who voted for this bill when it 
was before the Senate ought to vote for this bill now. If not, they are 
simply reversing their positions based upon some fictional concern that 
is without merit or substantiation.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. MITCHELL. No; I will not. I am going to complete my remarks. I 
did not interrupt the Senator when he was speaking.
  So, Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject the 
appeals of those who simply want to prevent reform from being enacted 
and have put out this huge smokescreen of religious organizations and 
activities as a way to cover their objection to the genuine reforms 
that are included in this bill.
  This passed the Senate by a large margin before. It ought to pass the 
Senate by a large margin now. And I hope the American people will keep 
that in mind.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to end the filibuster and 
let the Senate pass this bill.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. MITCHELL. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator may have 1 
minute to respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, just to comment, the majority leader used 
the word ``fictional'' about half a dozen times, and ``smokescreen.'' I 
ask him, when this passed the Senate it did not apply to grassroots 
lobbying. It does now. That is not fictional. That is not a facade. 
That is a significant change that was made in conference, was not in 
the Senate bill and is now in the conference report.
  I do not see that as fictional. I see the definition of client as 
being anybody who contributes to an organization outside their 
membership to affect legislation as a massive expansion and prohibition 
on grassroots lobbying. And my question to the majority leader is, is 
that not an expansion? That was not in the Senate bill, it is now in 
the conference report; is that not correct?
  Mr. LEVIN. I have 40 seconds left.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself that 40 seconds. There are always 
provisions which are changed in conference. That is what conferences 
are for. These are principally the same bills that passed the Senate 
before. I ask unanimous consent that the answer to the points of my 
friend from Oklahoma which is contained in a letter from Senator Cohen 
and myself to Senator Dole of yesterday be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                            Committee on Governmental Affairs,

                                  Washington, DC, October 6, 1994.
       Dear Bob: We welcome the opportunity to answer your 
     questions about the application of the conference report on 
     S. 349, the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1994. As you know, 
     there has been much speculation regarding the effects and 
     applicability of the bill which may have been based on 
     inaccurate information. We share your desire to answer these 
     questions. Hopefully, our responses will shed some light on 
     these important issues.
       Your first question involves Section 103(2)(b). We believe 
     that this Section does not require the disclosure of 
     individual members of an organization unless the lobbying 
     activities were specifically conducted on behalf of those 
     individual members, (rather than on behalf of the 
     organization as a whole) and the lobbyist was paid by those 
     individual members. We wrote the provision to require 
     disclosure of individual members only if the lobbying 
     activities are ``conducted on behalf of, and separately 
     financed by'' an individual member or members (emphasis 
     added). It is our intent that this provision would only apply 
     if both criteria are met.
       Your second question concerns the definition of the word 
     ``retained'' as it is used in Section 104(b)(5). Throughout 
     the debate on this legislation we stressed that ``retained'' 
     would mean that compensation for services would be involved. 
     Our intent is that no disclosure of any kind is intended in 
     the absence of compensation. Specifically, we stated in the 
     Senate Report that ``it is the element of pay that justifies 
     the disclosure requirements'' (S. Rep. 103-37, page 25). This 
     point is also reiterated by the provision in Section 103(6), 
     which specifically excludes from consideration ``volunteers 
     who receive no financial or other compensation'' for their 
     services.
       We understand your concern, and the concern of a number of 
     grassroots groups, about any requirement to disclose 
     membership or contributors' lists. Although a number of 
     groups have questioned whether Section 105(b)(5) would 
     require such disclosure, we do not believe that it would. 
     This provision does not refer to, and therefore in our view, 
     require the disclosure or identification of contributors or 
     members of an organization. The provision requires the 
     disclosure of ``any person or entity other than the client 
     who has paid the registrant on behalf of the client.'' In 
     other words, if the client did not pay the lobbyist, the 
     lobbyist will be required to disclose who did send the 
     check to the lobbyist. We believe that it is a 
     misinterpretation to suggest that disclosure is required 
     if a member simply contributes to the lobbying 
     organization.
       With regard to your fourth question, we do not believe that 
     designating a contribution to offset a particular expenditure 
     would constitute significant participation in the planning, 
     supervision, or control of a lobbying effort for the purpose 
     of Section 104(b)(3). In fact, the Joint Explanatory 
     Statement of the Conference states that even an organization 
     that is represented on the governing board would not be 
     considered to exercise ``significant participation or 
     control'' over the lobbying activities unless it has a 
     ``disproportionate vote in the decisions of the board.'' An 
     organization that limits its control by requesting that a 
     contribution be used for a specific purpose exercises far 
     less participation or control than an organization that is 
     represented on the governing board.
       We also share your desire to provide protection for 
     religious groups. That is why during the formulation of the 
     language of this bill we solicited comments form a variety of 
     religious groups. In fact, the United States Catholic 
     Conference, the Center for Reform Judaism, and the Baptist 
     Joint Committee requested the specific language of Section 
     103 (10)(B)(xviii) to ensure that lobbying such as the you 
     describe in your question would be exempt. These three groups 
     believe that lobbying on the issues of religious belief 
     constitute the ``free exercise of religion.'' We share this 
     belief and for this reason incorporated their suggested 
     language in the Conference Report.
       You may recall that it was the view of the Senate, as 
     expressed in the Committee Report, that no express exemption 
     was needed because such lobbying constituted free exercise of 
     religion and would enjoy Constitutional protection. (S. Rept. 
     103-37, page 45). The provision that was added in conference 
     formalizes that position and was requested by the religious 
     organizations themselves.
       Regarding your question as to who makes the determination 
     if the Director of the Office of Lobbying Registration and 
     Public Disclosure were ever to question the applicability of 
     the religious exemption, the constitutionality and statutory 
     issues would ultimately be decided in the courts. As the 
     Senate Report states, the position of the Senate is that the 
     issue would be decided in favor of the churches.
       As you know, we have worked for over three years on this 
     legislation, inviting comments and input from all affected 
     and interested parties. One of our primary goals has always 
     been to close the loopholes in the current lobbying 
     disclosure laws while leaving the constitutional rights of 
     our citizens to petition the government. We hope this 
     response answers your questions and we hope to work together 
     to ensure passage of this legislation in the next few days.
           Sincerely,
     William S. Cohen.
     Carl Levin.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the fiction that the Senator is using is 
that somehow or another, if somebody makes a contribution to an 
organization that a lobbyist represents that, therefore, that person's 
name is going to have to be disclosed. That is not the language in this 
conference report.
  The lobbyist is not conducting lobbying on behalf of members of the 
organization. The lobbyist is hired by the organization and is lobbying 
on behalf of the organization, not on behalf of each individual member 
of the organization.
  So, sure, you can use a strained construction of any language. But 
this language is clear. This language is clear and our intent is clear 
and our letters are clear. There is no ambiguity, but if you want to 
try to create one, it is wiped out by our statement of intent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a ``Dear 
Colleague'' letter from myself be printed in the Record. I think this 
clearly, plainly shows the definition of client includes people or is 
expanded to include people above their assessments or dues.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                  Washington, DC, October 5, 1994.
       Dear Colleague: The Senate will soon consider the 
     conference report on S. 349, the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 
     1994. This is not the same bill that many of us supported 
     when it originally passed the Senate.
       It is important to note several conference provisions 
     expanding the thrust of bill will affect thousands and 
     perhaps millions of individual Americans who, by most 
     definitions, could hardly be characterized as ``lobbyists.''
       As you know, many concerns regarding coalitions, 
     associations and grassroots efforts were raised on the House 
     floor regarding this legislation. The rule on the bill 
     narrowly passed by a vote of 216 to 205. A close reading of 
     the legislation, its definitions and requirements validate 
     these concerns.
       Sections 104(a)(2) requires organizations which employ one 
     or more lobbyists to register with the Office of Lobbying 
     Registration and Public Disclosure. Under 104(b)(2), each 
     registration must contain ``the name, address, and principal 
     place of business of the registrant's client'' along with 
     other information. Similarly, under Section 105(b)(1), the 
     ``name of the client'' must be disclosed in semiannual 
     reports by the registrant.
       Who is defined as the client and thereby has their name, 
     address and place of business disclosed? The term ``client'' 
     is defined in 103(2). It states that in the case of a 
     coalition or association that employs lobbyists, the 
     organization itself is the client provided the lobbying is 
     paid for through regular dues and assessments. However, in 
     103(2)(B), the client is defined as individual members of the 
     organization if lobbying activities are financed by members 
     outside of regular dues and assessments. Specifically, it 
     states:
       ``* * * In the case of a coalition or association that 
     employs or retains other persons to conduct lobbying 
     activities, the client is--(B) an individual member or 
     members, when the lobbying activities are conducted on behalf 
     of, and financed separately by, 1 or more individual members 
     and not by the coalition's or associations's dues and 
     assessments.''
       Just think of all of the organizations which, in addition 
     to annual dues, regularly call on their members to help 
     finance the organization's efforts. Under this bill, those 
     individual Americans would have their names, addresses and 
     place of business submitted to and publicly disclosed by 
     the federal government because they stood up and supported 
     something in which they believe.
       Equally concerning is a provision in Section 105(b)(5). 
     While Section 104 requires registration, Section 105 requires 
     semiannual reports. Section 105(b)(5) requires the reports to 
     contain--
       ``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.''
       This provision would have a profound effect on many 
     coalitions and associations which are supported by individual 
     donors but do not have memberships, dues or assessments. The 
     donors became the ``person or entity other than the client'' 
     and, again, unsuspecting Americans end up with their name, 
     address and place of business submitted to and publicly 
     disclosed by the federal government for standing up and 
     supporting something in which they believe.
       For such organizations, the individuals are not members; 
     they are simply donors and do not fall within the ``client'' 
     definition in 103(2)(B). In this case, the organization is 
     both registrant and client. The resulting confusion is 
     emblematic of the problems throughout this bill.
       Senator Levin, in a September 30 floor statement came to 
     the defense of the Section 105(b)(5) provision, citing a 
     Senate floor amendment and the Senate report. Note, however, 
     that it is the conference report that presents the problems. 
     In the Senate-passed bill, this provision applied only to 
     lobbying firms. The provision was expanded in conference to 
     also affect organizations which use in-house lobbyists, as 
     noted on page 53 of the conference report.
       The registration and reporting provisions I have outlined 
     will serve to stifle and suppress the rights of individual 
     Americans to stand up and be counted, to participate in the 
     American democratic system. The conference agreement is 
     poorly constructed. The end result may not have been the 
     intent but it is certainly the effect.
       I hope you will join me in working to address these serious 
     concerns which I trust you share. This bill should not pass 
     in its present form.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Don Nickles,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a document 
that has been prepared to answer the various concerns which have been 
raised--the fictional concerns--be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Conference Report on Lobbying Disclosure Portion of Lobbying Disclosure 
                                  Bill

       The Lobbying Disclosure Act would--
       Close loopholes in existing lobbying registration laws;
       Cover paid, professional lobbyists, whether they are 
     lawyers or non-lawyers, in-house or independent, and whether 
     their clients are for-profit or non-profit;
       Cover, for the first time, lobbying of policy-making 
     officials in the executive branch;
       Require disclosure of who is paying whom how much to lobby 
     what federal agencies and congressional committees on what 
     issues;
       Streamline reports and eliminate unnecessary paperwork:
       Provide, for the first time, effective administration and 
     enforcement of disclosure requirements by an independent 
     office.


        reponse to misleading claims about the conference report

       False statement about the bill: The bill would require 
     citizens who contact or call Congress or come to Washington 
     to express their own views to register as lobbyists.
       What the bill actually does: Only paid, professional 
     lobbyists would be required to register under this bill, as 
     with current law. 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 to de minimis exclusions).
       False statement about the bill: The bill would place a 
     ``gag rule'' on grassroots lobbying.
       What the bill actually does: the bill would not place any 
     limitations or disclosure requirements on grassroots lobbying 
     by citizens who organize to present their own views to the 
     Congress. What the bill would do is to require paid, 
     professional lobbyists to estimate how much they have spent 
     to stimulate lobbying at the grassroots.
       False statement about the bill: Section 104(b)(5) of the 
     bill 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.
       What the bill actually does: Section 104(b)(5), by its 
     terms, requires the disclosure only of a person who is hired 
     by a lobbyist to stimulate a grassroots lobbying campaign. 
     The bill expressly states, in Section 103(6) that only the 
     paid, professional lobbyist must be disclosed under the bill 
     and not ``volunteers who receive no financial or other 
     compensation'' for their work.
       False statement about the bill: Section 105(b)(5) would 
     require organizations employing lobbyists to disclose their 
     membership or contributors' lists.
       What the bill actually does: No provision in the bill 
     requires disclosure of membership or contributors' lists. 
     Section 105(b)(5), 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.'' As Sen. Levin 
     explained when this provision was adopted by the Senate, it 
     would require only that ``if a lobbyists's bills are paid by 
     somebody other than a client, the identity of the person who 
     pays the bills would have to be disclosed.'' [Congressional 
     Record, May 5, 1993, page S5492].
       False statement about the bill: The bill would require 
     religious organizations to register as lobbyists.
       What the bill actually does: Sections 103(9)(B) and 
     103(10)(B)(xviii) expressly exempt religious organizations, 
     such as churches and associations of churches, from having to 
     register. The Baptist Joint Committee, the U.S. Catholic 
     Conference and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism 
     have all provided letters endorsing the language in the bill.
       False statement about the bill: The bill would require 
     journalists, talk show hosts, and people who call talk shows 
     to register as lobbyists.
       What the bill actually does: Journalists are not covered by 
     the bill, because they are not paid to contact government 
     officials on behalf of clients. Moreover, the bill contains 
     two applicable exemptions: one specifically excluding 
     journalists (section 103(10)(B)(ii)) and one excluding any 
     communication ``through radio, television, cable television, 
     or other medium of mass communication.'' (Section 
     103(10)(B)(iii)).

                          ____________________