[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 145 (Friday, October 7, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 7, 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:

       Conference report to accompany S. 349, an act to provide 
     for the disclosure 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 
shall be equally divided and controlled by the majority and minority 
leaders.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maine.
  Does the Senator from Maine control the time for the minority?
  Mr. COHEN. No. I am going to seek time from Senator Levin.
  Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Maine.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan yields 5 
minutes of his time to the Senator from Maine.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam President, a great deal of time has been spent on 
the issue of lobbying disclosure and gift ban reform. A number of 
charges have been made by Democratic Members against Republican Members 
that their concerns with respect to the conference report are without 
reasonable basis.
  I do not subscribe to the view that the Republican Members are 
without any merit in raising questions about the conference report.
  Someone once said that no one is so compelling as the person who 
knows that he is right because he prefers irrational conviction to 
reasonable doubt. I think the opponents of the Lobbying Disclosure Act 
as drafted by the conference committee can raise some reasonable 
doubts. They raise reasonable doubts based upon the fact that there 
were provisions added in the conference, which is not unusual, which in 
their judgment created some ambiguity which could, in fact, result in 
persons who did not contemplate being covered by the act, being forced 
to have their names and addresses disclosed in reports filed by paid 
professional lobbyists.
  So, I do not question the motivation on the part of any Republican 
challenges to this particular conference report. While I think that we 
covered the provisions in question adequately to reflect our intent. 
Nonetheless, as was pointed out in a New York Times article yesterday, 
a number of Justices are not guided by congressional intent but instead 
rely on the written word of statutory language. To the extent which 
that kind of division exists on the Supreme Court, and to the extent 
that the Court will be called upon on this or any other legislation to 
determine what Congress wrote into law as opposed to what Congress 
intended, then I think there is a responsibility on our part to do 
whatever we can to remove any ambiguous language, to remove any doubts, 
so that what we write reflects what we intend.
  Yesterday, I suggested that perhaps we could accommodate the views of 
the opponents of this legislation by making a few simple word changes. 
Since that time I have conferred with my colleagues, Senator Levin, 
Senator Mitchell, and to others to see if we could revise the 
legislation in a way to address the legitimate fears and arguments on 
the part of the opponents.
  We are hopefully going to consider a concurrent resolution which I 
believe addresses the concerns raised yesterday by the opponents of 
this conference report. Specifically, the concurrent resolution will 
remove the provisions which require the disclosure of grassroots 
lobbying activity. The provisions dealing with grassroots lobbying 
which were added by the conference committee seemed to be a major 
concern of those who were opposed to the legislation yesterday. In 
addition, the resolution would remove all references to individual 
members of coalitions or associations, and emphasize that only the 
coalitions and associations need to be disclosed and not their 
individual members. This modification again was made to accommodate the 
concerns of a number of Senators opposed to the conference report.
  The resolution also removes the disclosure requirement when someone 
other than the client pays for the lobbying activity. This provision 
was also dropped to accommodate a number of objections from Senators 
and public interest groups which thought the requirement would require 
them to disclose donor and membership lists.

  These changes I believe largely restore the lobby disclosure bill to 
the original Senate version. I believe this concurrent resolution is a 
good-faith effort on our part to address the concerns that were raised 
by a number of groups. We believe these concerns have been addressed 
and we urge our colleagues to support the passage of this concurrent 
resolution.
  Let me say to my friend on this side of the aisle that I have never 
questioned the motivation of those who have raised concerns about the 
language contained in this legislation. I do not for a moment question 
the motivation of those who have gone to the airwaves. I do not 
question the motives of those who have filled the hallways outside of 
this Chamber. And I must also note for the record that yesterday as we 
exited the Chamber doors there were a number of lobbyists cheering the 
objection and the objections raised to this legislation.
  Madam President, the whole purpose of this 2-year-long legislative 
endeavor that Senator Levin and I have worked on was to deal with what 
we believe to be a rising tide in public cynicism. A great many people 
in this country have come to the conclusion that laws are being shaped 
by high-paid lobbyists who do not really reflect the views or indeed 
the needs of the American people; that the average person does not have 
an effective voice in the Halls of the House or the Senate; and that 
their interests were being forfeited for those who could afford to pay 
the highest prices for the best lobbyists in town.
  What we were trying to do was address that public perception. People 
wanted to know who was being paid how much to lobby whom on what 
issues. Those simple questions were being asked. We tried to devise 
legislation to deal with that and to reassure the American people that 
we are doing their business.
  Lobbyists play a very important role in congressional affairs. We 
depend upon them. Contrary to a popular misconception, lobbyists do 
perform a valuable service. They are experts. They are hired by 
interest groups in this country to put the most persuasive case they 
can make on behalf of those groups to us. We are basically generalists; 
we are not specialists. We cannot possibly be considered to be 
knowledgeable in all the various and multifarious issues that we are 
confronted with. We depend upon the expertise of lobbyists to inform 
our staffs and ourselves about their clients' interests and arguments. 
But we want to ensure that the American people are aware of exactly 
what activities are being carried on and cast as much sunshine as 
possible upon this process.
  We have lobby disclosure laws on the books right now. As I said 
yesterday, they are completely ineffective. Most lobbyists do not 
register. Those who do register file information which is completely 
useless for our purposes or for the public's purposes. So this 
legislation was an effort on our part to say we want to know who the 
lobbyists are in this town. We want to make sure that we are not 
talking about volunteers, to be sure we are not talking about groups 
who want to lobby for their companies or their States or their interest 
who are not professionals, who are not paid, who do not do this for a 
living. So we tried to strike the balance. Only paid professional 
lobbyists are being required to register and to file periodic reports 
about how much they are paid to lobby on what issues, and which 
institutions they are in fact lobbying. It is that simple.
  The grassroots lobby provisions were inserted by the House. They were 
accepted during the conference report. That is where the basis of the 
objections have come.
  We have tried to respond positively and not to charge Republicans 
with being obstructionist. I think there are at least valid concerns, 
even though I might disagree with the interpretation placed upon them. 
I think there is a basis of reasonable doubt. So now we are trying to 
remove that reasonable doubt and say, all right, you have raised issues 
which we need to address. We have now addressed them. We have taken out 
all of the complaints that you may have against this legislation.
  We are back to square one. We are back to the legislation that we 
passed by an overwhelming vote a year ago. There were very few 
dissents, four as I recall. So we are back to the Senate version, and 
we are asking our colleagues to support the legislation.
  Madam President, I think we can drop the acrimony. I think we can 
drop the charges of who is trying to obstruct, delay, or protect 
lobbyists and simply deal with the issues as forthrightly as we can.
  I believe the American people are entitled to this legislation. I 
think they want this legislation. The groups that felt that their first 
amendment rights were being threatened I think should take some comfort 
in the fact that we have tried to address that in a responsible 
fashion.
  So I urge my colleagues at the appropriate time to support the 
proposed concurrent resolution that is sponsored by Senators Levin, 
Mitchell, Wellstone, Roth, and myself.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Kentucky.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the proponents of the conference 
report said yesterday that our objections were fictional, that we were 
wrong about the negative impact the bill would have on grassroots 
activity. Yet, last night, a new proposal was sent forward and it took 
four pages of amendments to deal with what was called yesterday our 
fictional objections.
  The proponents want to vote on a concurrent resolution, which I 
gather they believe would solve the problems that we identified in the 
debate yesterday. But this road is full of potholes. First, it is not 
clear to me that their amendments do the job to correct the defects in 
the bill that we will be voting on at 11:30. We need to be able to go 
through that, to talk to some of the groups on the outside who are 
concerned about this bill--for example, the American Civil Liberties 
Union--about the new version that appeared at 11 o'clock last evening.
  In addition, the concurrent resolution, if we went to that, which I 
am not sure we should, clearly would be amendable and become another 
vehicle or central problem as we move here toward the end of the 
session.
  Madam President, I think it is important to understand--and I feel 
somewhat apologetic for not having focused on the lobbying portion of 
this proposal much earlier in the year--back in the spring, we had a 
vigorous discussion of the gift ban portion, which is a rules change 
which I strongly recommend we go ahead and adopt.
  The Senate rules change could be adopted today. I hope that the 
majority leader will bring it up and give us a chance to vote on 
it. But with regard to the lobbying portion of this package, leaving 
aside the grassroots problem, which may or may not have been corrected 
by this new concurrent resolution which has been sent to the desk, 
there are lots of other problems with the lobbying proposal.

  First, there is the matter of penalties. Lobbyists--remember who 
lobbyists are. Those are people who represent Americans out across the 
country, who have a constitutional right to petition the Government. 
Those folks would be subject to $200,000 fines for violating the 
additional registration requirements under this legislation. A $200,000 
fine. A Member of Congress, however, who met with an unregistered 
lobbyist would not suffer any penalty at all.
  So let us think that through. This American citizen here representing 
other Americans, whether he is being paid or not, I guess could be 
classified as a lobbyist, and he makes the mistake under this 
legislation, he does not adequately comply with the registration 
requirement, and he gets a $200,000 fine. The Senator with whom he has 
met would suffer no penalty at all. So one of the things the American 
public, I think, is clearly interested in is seeing us subjected to the 
same kinds of rules and regulations that everybody else in the country 
is subjected to.
  For example, I think the Senate is prepared to pass the compliance 
legislation, so that a variety of different laws that we have passed 
that apply to everybody else in the country would now apply to us. Yet, 
there is a problem on that legislation on the other side of the aisle, 
with folks over there engaging in gridlock, who do not want that 
legislation to go forward. Here there is a proposal that a citizen that 
represents other citizens before the Congress, who does not adequately 
comply with the registration requirement, gets a $200,000 fine, and the 
Member of Congress with whom he meets gets nothing.
  There is a second problem with the bill. We are talking about 
problems over and above the grassroots communication section of the 
bill, which may or may not have been cured in the midnight concurrent 
resolution that was sent up last night. The second problem with the 
bill is that nonprofit organizations will be burdened by having to 
comply with multiple and conflicting definitions of lobbying.
  One definition they must pay attention to is that which exists under 
the Internal Revenue Code. That is one set of definitions. Attention to 
the Tax Code, of course, protects their tax-exempt status. If this bill 
passes, they will have to comply with the registration requirements 
under a new and different definition of lobbying. So you have one set 
of definitions over here in the Internal Revenue Code and another set 
over in this area defining lobbying.
  This will continue, in my opinion, and here I am stating the opinion 
of the American Civil Liberties Union, ``to chill protected speech for 
those who belong to nonprofit organizations.''
  What a terrific idea. We want to chill the speech of those who belong 
to nonprofit organizations. Just another flaw in this legislation, 
Madam President.
  The third issue that I referred to earlier is the concurrent 
resolution proposed by Senator Levin at approximately 11 p.m. last 
night. It purports to strike the grassroots section. We are not 
absolutely certain of that, and as I indicated earlier, I think it is 
important for people who are concerned about this legislation to have 
an opportunity to take a look at it. The proponents of this bill have 
moved their grassroots restrictions right to the heart of the lobbying 
definitions.
  Again, this is based on very preliminary review, because we have not 
had this new proposal very long. But it appears that they are including 
communications with Members as a part of lobbying.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the Senator.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. So Americans can 
join a group or organization not for the purpose of influencing 
legislation, just regular citizens joining a group, not for the purpose 
of influencing legislation. But if the group communicates with its 
Members, the group then becomes subject to the disclosure and 
registration requirements and the penalties of the act.
  Finally, Madam President, there is the issue of time. The Lobby 
Disclosure Act is to take effect January 1, 1996. That is about 15 
months from now. That was intended to give the director of this new 
bureaucracy a chance to write some regulations. Instead, I think it 
would be a good idea for us to revisit this legislation next year and 
get it right. Let us write a good law to get lobbyists properly 
registered, let us put enforcement in the Department of Justice where 
it belongs, not in some new independent political agency.
  Bear in mind, Madam President, in this legislation, there is a new 
agency set up, a new agency headed by a Presidential appointee with a 
5-year term, who will oversee the activities of American citizens as 
they engage in the effort to petition the Congress--a constitutionally 
protected right.
  In conclusion, it seems to me what we clearly ought to do here is to 
pass the gift ban rule. It is at the desk, and I believe it has 36 
cosponsors. We can do that before we leave. Members have had vigorous 
debate on that last spring. I think we have all reached agreement that 
it is time to do that. I hope we will do it before we leave today.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I thank my friend from Kentucky for his 
statement. I also wish to thank Senator Cohen and Senator Levin for 
moving, I think, to correct some serious problems that were raised 
yesterday.
  Yesterday, Madam President, some people disputed--not Senator Cohen, 
and I appreciate his assessment and also some of the statements of 
Senator Levin. I indicated that obviously some changes needed to be 
made, including in the definition of ``client,'' because individuals 
were included.
  I have glanced at the changes. The proposed change in the concurrent 
resolution is to eliminate the confusion and the outreach of grassroots 
lobbyists and contributors and of groups of various causes to change or 
affect legislation. I know that both of the principals, Senators Levin 
and Cohen, said we do not want to do that. It was not in the Senate 
bill. It was added in the conference. Now they have introduced the 
concurrent resolution, several pages of which they believe would 
address the problem. I have not studied it, but section 103(b), the 
paragraph I quoted from yesterday about 10 times--an individual or 
members when lobbyist activities are conducted in behalf or financed by 
one or more individual members, and over and above individual coalition 
or associations dues.
  I raised that yesterday. That has been deleted, and I thank my 
colleagues for doing that. I also noted yesterday in my speech--and 
other persons did as well--that on page 10, section 105(B)(5), that 
they eliminated the sections 5 and 6--the name, address, and principal 
place of business of any person or entity other than the client who 
paid the registrant to lobby--and also 6. I raised those significantly.
  Other people said that was a fig leaf, a facade, that was not real, 
it was ``fictional.'' The majority leader said that. I was irritated 
that he would use that. As I said, how could it be fictional when it is 
in the language? It was not the report. It is in the legislative 
language.
  Now there is a Senate concurrent resolution that deletes those three 
paragraphs. I thank the principals for doing that. I think that change 
has to be made.
  I also do not know that you can just amend a conference report. 
Conference reports are not amendable. If they were, I would have 
offered an amendment to strike it yesterday. Conference reports are not 
amendable. So the sponsors, or principals, introduced a Senate 
concurrent resolution, which is not in order.
  I might inquire of the Parliamentarian, is the Senate concurrent 
resolution now pending at the desk in order?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is not on the calendar, so it 
would take consent to bring it up at this time.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank the Parliamentarian.
  So it will take unanimous consent to even consider the Senate 
concurrent resolution.
  I want to notify all colleagues on both sides of the aisle that to 
consider a Senate concurrent resolution takes unanimous consent, not to 
pass it, to consider it. To consider it, it is going to take unanimous 
consent to have that on the floor.
  I might mention, then, even if it gets that far and one Senator can 
object, it is subject to amendments.
  Last night at, I think, 10 o'clock or 10:30, whenever the Senator 
from Idaho had his bill, the unfunded mandates bill before the Senate, 
a bill that is sponsored I believe by two-thirds of this body, there 
were amendments coming from all over the place, amendments by the 
Senator from Illinois, an amendment by the Senator from Texas, not 
germane to his unfunded mandate bill.
  But people are looking for vehicles. They are looking for a bill on 
the floor of the Senate that can be amended to pass whatever bill that 
they have not been able to get passed yet. I respect that. I have been 
there. That is part of the procedure.
  But that Senate concurrent resolution if it is on the floor of the 
Senate is amendable, and for this fix to take care of the grassroots 
lobbying, and again I commend the principals for their acknowledgment 
of the problem, their willingness to address it, but it has a long way 
to go. It has to have unanimous consent to be considered on the floor, 
and then it is open to any amendment. And then it also has to pass the 
House. In other words, I am very skeptical. I think the chances or the 
likelihood of that happening in the last day of the session are very 
nil.
  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. WALLOP. Is it the Senator's view that a concurrent resolution is 
a statute, or is it the Senator's view that a current resolution merely 
states that both the House and the Senate agree that we did not mean it 
when we passed it? Does it have the effect of a statute?
  Mr. NICKLES. I will respond to my colleague in just looking--and 
maybe the Senator should address the principal instead of me--it says 
``to correct technical errors or enroll the bill S. 349,'' and then it 
is legislative language.
  But I might mention this is more than technical so a point of order 
may be made. This is legislative language as drafted. Maybe the 
principals could try to correct it, but it is clearly more than 
technical. It is legislative language.
  Again, I think we will have to have unanimous consent for it to be 
considered on the floor.
  Would the authors of the amendment care to respond? I will ask them 
that same question.
  Mr. LEVIN. I would be happy to.
  It would take unanimous consent for this concurrent resolution to be 
in order. That is the reason that unanimous consent will be requested. 
But it does address the issues which have been raised.
  Again, the Senator from Oklahoma points out that we felt there was no 
need to make these changes, but we do not have the votes, and that is 
what it comes down to. There are not two-thirds of the Senate that want 
to adopt the current language. There was some objection to the language 
that was in there because it was felt it was ambiguous.
  So we decided we would therein ask unanimous consent to strike it 
through this method.
  But the Senator is correct. It would take unanimous consent to pass 
this concurrent resolution because it is an instruction to the 
enrolling clerk to strike the language to which the objections were 
made yesterday.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield further, because I want to 
make sure I understand the question of the Senator from Wyoming at the 
same time. So this is labeled a technical correction. I would have to 
take objection to that. I find this very substantive legislative 
language. I find this as basically an amendment to a conference report, 
and I do not think we can amend a conference report.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is not uncommon. It is uncommon but not unprecedented 
that a concurrent resolution will be adopted to direct the enrolling 
clerk to strike language which is going to the President. The Congress 
can do that if it wants to.
  If we want to do it, if we are serious about striking the language, 
in other words, to which the objection was made yesterday, if we are 
serious about that, we can just simply pass this concurrent resolution 
directing the enrolling clerk to strike the language to which some 
raised an objection.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield further, does the Senate 
concurrent resolution also have to pass the House?
  Mr. LEVIN. It does indeed.
  Mr. NICKLES. It is also amendable?
  Mr. LEVIN. Of course.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, to continue, it has to pass, as my 
friend from Michigan stated.
  Mr. LEVIN. If my friend will yield further on that last point just 
for a brief add-on, that is that you would not take it up. It is not 
the intent of the sponsors of this bill to take up the conference 
report unless and until a concurrent resolution passes both Houses. So 
we would know prior to taking up the conference report precisely what 
language had been stricken by agreement of both Houses.
  Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate it.
  Let me inquire further then of the sponsors of this bill. So it is 
their intention to try to pass the Senate concurrent resolution first, 
and I believe we have unanimous consent for a vote to occur at 11:35 
a.m., so the Senator is hoping to be able to pass this through both 
Houses before 11:35 a.m. Or is the Senator going to vitiate the yeas 
and nays or postpone the yeas and nays?
  Mr. LEVIN. The majority leader will be making a request relative to 
the yeas and nays on the conference report. I would let him do that. I 
think he is the proper person to state that.
  But there will be a request made to take up and I believe pass this 
concurrent resolution prior to the yeas and nays on the conference 
report.
  Mr. NICKLES. To inquire further of the sponsor, this Senate 
concurrent resolution, which I have just seen--actually I think our 
staff saw it last night--this morning, and again there are two or three 
things I call to the Senator's attention. I looked at the paragraphs. I 
spoke yesterday for 30 minutes on those three paragraphs that have been 
eliminated.
  So I think that is a big step in the right direction. But a lot of 
people have not seen this. I expect that some Senators might want to 
amend it.
  I am just kind of concerned about time. If nothing else, I think we 
should let our colleagues know there is a good chance we will not be 
voting at 11:35 a.m. I do not know. I should not say that because maybe 
there will be objection for waiving or postponing the vote.
  But I would just say to my colleague from Michigan he has a big 
challenge to throw out a separate bill that is amendable that takes UC 
to even be considered and to hope that that is going to pass the Senate 
without amendment and then pass the House without amendment before we 
take up the conference report.
  I compliment him on his ingenuity in trying to solve his problem with 
the conference report, which I believe is a very real problem dealing 
with grassroots lobbying, but I think the chances of this happening 
passing, taking up the Senate concurrent resolution without any 
objection, and all colleagues should know if they want to object they 
need to be ready to object, to taking up the Senate concurrent 
resolution because it is not in order, and then if colleagues have 
amendments, I know amendments were coming out of the woodwork on 
unfunded mandates. I want to pass the Congressional Accountability Act, 
but I also know there are amendments out there, and I know if any of 
them are adopted, or one or two adopted, it is going to kill that bill, 
too.
  I am afraid if there are one or two amendments to this, this will go 
down. Conversely, if this goes down, then the conference report 
likewise will go down. I just mention that.
  I compliment the sponsors for their ingenuity in trying to figure a 
legislative way out. I do not see this happening. I would be shocked if 
I did.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for yielding the 
additional time.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will yield myself 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma. I think 
the Senate is up to the challenge. It is a challenge. We laid out the 
parameters yesterday. There were a number of people who raised some 
problems specifically with this conference report.
  Some people felt they saw in that conference report language which 
would require, for instance, organizations to disclose their membership 
list, to disclose people who are contacted at the grassroots.
  The sponsors of this bill assured everybody that that is not what the 
language says. Indeed I think it is very clear there is no such 
requirement in this conference report. It is surely not the intent to 
the extent that the intent is relevant, if there is any ambiguity. We 
made those assurances yesterday. We got 52 votes on the conference 
report. It took more than 52 votes to pass it. The votes are not there 
with this language in it.
  So, we have a concurrent resolution to strike that language, to 
simply strike it, to address the concerns which were raised by the 
Senator from Oklahoma, and others.
  Now, yes, it is a challenge to have a concurrent resolution pass, 
because obviously if everybody comes down here and offers a bunch of 
amendments to it, it is not going to get passed.
  But if we are serious about passing bills that we have passed twice 
before by a vote of 95 Senators, we can do it. We are up to the 
challenge, if we want to do it. That is what it kind of comes down to.
  So I would hope that, in fact, when that unanimous-consent agreement 
is proposed by the majority leader we will give unanimous consent so we 
can change the language that some found to be either ambiguous or to 
create issues which nobody wanted to create in this bill, and I think 
the Senate if it wants to do so can do it. I know the Senate, if it 
wants to do so, can do so.
  So are we up to the challenge? We will find out in about 20 minutes. 
I hope the Senate is. And I hope we are serious about this bill, 
because over 3 years of effort was put into this lobbying registration 
bill. The lobbying registration bill passed with 95 votes in May 1993, 
by the way, 1 year before the gift ban was taken up. This was not like 
there were two big pieces of one bill just in May 1994. There are two 
different bills which have now been consolidated. The lobbying 
disclosure bill was passed in May 1993. This is not just a 3-year 
effort on our part, my part, Senator Cohen's part, Senator Roth's part, 
a whole bunch of us on the Governmental Affairs Committee.
  It is much more than a 3-year effort. It is a 30-year effort, 30 
years of effort to close the lobbying loopholes in our disclosure law.
  We have been trying to close those loopholes for 30 years, and the 
lobbyists have got us every time. They stymied it every time, one way 
or another. In the 1960's, an effort was made to close the loopholes; 
1970's an effort was made to close the loopholes; and we are trying it 
again and we are close. And if we are serious about it, we can do it.
  What are these loopholes? I will just give you one example. Under one 
major lobbying law, lawyers who lobby are not covered. Now, how is that 
one? If you are a nonlawyer lobbyist, under the law, you have to 
register. But if you are a lawyer lobbyist, paid to lobby on behalf of 
others, under that law, you do not have to register.
  Under another law, foreign interests are not required to register. 
Holy cow, if we want anybody to register in this country, anybody who 
is paid to represent interests, surely it should be people paid to 
represent foreign interests who are lobbying this body. But, oh, no, we 
have loopholes there, too.
  And then there is another big loophole, probably the biggest one of 
all, which says, well, unless you are paid to lobby and actually do 
lobby Members themselves personally, excluding their staff, for 50 
percent of your time, well, you do not have to register, either. There 
are more holes in the lobbying laws than there are in cheese. It is 
permeated with holes and loopholes, breeding disrespect for law.
  We pretend that we have lobbying registration laws in this town. The 
public is told that we have lobbying registration laws and, again I 
emphasize, for people who are paid to lobby, who are paid professional 
lobbyists.
  I yield myself an additional 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for an additional 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.
  But the fact of the matter is that we do not. There are so many 
loopholes that probably three-quarters of the lobbyists in this town 
who are paid professional lobbyists, for whom the laws are intended, 
presumably, to require them to register, to disclose who is paying them 
and how much to lobby Congress on what issue, presumably, because in 
reality it does not work that way.
  Mr. President, again, we argued yesterday that the issues which were 
raised about grassroots lobbying were not meritorious; in fact, the 
language did not require anybody--anybody--to register other than paid 
professional lobbyists. That is absolutely clear. Even the opponents of 
this legislation, I think, now will concede that that is absolutely 
clear.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. NICKLES. I just take issue with you on that. If you are talking 
about the definition of a client, the definition of a client was 
included under the Senate concurrent resolution to include individuals.
  Mr. LEVIN. I was talking about the definition of a lobbyist. I 
specifically said ``paid professional lobbyist.'' I was not referring 
to client.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield for an additional second, to 
make sure there is no confusion, individuals listed as clients have 
their names disclosed under the concurrent resolution.

  Mr. LEVIN. There was no requirement for clients to register at all, 
No. 1. It was only paid professional lobbyists. And because of the 
arguments made yesterday, whether or not they were correct--we think 
they were incorrect--nonetheless we could not get the votes to pass 
this.
  So we have addressed the arguments. We have eliminated the language 
which raises the issue. So, yes, the concurrent resolution does strike 
the language that the Senator from Oklahoma found to create the 
ambiguity.
  Mr. President, basically what remains and, hopefully, what we are 
going to be allowed to vote on after adopting the concurrent resolution 
will be a conference report that incorporates Senate bills on gift bans 
and on lobby disclosure which passed this Senate by a vote of 95 
Senators. Now, that is what we basically have left.
  I find it incomprehensible that this Senate will now ditch 3 years of 
effort, a bipartisan effort, to close the loopholes in our lobbying 
disclosure and to have a tough gift ban mainly aimed at lobbyists but 
which also covers others, because you just cannot cover lobbyists 
without covering the universe because of definitional problems. If you 
want to get at gifts from lobbyists, you have to cover everybody. And 
we do get at gifts from lobbyists.
  Now there will be a proposal made that would just put into a UC a 
gift ban on other than lobbyists. It is totally unworkable. It is not 
even a quarter of a loaf, because the quarter of a loaf that it 
purports to leave is undigestible. It is a loaf which cannot function, 
because the definitions referred to in what will be proposed on the 
gift ban are definitions which are not going to be incorporated into 
law and which we cannot effectively incorporate in our rulings.
  We must change the lobbying laws. We must clearly require people who 
are paid to lobby to register. We must define what is meant by 
lobbying. Otherwise, we cannot effectively adopt a gift ban that covers 
lobbyists. We again would be pretending to do something, purporting to 
do something, holding out a promise of doing something, suggesting we 
are doing something, and maybe even proclaiming we are doing something 
but, in reality, would be doing nothing effective unless we adopt the 
conference report which has a tough gift ban with a new loophole-free 
definition of lobbyist.
  Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 7\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. How much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has 7\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, as well.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, we have heard a number of arguments 
addressed against the proposed concurrent resolution. One, which struck 
me as being entirely new, is that we are imposing fines upon lobbyists 
but not upon ourselves.
  I would refer to the report itself on page 19. The only time there 
would be a fine imposed upon a lobbyist who violated the act would be 
if there are extensive and repeated violations where the individual had 
actual knowledge that the conduct constituted a violation, he acted in 
deliberate ignorance of the provisions, or he acted in reckless 
disregard of the provisions, or he acted in reckless disregard of the 
provisions.
  There has to be a very calculated disregard of the law.
  The notion that we are setting ourselves up as a separate class once 
again, that we are going to impose a fine upon citizens but not on 
ourselves, is spurious.
  The fact is that we have campaign laws that apply to us. We are 
required to file disclosures of those who contribute to us. If we fail 
to do so, we are the ones who pay the penalty, not the individuals who 
contributed to us.
  The fact is that we have ethics laws that apply to us. If we violate 
those laws, the penalties apply to us and not the citizenry.
  So the notion that somehow we are going to fine lobbyists but not 
ourselves, that we are setting ourselves up as a separate class, to me 
is an untenable argument.
  I might point out what we are seeking to do is return this bill to 
its original form--the gift ban that passed 95 to 4 and the lobby 
reform that passed 95 to 2.
  So if you want to maintain the status quo, what we have today, is, in 
effect, no law whatsoever. It is very clear that what is worse than 
having no laws on the books is having laws which go completely 
unenforced or are unenforceable. That is what we have today, laws which 
are ignored, which are unenforced, and which breed contempt for this 
institution and for the rule of law.
  I believe the choice is clear. If you want the status quo, reject the 
concurrent resolution. If you want reform and what you voted for once 
before, then you support the concurrent resolution and not raise an 
objection to the unanimous-consent request
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Chair recognizes the 
Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, again I thank my colleagues from Michigan 
and Maine for their willingness to take out some of the language to 
which I objected yesterday. But I find it a little troublesome when I 
hear some statements that were alluded to that this is not really 
necessary, because I read the legislation pretty clearly and, if you 
look at page 10, it says ``the name of the registrant, the name of the 
client.'' That is the reason why I raised so many objections yesterday, 
because the definition of ``client'' includes an individual who 
contributes over and above their dues.
  This is in the bill. That is the reason why we had the debate 
yesterday and I am glad my colleagues now are willing to take it out. 
But then in the rhetoric--or in the campaign--you say it does not 
really need to happen because we told you that is not our intent. It is 
in the bill, so we need the fix.
  The question is whether or not we can pass the Senate concurrent 
resolution, and I doubt that we can. It takes unanimous consent.
  I notice the majority leader is on the floor and will probably 
propound the unanimous-consent request. So people who have an interest 
in this legislation should be here.
  But likewise, once it is on the floor, unless the majority leader 
gets unanimous consent it is nonamendable, it is going to be open to 
amendment, and then it is going to have to pass the House. And I think 
the probability of that happening is pretty slim.
  Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Kentucky, 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma. I just 
wanted to reiterate, just so everybody understands, at a time when the 
American people would like us to shrink the Government, we are setting 
up a new Government agency called the Office of Lobbying Registration 
and Public Disclosure. It begins on page 13 of the conference report 
and it outlines the activities of the director of the office, and pages 
and pages of responsibilities and opportunities to hire new Federal 
employees; major penalties are outlined in here. There are 4 or 5 pages 
of new activities by a newly established Federal agency, ``just what 
the American people are asking us to do--create another new Federal 
agency, hire lots of new employees, and harass lots of American 
citizens.''
  Frankly, we all know this responsibility ought to be located in the 
Department of Justice. I hope if we have a chance to fix this bill next 
year that it can--this responsibility and an appropriate amount of 
responsibility--be placed in the Department of Justice where it clearly 
belongs. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the objection to the creation of an Office 
of Lobbying Registration is perhaps the most extraordinary of all of 
the arguments that have been made. When this bill was passed, the 
Republican leaders complimented us on the creation of this office. 
Reading his words, where he strongly supported the passage of the 
lobbying disclosure bill in May 1993, on page 5579 of the Congressional 
Record, the Republican leader said that ``The authority to assess a 
penalty would rest with the Director of the Office of Lobbying 
Registration, a new division in the Justice Department, created by this 
bill. The director will have the authority to determine the amount of 
the penalty, depending on the severity of the violation. This new 
approach,'' the Republican leader said, ``should encourage compliance 
and make enforcement a reality.''
  That was a very strong speech by the Republican leader supporting 
this bill when it passed a-year-plus ago, May 1993. So of all the 
arguments, the newest straw man--grassroots man?--that this creates a 
new office, is one of the very reasons this bill was complimented by 
the Republican leader when it passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am not as knowledgeable on the section 
the Senator from Michigan just alluded to, but staff informed me when 
this passed the Senate it was under the Justice Department and not an 
independent department.
  I will yield a minute to the Senator from Maine.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if I can respond quickly, the office was 
made independent of the Department of Justice in conference at 
Republican requests to ensure the independence of the office.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield to the Senator from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I want to indicate once again for the 
record, I thought the intent of the legislation as we proposed it was 
clear even though there may have been some ambiguity in the language 
itself. The Senator from Oklahoma and others who have raised objections 
have done so out of the best of motivations and are not doing it simply 
to be obstructionist in my judgment. But we have tried, likewise, to 
meet their reasonable requests. I believe the concurrent resolution 
that will be proposed momentarily by the majority leader is designed to 
do precisely that.
  What the Senator from Oklahoma and others have done, by trying to 
correct something where there was a major misapprehension, is a credit 
to the institution. I think we corrected that and I hope we would have 
support for the concurrent resolution.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma controls 3\1/2\ 
minutes; the Senator from Michigan controls 5 minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield to the Senator from Wyoming, 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator from Wyoming is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, the concurrent resolution language before 
us was concocted without any negotiation with those of us who were in 
opposition to this legislation. A bill 3 years in the making has been 
drastically changed in a couple of hours of concocting a concurrent 
resolution. But let me suggest, none of us can know the full effects of 
what is in here. A cursory glance would indicate that the grassroots 
lobbying recordkeeping, the discussion of lobbying contacts, is not 
removed but merely moved, and in fact now is referenced in the Internal 
Revenue Code. It incorporates, by definition, lobbying of State and 
local government, and initiatives and referenda, vastly broadening the 
scope of the bill--contrary to the sponsors' claims.
  We cannot know what has been done to us. This is no way to fix 
legislation that has alarmed so many of our colleagues for legitimate--
not spurious--reasons, as was claimed yesterday.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield my colleague 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 1 minute on the 
Senator from Michigan's time.
  Mr. COHEN. One of the issues raised is that establishing the Office 
of Lobbying Registration and Public Disclosure as an independent agency 
is an expansion of Government. This provision is a response to the 
objections raised by the House Republican Members who feared leaving 
the newly created office in the Justice Department, as proposed in the 
Senate-passed bill, because of a concern that it might be subject to 
political manipulation.
  What we have tried to do on each and every occasion is to respond to 
the legitimate objections on the part of Members on both sides. The 
creation of this office as an independent office came about directly in 
response to Republican concerns about the politicalization of this 
office. That should be clear.
  I would like to make one final point. This bill, as it will be 
proposed in the concurrent resolution, is simply a return to what we 
passed in the Senate by an overwhelming majority. There should be no 
mistake about it. We have tried to accommodate the interests of all in 
this. We have tried to really strike the balance of what is right and 
responsible for the Senate to do and I believe we should pass by 
unanimous consent the concurrent resolution offered by the majority 
leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I use my 
leader time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, the Senate passed the lobbying 
disclosure bill by a vote of 95 to 2. Almost every single Member of the 
Senate voted for that bill, Democrat and Republican. And, as the 
Senator from Michigan has noted by reading into the Record, it was 
praised by the Republican leader, by other Republican Senators.
  Now, when we came back with this conference report, Republican 
Senators raised what I termed, and believe to be, fictional arguments; 
suddently got a few phone calls that they themselves and their allies 
had organized, and then used the phone calls, which they solicited, as 
a rationale for reversing their positions.
  But it was not reversal, they said, because this bill has something 
new and sinister that was not in the previous bill.
  I said yesterday I thought that was a smokescreen to obscure other 
objections, and I still believe that to be the case. But there is one 
simple way to find out: Let us go back and take up the bill, basically, 
that they all voted for. Let us drop the provisions to which they say 
they have objected. So let us find out. Was this a smokescreen? Were 
these fictional arguments, or did they mean them?
  So I am now going to ask unanimous consent that we proceed to a 
concurrent resolution that is basically the same bill that the Senate 
voted for 95 to 2 when it took the bill up, and anybody who objects to 
that, why, then we know it has been a smokescreen. If it is not a 
smokescreen, if these were not fictional arguments, then our colleagues 
should join us in passing the bill that we said that we wanted to do 
and we overwhelmingly passed by 95 to 2.
  The argument has been raised, ``Well, gee, we don't know what the 
House is going to do.'' I am going to propose that we delay the cloture 
vote and let us await action in the House. Let us adopt this to show 
that we really mean what we say about this; that all of these arguments 
were real and genuine and were not a smokescreen. And then let us send 
it over to the House and we will encourage the House to act and move 
right away, and we will postpone the cloture vote until after that.
  So this is a good way to find out if people really mean what they 
have been saying for the past few days.


                           Motion to Proceed

  Mr. MITCHELL. So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to the consideration of the concurrent resolution, that 
I will send to the desk, making changes in the conference report in 
response to the concerns raised by our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle; that the resolution be agreed to; that the motion to 
reconsider be laid on the table; that the cloture vote scheduled to 
occur this morning be delayed to occur at a time to be determined by 
the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader.
  Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. WALLOP. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, if I can ask the majority leader a 
question, under your unanimous-consent request, we do not get to amend 
the Senate concurrent resolution. I understand the leaders have said 
that this is the fix, but there are a lot of groups that have contacted 
us that have objections to the conference report. You mentioned that 
they were our allies. The American Civil Liberties Union, the Feminist 
Majority, and Planned Parenthood I am not sure would consider 
themselves allies with everybody on this side of the aisle. But they 
may not think this fix is satisfactory.
  Is your UC open to where we could amend the Senate concurrent 
resolution if we find it lacking?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Of course, Mr. President, the Senator knows the answer 
to that is no, because if we put it up and open it up for amendment, 
they will come up with a whole new bunch of amendments. I might just 
say, if I can conclude the answer, we passed this bill 95 to 2 in May 
1993. We did not hear from the Senator from Oklahoma or from other 
Senators. We did not hear from all of these groups until just the last 
few days. So I think it is rather clear. The answer is no, we will 
adopt it. I am advised that it is basically the same bill that was 
passed in the Senate by a vote of 95 to 2.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the majority leader will yield for another question, 
the Senate concurrent resolution which we have now seen, I guess our 
staffs received it last night at 11 o'clock. I was able to see it this 
morning for the last hour. It is several pages. It has 17 paragraphs, 
and it may be the perfect fix. If it is, I compliment the authors.
  But some of us have worked on this particular section dealing with 
grassroots lobbying, and I offered to the Senator from Michigan, in the 
interest of trying to solve the problem, he may have the perfect fix. 
But the majority leader's request does not give us any opportunity to 
review this fix, to amend it if it is not perfect, and to make some 
suggested changes, as I understand it. I think that is a little 
dictatorial. We would like to have a chance to review the language. I 
know the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from Kentucky have 
reviewed it, and they said they have some problems with it. I do not 
know. I know it makes some improvements, but I would like to have a 
chance to amend it.
  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine controls the time.
  Mr. MITCHELL. This was put in the Record last night, and it does not 
try to fix the provision they complained about. It takes it out; it 
eliminates it. The Senator said he had objection to the provision--that 
is what they said the objection was--so we did not try to fix it; we 
eliminated it and we basically go back to the bill which the Senator 
voted on.
  I have the concurrent resolution right here. It is 3\1/2\ pages long. 
It was put in the Record last night.
  Mr. NICKLES. What time?
  Mr. MITCHELL. I think, Mr. President, what we are seeing is a 
confirmation of what I said yesterday. This is a smokescreen. The 
objections raised were a smokescreen. They do not want to change the 
lobbying disclosure and gift provisions, but they do not want to stand 
up and say that. They made up an excuse, and now we have taken the 
excuse away. What else is there? Why do we not just get this agreement 
approved? By gosh, then, our colleagues will say, ``It really was not a 
smokescreen. We really wanted to pass it, and we will all be happy.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has made a unanimous-
consent request.
  Mr. WALLOP. Reserving the right to object, and I shall, there was at 
least one Senator--several of us--who saw this coming when we passed 
it. And there was at the time a moment in which we had sought to 
educate people as to what was really contained in it, and a lot of 
people I talked to said they did not know the provisions of it.
  So, Mr. President, there is at the desk, as I understand it, a rules 
change upon which all the Senators could vote and, therefore, I object 
to this unanimous-consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Do both sides yield back their remaining time? The Senator from 
Oklahoma has 2 minutes remaining. The Senator from Michigan has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will yield back our time in just a 
moment. I have a couple comments.
  The vote that we are going to have today is exactly on the same 
House-Senate conference report that we voted on yesterday. It has not 
been fixed. Maybe the proponents of the legislation said yesterday it 
did not need to be fixed, but clearly the legislative language said it 
did because it defines ``client'' as individuals, people who 
contributed over and above their dues.
  I notice the majority leader and others said, ``Well, yesterday that 
was not a problem, it was fictional.'' Today they said they would 
strike that one paragraph, and they came up with a 3\1/2\ page 
amendment which I have seen for about 2 hours. It may be the right fix. 
I do not know. Some people have said it is not. But the UC that the 
majority leader tried to propound did not give us a chance to amend it, 
did not give us a chance to really look at it. I do not think it solves 
all the problems.
  Mr. President, as far as the timing, I heard my colleagues say we 
have been working on this for 3 years, and why all of a sudden change? 
The conference report came out September 26, and then once the groups 
found out about this--and not all conservative groups --but once groups 
like the American Civil Liberties Union, American Farm Bureau, groups 
like the Environmental Policy Task Force and the Feminist Majority, the 
Federation of American Scientists and the Family Research Council found 
out how intrusive this was, they said it needs to be changed.
  I will just tell my colleagues, this is the same vote we had 
yesterday. I think this proposal is a step in the wrong direction. It 
does stifle free speech, and the cloture vote needs to be defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Oklahoma has 
expired. The Chair advises the Senator from Michigan that he has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the majority leader has 2\1/2\ minutes of leader 
time remaining.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I ask if the Senator will yield me his 3\1/2\ minutes?
  Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I come from Maine, where we get a lot of 
foggy days along the coast, and so when I came to the Senate and saw 
that it was regularly enveloped in fog, I felt at home.
  Rarely, if ever, Mr. President--indeed, never--in my 15 years have I 
seen a fog more effectively pierced than it has been here this 
morning. We had a smokescreen laid out here yesterday by our Republican 
colleagues who said: Oh, we are for lobbying disclosure, and we are for 
gift reform, but we have this objection to this new provision that will 
have all of these disastrous effects.

  It was, of course, a fiction, and I described it as such. It was a 
smokescreen, and we have now pierced that, because what we then 
proposed was to essentially go back to the bill that the Senate passed 
by a vote of 95 to 2. Almost every single Senator, Democratic and 
Republican, voted for it. We took out the provision that they said 
offended them, that is, we took out the smoke bomb, and they still 
object.
  So, Mr. President, occasionally on the summer days in Maine there is 
a fog that rolls in off the coast and then with striking clarity the 
sun pierces through. And here and now in the Senate this morning the 
sun has strikingly and suddenly pierced through the fog of the other 
side and exposed for all Americans to see and laid bare what has 
occurred. They do not want lobbying disclosure and gift reform, and 
they are going to do anything to stop it, even if it means a complete 
reversal of the position they took when we passed this bill 95 to 2.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield for a 
question?
  I simply address the Senator that if the result on the cloture vote 
is the same as yesterday, is it the intention of majority leader to 
bring up the rules change that would solve the gift ban?
  Mr. MITCHELL. If we have a rules change that will solve the gifts 
ban, we will certainly do it. But we are not going to be party to a 
rules change that will not solve the gift bans.
  Mr. WALLOP. I think the majority leader knows that it would.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 45 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. There was an article in the paper the other day, the Wall 
Street Journal, that said, after that first vote, ``Special interest 
representatives expressed delight with the filibuster. As a Senator 
left the Senate Chamber after an unsuccessful vote to break the 
filibuster, a group of lobbyists in the hallway outside began to 
cheer.''
  If we do not break this filibuster in this vote coming up, you are 
going to hear the loudest cheer in history in that hallway.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the minority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Was leader time reserved?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has been reserved, and if there is no 
objection the Senator may use it.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am sorry I did not speak before the 
majority leader, but I have been to the dentist--special interest.
  I think this session is about to end. I hope so. I hope we could pass 
unfunded mandates, which is being blocked on the other side with 
amendments. I hope we could pass congressional coverage. We are willing 
to in effect do both of those, with one or two amendments or maybe 
without any amendments.
  But I must say, notwithstanding the good work that both Senator Levin 
and Senator Cohen have done--and certainly I have the highest regard 
for both--somebody asked me at a press conference today what happened. 
We said that we read the bill.
  We made a mistake when we let it go through there so quickly. I think 
we felt intimidated by the liberal press in this country who always 
define at least our party. I do not know; the Washington Post must have 
a good lobbyist; they got a good sweetheart deal in the GATT agreement. 
I do not know what this deal cost or whether it is going to be 
disclosed, but it is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, so we 
understand how these things operate.
  But the more we looked at this bill and the fact that the disclosure 
requirements do not take effect until the beginning of 1996, we will 
have plenty of time now to study this bill very carefully and make the 
right decision.
  As we have indicated earlier, as far as the gift provisions are 
concerned, that can be done by a rules change. It cannot be done by 
this Senator but it could be offered by the majority leader. And we 
have indicated that we are prepared to do that. No fruit baskets, no 
travel, no anything. That is not a problem, I do not think, with many 
Members of this body at all. It may be a problem with some on the other 
side.
  So I just suggest that we ought to just forget about this bill. We 
ought to forget about this Congress as quickly as we can and go home. 
That is what the American people want us to do. They are not interested 
in more laws and a new bureaucracy.
  So there are still a lot of things in this bill that we continue to 
discover that we probably should have discovered earlier. I will 
confess that we did not do our job as well as we should have. And I 
think there was a certain intimidation: Oh, we have to be for this or 
somehow these awful lobbyists, these men and women who are much like 
the rest of us, who try to make a living, we have to sort of cast some 
aspersions not only on them but on Members of Congress. If we are not 
viewed as suspect when we get here, we are the day after we are here 
because we have got to have all these laws that say we can do this and 
we cannot do this.
  Now, I do not know anybody here--if he violates the law, he is 
subject to the Ethics Committee. And some have been. But before we pass 
something we are not certain of, let us just take it easy. This will be 
around next year. We will be back. There may be a different management, 
but we will still be back, and we will be dealing with all those issues 
at that time.
  Mr. President, there are a number of other points I would like to 
make:
  I suspect that most of the changes proposed by Senator Levin would 
probably improve the bill. The bottom line, however, is that we need to 
take some time to look at the changes with a fine-tooth comb and 
examine their practical effect. The concurrent resolution was unveiled 
at about 10 or 11 last night, and the vast majority of Members have not 
taken at look at it.
  There should not be any ambiguities, any nuances that are subject to 
different interpretations. The courts are in no mood to read 
legislative history into a statute. The statute should be clear on its 
face.
  And as Senator McConnell pointed out yesterday, we also need to look 
at the First amendment implications of what we are trying to do here. 
Are we going overboard? Are we trying to regulate too much?
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claimed yesterday that 
we were raising fictional objections, but the real fiction is this 
concurrent resolution. We have no assurances that the House of 
Representatives will ever pass it. We are relying on a wing and a 
prayer.
  One proposed change would include under the definition of ``lobbying 
activities'' the phrase ``communications with Members, as described in 
section 4711(d)(1)(A) and (3) of the Internal Revenue Code.'' What's 
this all about? Are we talking about Internal organizational 
newsletters? Conventions? Phone banks? would these activities become 
subject to the reporting requirements?
  The new and improved version of the conference report would still 
treat Members of Congress and the public differently. If you are a 
lobbyist and you knowingly violate the new registration requirements, 
you could face a maximum fine of $200,000. But if you are a Member of 
Congress and you knowingly accept a gift that is banned under the new 
rules, there are no maximum fines, no big-dollar penalties. Instead, 
you get hauled before the ethics Committee.
  When the Senate passed the bill last year, it created a new Office of 
Lobbying Disclosure within the Justice Department. The Conference 
Report, however, elevates the Office to the status of a separate 
Federal agency. The Director of the new office has a 5-year term, is 
appointed by the President, and is removable only for cause. We need to 
take a look at whether this is the best approach. Should the Office of 
Lobbying Disclosure be a separate Federal agency? Should it be within 
the Justice Department? Should the Director of the Office have a five-
year term, or a shorter term? Should the Director be removable for 
reasons other than just ``for cause,'' whatever that may mean?
  It is important to remember that the new disclosure and registration 
rules do not take effect until January 1, 1996. So even if the 
conference report does not pass this Congress, we will still have time 
to pick up the pieces, figure out what was right and what was wrong 
with the conference report, and then pass strong legislation that will 
improve the disclosure process without taking a sledgehammer to the 
constitutional rights of ordinary Americans.
  Again, we are prepared to pass a resolution today prohibiting 
Senators from receiving gifts from just about anyone--lobbyist or 
nonlobbyist. No free lunches. No travel. No entertainment. No charity 
golf tournaments.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this is why people do not believe in 
government. This is why people are disgusted with the Congress. This is 
why ``Washington'' has become a dirty word.
  As Members of Congress, we are often frustrated by our inability to 
solve problems. Some of us decided that a major reason for that 
inability was the structure of our own institution. So we decided to 
fix our own house, clean up our own act, and regain some of the public 
faith and support that Government has lost.
  We may have made the problem worse.
  We hoped to reform the campaign finance system. We did not.
  We hoped to simplify and modernize the organization of the Congress. 
We did not.
  We hoped to pass legislation bringing the Congress under the same 
laws as the rest of the country. We did not.
  We hoped to reduce the influence of special interest lobbyists by 
requiring greater disclosure of their activities and eliminating their 
ability to ply Members with food and entertainment and trips. And now 
it looks like we will not.
  There may be, Mr. President, there may be some who oppose this last 
reform on the list because they honestly have problems with the 
language of the legislation.
  There may be.
  But when we offer to fix the problems they have identified, we are 
told ``oh, thanks * * * but I just found a few more.''
  Mr. President, here on the floor is Senator Cohen, a Republican, who 
is fighting to pass this bill. Yesterday, there were a number of 
Democrats who voted to defeat it.
  I am not saying this is a partisan matter. It is a national problem.
  Killing lobbying reform and gift ban legislation is simple. It's 
easy. And some may believe that it will give them a partisan advantage. 
They will be able to demonstrate that President Clinton cannot move a 
bill through the Congress. They will be able to demonstrate that 
Democrats cannot move a bill through Congress. They will prove that 
Government is incapable of acting. And they hope that this will 
persuade people to elect them or give their party more power.
  But you cannot base power on a foundation which is crumbling.
  And their effort to get power does involve weakening the foundation 
of government. It involves loosening the bonds which tie the people to 
the Government. It involves undermining faith in the institutions of 
Government themselves.
  That, Mr. President, is a strategy which will destroy us all.
  We promised over a year ago to adopt gift reform legislation. I 
offered the amendment; almost every Senator voted for it. For a time, 
it looked like we would not keep that promise, but Senator Wellstone 
and Senator Feingold and I pushed for Senate action on this issue. When 
it was not popular. When it did not make my colleagues happy. Even when 
it made me uncomfortable. I did that, Mr. President, because I firmly 
believe the present system is wrong and that we needed to keep the 
promise we made to fix it.
  Well we did. Senator Levin helped craft a stronger and sounder bill 
than I had introduced. The Senate adopted it. But it does not look like 
it will become law.
  Because some people do not want us to fix problems. They want to make 
them worse.
  My constituents do not want to listen to me tell them why we did not 
do something. They want me to listen to them and do something about 
their problems.
  That is what the gift ban lobbying reform bill is all about. Making 
it easier to hear our constituents instead of the special interests who 
buy us dinner and give us tickets to events and take us on trips. Their 
voice, amplified by their power and access and wealth, make it hard for 
us to hear the voice of the people we were elected to represent.

  Mr. President, let us pass these bills. We have offered to fix what 
may be the legitimate problems some have found in the legislation. Let 
them accept the offer and let us get on with our business. The business 
of building this country rather than tearing it down.
  And let me, Mr. President, explain why a gift ban is so necessary.
  Right now, our constituents do not believe we represent them. They 
think we are being influenced by the special interests. That they give 
us gifts in order to secure our support for their views.
  And make no mistake about it, Mr. President, that is the motive for 
the gifts even if not their effect. We do not get free tickets to 
concerts or sporting events because we are charming companions. We do 
not get taken out to dinner or flown away for free vacations because 
people like us. We get those things not because of who we are but 
rather what we are: Members of Congress whose actions and votes 
influence public policy and can mean a difference of millions of 
dollars for a company and contracts for lobbyists.
  Now Mr. President, I am not--not--claiming that my colleagues are 
being ``bought and sold'' for a dinner or a round of golf. That is not 
my argument at all. I do, however, make two other arguments. First, the 
public believes there is undue influence being exerted. It may be an 
example of post hoc reasoning; it may be a valid concern. But it is a 
fact. During House debate on this issue, one Member said ``I cannot be 
bought for a cup of coffee.'' I agree. But why can he not buy his own 
cup of coffee? What kind of sacrifice would that involve? We accept 
other sacrifices as part of the price of being in public life. We 
surrender, for example, a lot of our privacy; we lose control of our 
own schedules and lives; we give up many things in order to serve. This 
gift ban does not ask us to give up anything. Let me repeat that: this 
gift ban does not ask us to give up anything. It simply demands that we 
pay for everything. That is the sort of sacrifice people make in the 
private sector--it is the least we in public service can do.
  But there is a second argument in favor of this bill, Mr. President. 
It is not just an appearance problem. Gifts do not buy our votes but 
they do influence our actions. Not because we got a gift. But because 
we spend an hour or two at a game or a restaurant with the lobbyist who 
uses that time to subtly make sure we are aware of the arguments which 
favor their position. There is nothing wrong with them making their 
case. What is wrong is giving them a special route of communication, an 
extended period of access, a unique opportunity to make their case. 
Most constituents are fortunate if they can get a 15-minute meeting to 
discuss their concerns directly with a Member of Congress. Lobbyists 
are paid to make sure they have a lot more time than that. Gifts which 
must be enjoyed together is one way to get the time, develop access, 
exercise influence.
  Mr. President, I know that this bill will not cure everything that is 
wrong with the way Washington works. As others point out, we may be 
buying our own dinner, but we will still be getting checks for $10,000 
from PAC's and $1,000 from individuals. I wish we had changed the 
campaign finance law, I really do. But our failure there does not mean 
that we ought to fail here. A gift ban will have an affect in and of 
itself. It will change the way business is done, alter the 
relationships which too often affect legislation, eliminate the 
excesses which so pollute the public perception of politics.
  Let me make one final point: the gift ban and the lobby disclosure 
bill have been properly joined together. You cannot have one without 
the other. As Senators Levin and Cohen--a Democrat and a Republican--
have demonstrated, current law designed to disclose lobbying activity 
is fatally flawed because most lobbyists are not required to register. 
We can't find out what they are doing and how much they are spending to 
get it done. I think that information is essential; it certainly would 
be interesting to know how much was spent on the lobbying effort 
designed to convince Senators that this bill would chill free speech. I 
think the people of this country would be interested in knowing that it 
was the very lobbyists they think have too much power who used that 
power to fool them and defeat this bill. There is an irony there which 
we ought to appreciate. And there is a lesson there we ought to learn.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the efforts that Senator Levin and 
Senator Mitchell have made to move this bill along. And I deplore and 
denounce--deplore and denounce--the tactics which opponents have used 
to mischaracterize the legislation and mislead the American people.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, when I voted yesterday against cloture on 
the Lobbying Disclosure Act, I did so because the final version of the 
bill contains onerous grassroots lobbying provisions. At that time, I 
made clear my desire to see those provisions dropped.
  Today, the Senate had before it a unanimous consent agreement to 
consider a concurrent resolution to do just that. The concurrent 
resolution would strike the objectionable grassroots provisions from 
the bill, and move it closer to the version that had passed the Senate 
earlier--the version for which I had voted. I called for that course of 
action yesterday, and it is what I would have preferred.
  However, there was an objection made to the unanimous consent 
request. The Senate therefore could not consider the concurrent 
resolution and could not strip the grassroots provisions from the 
present bill. I find that unfortunate and wish that objection had not 
been made.
  But because an objection was lodged, the Senate voted again on the 
version of the conference report on which we voted yesterday. That 
conference report still includes the grassroots provisions that have my 
constituents in such an uproar. It is no better today than it was 
yesterday.
  Because we are voting on the same conference report, I must again 
vote against cloture. Mr. President, I wish the Senate had chosen the 
other course of action and passed an amended version of the Lobbying 
Disclosure Act of 1994, absent the grassroots lobbying provisions.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my regret that 
the Senate did not approve Senate Concurrent Resolution 80.
  Like many of my colleagues, I was concerned with certain provisions 
of the conference report and the potential impact that those provisions 
might have on grassroots organizations. My concerns included the fear 
of intimidating people from contributing by threatening them with 
public disclosure.
  With the introduction of Senate Concurrent Resolution 80 by Senator 
Levin, which removed the offending provisions regarding grassroots 
organizations, I believe S. 349, the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1994 
should be passed. However, with the failure to approve the Resolution, 
my concerns for moving forward remain.
  Mr. President, I commend my friend and colleague from Michigan for 
his tireless efforts to move lobby reform legislation through the 
Senate this year and especially for his willingness to work with 
members of both sides of the aisle at this late hour to fashion a bill 
which I believe sends a clear message to the American people that the 
days of business as usual are over.
  Mr. President, I have supported and will continue to support lobbying 
reform and I hope we can have the opportunity to enact legislation at 
the beginning of the next Congress.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, Washington--and particularly 
Congress--are held in contempt by the American people. Those are strong 
words and, some might say, an extreme statement of the case.
  But when 83 percent of the American public do not trust the 
government to do the right thing most of the time, I think it is time 
to drop the rationalizations and the niceties and call it like it is. 
Wednesday morning the Washington Post quotes Oliver North saying that 
he will match his character against anyone in the U.S. Congress today. 
If Jay Leno delivered that line it would be met with peals of knowing 
laughter.
  This institution is held in contempt by much of the American public. 
And who can blame them? In many places we are doing it to ourselves. I 
have watched the television ads this fall from around the country. I 
expect the challengers to run against the place that they all want to 
come to work. But many incumbents--freshmen and veterans alike--are out 
there criticizing the way we do business in Washington. How can we 
expect the American people to have any confidence in this place when so 
few of us are willing to defend it ourselves?
  Jonathan Rauch, the author and commentator, said recently in the New 
York Times: ``The government is well on its way to a crisis of 
legitimacy.''
  I urge my colleagues to think about that. What if it is true? What if 
our legitimacy as an institution is really in crisis? What does that 
mean about the ability of future Congresses to govern?
  I know that it is easy for each of us to sit back and look at our own 
relationships with our own constituents and feel like we are loved, 
admired, and respected. But whatever the explanation for that, it is 
clear that as an institution we are literally despised by large numbers 
of Americans.
  Mr. President, this week we were supposedly going to do something 
about that. But I have a profound feeling of ambivalence. As Jonathan 
Rauch said in the same New York Times essay: ``Congress is riding to 
the rescue with an answer: banning fruit baskets.''
  Mr. President, as Mr. Rauch implies, that is not much. Compared to 
everything else that goes on around here, it is not really anything.
  Right now the election laws allow lobbyists to give us $10,000 for 
our campaigns. The Democratic leadership offered last week to reduce 
that to $6,000 and thought they were making a big concession. In the 
face of the continuation of that system, we are kidding ourselves if we 
think that this ban of other gifts is going to make a difference in the 
way we are perceived by the American people.
  Mr. President, we are, once again, failing to focus on the real 
problem.
  Since 1970 we have passed six major reforms of the campaign and 
lobbying laws. Each one was well-intentioned and each one was touted as 
the answer to the problem.
  But each one also failed to stem the tide of mistrust that threatens 
to drown our representative democracy. That does not mean they were all 
bad bills. But it does mean that they did not address the real problem.
  I am afraid this latest reform will have the same miserable result.
  It is fine to cut back the gifts and the junkets and the favors that 
many of us have received from lobbyists and special interests. It at 
least serves the purpose of taking an issue away from those who use it 
to tear down the Congress and its Members. And if that is all we do, I 
will support it as a useful piece of window dressing.
  Mr. President, I voted against cloture yesterday when this bill went 
beyond the gift ban. I am troubled by the regulation of lobbyists that 
is in the bill. I want to take this opportunity to talk about why I 
oppose that section of the bill.
  Mr. President, as much as we decry lobbyists and special interests 
and their supposed influence in Washington, it is apparent that in 
today's America the people make their voice heard through the groups 
that they join. It is their way to petition the Government in a day 
when each Congressman represents hundreds of thousands of people and 
most Senators represent millions of people.
  Sending representatives to Washington, paid or otherwise, is not a 
sin--it is a good thing. And it is not a trivial matter. It is 
fundamental to our form of government. And I am not convinced that we 
can or should insert into that process a Government official who is 
going to regulate the way we hear from our constituents. Especially 
when we are doing it in response to a bunch of demagoguery about 
special interests.
  Furthermore, Mr. President, this bill will do a disservice to the 
country if it allows us to ignore the deeper problems that infect our 
legislative process.
  The problem is not really the money, perks, or favors that come from 
the special interest groups. The problem is not really the 
proliferation of interest groups in Washington, DC. The problem is the 
seeming inability of Members of Congress to distinguish between the 
interests of a few and the interests of the country as a whole.
  My first real experience with this was all the way back in 1981. That 
year I was looking forward to running for reelection for the first 
time. Prior to the election campaign I had cosponsored a modest 
proposal that would introduce some means-testing in Social Security. It 
was not a radical measure and it did not affect any but the wealthiest 
Social Security recipients. At the time I thought it was a good idea 
and I thought it deserved debate in the U.S. Senate.
  Mr. President, the opening salvo of the campaign against me in came 
in September 1981, more than a year before election day in 1982. It was 
a letter sent to every senior citizen in the State of Minnesota. In an 
envelope that was made to look like a Social Security check, the letter 
accused me of trying to kill Social Security. It incited needless anger 
and fear among seniors which was totally unjustified by the modest 
proposal I had supported. It spawned an organization called S.O.S.--
Save our Social Security--dedicated to the proposition that I should be 
thrown out of the Senate.
  By the way, that letter was designed and produced, and a half million 
copies mailed, by a mega-millionaire who ran a self-financed campaign 
against me thanks to the Buckley versus Valeo interpretation of the 
first amendment.
  That was my first experience. Since then groups that represent every 
narrow little interest that can be described have sprouted in Minnesota 
and Washington. Some of them give gifts and some of them give campaign 
contributions, to be sure. But the most influential and effective ones 
are much more sophisticated than that.
  Today the really effective special interests use the mail, the FAX, 
Internet, and the telephone to generate what appear to be groundswells 
in the grass roots. They promise favorable mention to their members or 
threaten to heap abuse on those who do not toe the line. I think most 
of my colleagues would agree with me that the power of the N.R.A. does 
not come from gifts or campaign contributions. It comes from their 
large membership and their impressive mailing list.
  When we were debating motor-voter, my administrative assistant was 
talking to the representative of one of the interest groups that 
promoted that legislation. When he mentioned my reservations about it 
the response was immediate. The spokesperson said that they would start 
the ``telephone tree.'' In other words, they would generate hundreds of 
calls to my office to convince me not of the rightness of their cause, 
but of their ability to simulate grass roots support.
  Mr. President, this is worse than sticking a wet finger in the wind 
before every vote. Because of the sophistication and proliferation of 
interest groups, the wind is unreliable. We are all blown by the winds, 
first one way and then the other. The result should surprise no one. It 
is gridlock.
  We were not paralyzed in the health care debate by the money of the 
interest groups. We were paralyzed by the noise of the interest groups. 
I hesitate to start naming them because I will leave someone out.
  We all know that the AARP told us what they would settle for, the 
chiropractors told us, the children's advocates, the small businesses, 
the large businesses, the insurance companies, the health plans, the 
nurses, the doctors, the optometrists, the liberals, the conservatives, 
the drug companies, the cities, the counties, the farmers, the miners, 
big labor, small labor, and I have not even scratched the surface.
  They all generated telephone campaigns and letter campaigns. They put 
tear-out postcards in their magazines, circulated petitions, jammed our 
fax machines, and otherwise generated public outcry. Of course, each of 
these groups was only opposed to one small part of the overall effort, 
or there was only one small part that they had to have. The problem is 
that what one demanded, the others were strongly opposed to, and vice 
versa.
  As Robert Samuelson said in Newsweek this week, health care reform 
``self-destructed'' in the effort to give all things to all people.
  Mr. President, while we are tinkering with all these rules to improve 
the appearance of what we do, we are leaving the fundamental problem 
unchanged.
  The explanation for this is apparent. Washington--and Congress in 
particular--has become overly fond of simple solutions to problems. But 
there is no simple solution to this problem. There is a whole host of 
interest groups with fax machines, copy machines, and telephones who 
can create a demand for this bill. Whatever their reasons for promoting 
this nonsolution, it is apparent that there is no simple solution.
  We cannot restrict or regulate the right to petition the Government, 
though some would argue that this bill does just that.
  We cannot tax the right to petition the Government, though the 
campaign finance reform compromise came close.
  We cannot tell people not to write or call.
  We cannot insulate ourselves from the cacophony of American public 
opinion, no matter how poorly expressed.
  Jonathan Rauch thinks that the answer is to do away with subsidies 
and Government regulation. He argues that if there is nothing to gain, 
nothing to lose, and nothing to protect, the interest groups will go 
away.
  Some suggest that term limits are the answer. If we were not all 
looking to protect our jobs in this body we would be free to ignore the 
noise of special interests and concentrate on the public interest.
  Some would hark back to a day when Members of Congress were able to 
rise above special interests and stand for principles, come what may.
  I don't know if such a day ever existed. Mark Twain once commented 
that there was no professional criminal class in the United States 
excepting Congress. I am not sure there is a better day to look back 
on.
  Senators Boren and Domenici have looked into a series of reforms of 
the Senate that address some of these concerns. Neither I--nor Senator 
Boren--will be around to implement any of them, but I recommend them to 
my colleagues.
  Mr. President, the bill we are voting on today is not even a Band-Aid 
on the problem that this institution faces. It looks good, and it will 
take some of the ammunition out of the hands of demagogs who denounce 
the institution. But let's not kid ourselves or the American people, it 
solves nothing.
  It will not end the crisis of legitimacy that this body and this 
Government now face. That is a more difficult problem. Credibility and 
legitimacy, once lost, are reacquired with great difficulty and years 
of work.
  In my view that long, difficult job requires a commitment on the part 
of Senators to lead--as well as represent--their constituents.
  It requires self-control on the part of those who see an opportunity 
to gain politically from tearing the institution down--especially those 
who would imply that Congress is for sale to special interests.
  It requires a commitment on the part of partisans on both sides of 
the aisle, as well as at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, to put partisan 
interests aside after the election and work in good faith.
  It requires that we not over-promise, that we not pretend to have 
answers to all the questions, that we acknowledge our limitations and 
the limitations of a Government already $5 trillion dollars in debt.
  It requires an ability to say no, even to good causes and friendly 
interest groups, when we think that their interest is not in the public 
interest.
  And then it requires us to withstand the rhetoric of demagogues and 
their journalistic allies who will find fault in your FEC report, your 
speaking schedule, and your Christmas card list.
  By my votes on this bill, I will simply produce more evidence for my 
case. I can predict that what I have said in this statement will be 
virtually ignored by the special interests. Common Cause or Citizen's 
Action or the Committee for Public Integrity will let their members 
know that I voted against their special interest. Their morally 
superior spokespersons will denounce me as a crook or as failing to 
live up to their standard for integrity. If I were running for re-
election they would alert all their members that I had deviated from 
their version of the public interest.
  I have already had a preview of what some of the press will say. Last 
week I spoke to the American League of Lobbyists. I suppose that some 
special interests see this group as the root of all evil in Washington. 
The League is a professional association whose members represent 
Planned Parenthood who were sent by some of my constituents to help me 
understand title X; the Corn Growers Association who were sent by some 
of my constituents to help me understand ethanol; the V.F.W. who were 
sent by some of my constituents to help me understand veterans health 
issues and military issues; And hundreds of others who bring messages 
to Washington from groups of Minnesotans.
  I did not always vote their way. My view of the public interest was 
not always in accord with their special interest. But we have worked 
together for sixteen years. They have each helped me understand the 
point of view of those Minnesotans who employ them in Washington. While 
I was invited there to talk to them about health reform I chose also to 
thank them for their representation of the special interests of my 
constituents. And I was sincere in my thanks.
  Of course the next day a newspaper in Minnesota carried an article 
entitled ``Durenberger Thanks Lobbyists.'' The reporter, in lock step 
with the Congress bashers, did not bother to find out what these people 
had done for my constituents over the years. She did not bother to ask 
me why I thanked them. Instead she wrote that the lobbyists have spent 
millions on me over the years. She implied that I was thanking them for 
their money, not for their representation of Minnesotans. She implied 
that I was thanking them like a store clerk thanks someone who just 
bought something over the counter.
  Her story was sheer demagoguery. Her story was an unprincipled attack 
on me and on Congress. She wrote, and the Mankato Free Press published:

       In addressing the group, the senator highlighted ``the 
     positive contribution of people in your profession,'' saying 
     that research and information provided on legislative issues 
     is a valuable resource.
       ``People at home can't be here day in and day out,'' 
     Durenberger said of the groups that employ Washington 
     lobbyists, ``so they hire you to represent them.''
       Durenberger is not stranger to special interest groups, 
     which have spent millions on the senator over the years.

  She missed the real story, because she was so intent on writing the 
half-truth/half-lie that she has probably come to believe.
  Mr. President it is not my intention or my place to preach to my 
colleagues. I have never been associated in a common endeavor with a 
finer group of men and women and I am proud to have served with each of 
them.
  But if I can impart some of the wisdom gained in sixteen years of 
experience, I recommend to my colleagues that they not let this bill 
divert them from the important business of restoring the credibility 
and legitimacy of this body.

                          ____________________