[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 3 (Friday, January 6, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S529-S534]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              THE CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1995

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the hour of 9:30 
a.m. having arrived, the Senate will now resume consideration of S. 2, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2) to make certain laws applicable to the 
     legislative branch of the Federal Government.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Ford-Feingold amendment No. 4, to prohibit the personal use 
     of accrued frequent flyer miles by Members and employees of 
     the Congress.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment of Mr. Ford, No. 4, is 
pending.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this amendment I have before the Senate 
merely prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars for personal use; that is, 
the frequent flyer mileage miles that are built up as a result of 
expense-paid trips back to our States. That is simply what it is.
  I understand that my friends on the other side of the aisle are not 
ready to accept it, and particularly not ready for a vote.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be 
set aside, and I further ask unanimous consent that Senator Wellstone 
be recognized for the introduction of an amendment.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished Senator from Minnesota 
is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from 
Kentucky.
  Mr. President, yesterday, in introducing an amendment with Senator 
Levin of Michigan, Senator Feingold, and Senator Lautenberg which dealt 
with lobby disclosure but mainly with gift bans, I on the floor of the 
Senate read from what I think is a very, very interesting, very 
important, and very revealing piece in Roll Call of October 17, 1994. 
The title is, ``How Lobbyists Put Meals, Gifts to Work.''

       This memo, obtained by Roll Call, says one prominent D.C. 
     firm lays out 1994 strategy, 
     [[Page S530]] including meals, campaign contributions * * *.

  And we talked yesterday about trips.
  Mr. President, the amendment that I am going to introduce today 
focuses on lobbying. Yesterday, what I urged my colleagues--since so 
many of us ran on a reform agenda and since so many of us have talked 
about the need to make this process more accountable, open, and 
honest--I asked my colleagues really, under the leadership of Senator 
Levin, to vote on an amendment which would say that we would put an end 
to this taking of gifts. The vote was ``no.''
  So today, focusing on the same question, I am going to, in this 
amendment, essentially say to my colleagues if you are going to vote 
``no'' against the taking of gifts, the gift ban part, at least let us 
put a stop to this, I think, insidious connection between the lobbying 
and the taking of cash and campaign contributions.
  So this amendment is going to prohibit lobbyists who may lobby within 
the preceding year from making contributions to or soliciting 
contributions for Members of Congress and from lobbying Members of 
Congress to whom they have contributed or on whose behalf they have 
solicited funds within the previous year.
  In other words, if you have made a contribution or you have 
instructed a PAC you control to make a contribution to a candidate, 
then for 1 year thereafter you should not be lobbying that candidate or 
staff. Vice versa, if you have been in that office lobbying a Senator 
or lobbying staff, then there is a 1-year window here whereby you would 
not be allowed to make a campaign contribution.
  This amendment is all about congressional accountability. Let me 
repeat that. This amendment is all about congressional accountability. 
And it is designed to sever the connection between lobbyists and big 
PAC contributions to Members of Congress.
  This covers congressional staff, and it would prohibit lobbyists from 
lobbying new Members of Congress to whom they have contributed or on 
whose behalf they have solicited funds during the past year which I 
think, from the point of view of the new class, also represents real 
reform.
  Mr. President, this amendment was part of S. 3, which the Senate 
passed by a very lopsided vote. Senators then said that they thought 
this was an important reform idea, or I should say an important reform 
measure. It would prohibit the practice whereby a lobbyist who lobbies 
a Member for a client then directs that client to make a contribution 
to the Member. It closes the potential loophole allowing lobbyists to 
get around the prohibition by having clients make contributions to 
Members to further their lobbying efforts.
  In other words, it is not just a question of lobbyists not being able 
to do it, but it is also a question of a lobbyist not being able to 
instruct a client to make such a contribution.
  This amendment will also prohibit a lobbyist from directing that a 
contribution be made by a political action committee to a Member of 
Congress whom that lobbyist has lobbied during the past year, a key 
element of any reform effort designed to sever--let me emphasize that--
the connection, big money connection, between large lobbying firms, 
their clients, and PAC's.
  Mr. President, one more time, we have before us the Congressional 
Accountability Act. We are talking about how to make this process more 
accountable. Reform is in the air in America. We started out this 
session on the basis of a focus on reform, and this particular 
amendment speaks to that question.
  Yesterday, I urged my colleagues to vote for an amendment that I 
thought was a huge step forward--not a small step forward, but a huge 
step forward--in changing the political culture of Washington in 
putting a stop to taking these gifts. Many Senators, though I am proud 
to say by no means all Senators, but certainly many Senators, and on 
the other side of the aisle, all Senators on the other side of the 
aisle--I guess there were two exceptions--voted ``no.'' With this 
amendment, I am saying if you are not willing to put an end to the 
accepting of gifts, at least put an end to this insidious connection 
between lobbying and the giving of money.
  If there is one thing we have heard from people in the country, it is 
that they do not like this mix of money and politics. They do not like 
the fact that some people march on Washington every day. They do not 
like the fact that this is such a closed loop in which they do not feel 
as if they participate. And I cannot think of an amendment that would 
speak more clearly and more directly to people's concerns than this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, this provision, when this amendment was first brought 
up for S. 3--which again I remind my colleagues was passed by an 
overwhelmingly positive vote--was crafted narrowly to withstand the 
test of constitutionality. The Court has said that any seeming 
infringement on first amendment speech rights has to be balanced 
against concerns about corruption or the appearance of corruption. That 
is what we are talking about here, the appearance of corruption. If you 
run for office and you are elected, lobbyists come in and lobby you, 
and then later there is a contribution. Or, vice versa, you receive a 
contribution and lobbyists instruct a PAC or client to make a 
contribution to you, and then shortly thereafter the lobbyist is in 
your office.
  If you want to talk about the appearance of corruption and if you 
want to talk about a way of making this process more accountable and 
you want to talk about a way that Senators can live up to our mandate 
to be reformers, this amendment speaks directly to this question.
  Mr. President, again, this amendment meets that test. It is directed 
narrowly at the question of the appearance of corruption or 
impropriety. Let me emphasis that again. It is directed narrowly at the 
question of the appearance of corruption or impropriety.
 And it covers only those situations where a lobbyist has made a 
lobbying contact and then contributes, solicits on behalf of, or 
directs that a contribution be made to a Member.

  It attempts to define who is a lobbyist. By the way, so no mistake 
will be made, we simply go by the current definition. We get into none 
of the debate and argument on the reform of lobby disclosure. We just 
go with the current definition which--and by the way, I think all of us 
agree, if our words are to be believed--eventually has to be changed. 
There are many who lobby who are not officially registered as lobbyists 
today.
  Mr. President, I also want to include in the Record a letter from the 
White House, January 5, 1995, which was addressed to the Speaker, in 
which the focus is on congressional reform, with a strong focus on this 
whole question of lobbying reform.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                      Washington, January 5, 1995.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: We have an opportunity to make historic 
     change in the way that Washington works and the government 
     does the people's business.
       This week, the Congress has begun to take important and 
     positive steps to change its operations for the better. 
     Shrinking the number of committees, reducing staff, and other 
     measures are valuable, and long overdue. The passage of 
     legislation that would apply to Congress the laws that apply 
     to the public is only fair, is simple common sense, and is 
     also long overdue. I hope that this time, unlike the last 
     session of Congress, the Senate follows the House's action. I 
     congratulate you on these steps.
       But true congressional reform must reduce the power of 
     lobbyists and special interests. The power of organized money 
     in Washington hurts the middle class, bloats spending and the 
     deficit, and blocks needed change. Today, some 90,000 people 
     in Washington are associated with lobbying Congress on behalf 
     of specific interests, which too often are able to manipulate 
     the congressional process to insert spending projects or tax 
     provisions in legislation that do not serve the larger 
     public's interest. Lobby power coupled with the ever-
     escalating cost of campaigns, which has risen fourfold over 
     the past two decades, gives wealthy interests and wealthy 
     candidates disproportionate influence in decisionmaking.
       These are not partisan concerns; they are American 
     concerns. I urge you, as you undertake the task of reforming 
     Congress, to take on these real political reform issues.
       First, as you enact legislation to apply general laws to 
     Congress, it is vital that professional lobbyists be barred 
     from giving 
     [[Page S531]] gifts, meals and entertainment to members of 
     Congress--just as they are now barred from giving these 
     benefits to executive branch officials.
       Second, Congress should also quickly enact legislation to 
     bring professional lobbyists into the sunlight of public 
     scrutiny. The current lobby disclosure statute is cumbersome 
     and
      antiquated. Lobbyists should disclose who their clients are, 
     what bills they seek to pass or block, and how much they 
     are paid.
       Third, I am pleased that the Congress wants to pass a line 
     item veto authority for the President, something that I have 
     consistently supported before and during the 1992 campaign 
     and since. The line item veto authority will help us cut 
     unnecessary spending and reduce the budget deficit. It is a 
     powerful tool for fighting special interests, who too often 
     are able to win approval of wasteful projects through 
     manipulation of the congressional process, and bury them in 
     massive bills where they are protected from Presidential 
     vetoes. It will increase the accountability of government. I 
     want a strong version of the line item veto, one that enables 
     the President to take direct steps to curb wasteful spending. 
     This is clearly an area where both parties can come together 
     in the national interest, and I look forward to working with 
     the Congress to quickly enact this measure.
       Finally, we must clean up political campaigns, limit the 
     cost of campaigning, reduce the role of special interests, 
     and increase the role of ordinary citizens. Real campaign 
     finance reform, too, should be an area of bipartisan 
     cooperation. Requiring broadcasters to provide time to bona 
     fide candidates would cut the cost of campaigning and ensure 
     that voters hear all arguments, regardless of candidate 
     wealth. Strong proposals for free TV time have been 
     introduced in previous years by Senator Dole and by the new 
     chair of the House Commerce Committee, Rep. Thomas Bliley; 
     these proposals should be the basis of agreement on reform.
       I look forward to working with the Congress to achieve 
     results that are bipartisan, bold, and give the government 
     back to the people.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me just summarize for my 
colleagues, because I think that we will be casting an important vote 
on this amendment, I think it is an important vote because this is sort 
of a litmus test as to how committed we are to reform.
  I cite this as a relevant document: Roll Call, Monday, October 17, 
where the whole focus is on meals and travel and campaign 
contributions, as ways of having access for clients. Mr. President, if 
you want to talk about a memo that tells it all, if you want to talk 
about a memo that, unfortunately, sort of speaks to the very concerns 
that people have about this process, this is an example.
  I ask unanimous consent that this Roll Call piece be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [From Roll Call, Oct. 17, 1994]

                 How Lobbyists Put Meals, Gifts to Work

                         (By Timothy J. Burger)

       During the protracted debate over new lobbying and gift 
     rules--which went down to stunning defeat in the waning days 
     of the second session--Members argued violently over the 
     influence of lobbyist-paid meals and campaign contributions.
       ``Now, a Big Mac will not buy influence from anybody. I am 
     sure $15,000 will not buy influence from anybody,'' Rep. Dan 
     Burton (R-Ind) said on the floor.
       Mocked retiring House Minority Leader Bob Michel (R-Ill): 
     ``Here we are today demeaning ourselves by saying. `Oh, 
     please stop me before I accept another cup of coffee and a 
     Danish.'''
       Despite such protestations, meals and contributions are 
     fixtures in the lobbying world--and internal documents from a 
     prominent Washington lobbying firm demonstrate just how 
     central they are to conducting business.
       In December 1993, principals of Gold and Liebengood 
     assembled plans for expanding their network of Hill contacts 
     for 1994.
       The planning documents, copies of which were obtained by 
     Roll Call, offer a rare glimpse into the world of lobbying 
     and, specifically, how meals, gifts, and contributions are 
     put to use.
       Take, for instance, the strategy for James Capel and Co. 
     Ltd., a British securities firm, that is a longtime client of 
     Gold and Liebengood.
       According to the memo: ``Capel is desirous of dinners, 
     lunches, and meetings for themselves and their clients, with 
     a diverse list of Members of Congress Capel has agreed to pay 
     G&L a separate fee for each and every one of these 
     Congressional visits we arrange.
       Potential targets: John Dingell, Jack Brooks, Norman 
     Mineta, and Al Swift, were the initial Members mentioned. 
     Capel would be receptive to suggestions from us.''
       The 12-page memo was drafted by Charles Merin, a Gold and 
     Liebengood partner, and John Scruggs, the firm's managing 
     director and a former aide to then-Rep. Trent Lott (R-Miss). 
     It includes specific agencies for each of the principals.
       Among Scruggs's ``targets'' were Reps. Porter Goss (R-Fla) 
     and Pat Danner (D-Mo).
       ``Congresswoman Danner defeated Tom Coleman. Coleman was a 
     strong and consistent supporter of Wilcox. Need to develop 
     similar relationship with Danner,'' the memo noted. ``Action: 
     Continue to work with staff (hesitancy to accept gifts). Ask 
     Chuck Merin for introduction followed by fundraising 
     activity.''
       Wilcox, a manufacturing company, is a former Gold and 
     Leibengood client.
       Regarding Goss, the outline noted: ``Porter Goss became a 
     member of the Rules Committee early in this Congress. Only 
     Minority Member on the committee with whom I do not have an 
     established relationship.
       ``Action: Seek opportunity for campaign contribution, 
     followed by goodwill development.''
       It appears, however, that Gold and Liebengood did not 
     follow through on all of its plans. Goss and Danner told Roll 
     Call they never heard from Scruggs.
       Among the ``targets'' outlined for Merin were Alan Roth, 
     staff director of the House Energy and Commerce Committee--
     ``Multiple client interests before the Committee would be 
     enhanced by a better working relationship with him''--and 
     Democratic Reps. Bobby Rush (Ill), Scotty Baesler (Ky), and 
     Bobby Scott (Va).
       The Merin outline describes the Congressmen as ``Promising 
     Freshman Members with whom I need to firm up an existing, but 
     casual relationship.
       ``Action: Arrange sit-downs/meals with these Members and 
     mutual Member friends.
       ``Ask Jack Clough, former E&C Committee top aide, to 
     arrange a lunch.''
       Merin said he never followed through with Roth, Baesler, or 
     Scott and that he become acquainted with Rush through 
     meetings, not meals, with the Congressman.
       Scruggs, Merin, and a founding partner, former Senate 
     Sergeant at Arms Howard Liebengood, last week were shown 
     copies of the documents obtained by Roll Call.
       In a letter of response, Scruggs wrote: ``The documents are 
     not newsworthy in any respect and were intended solely for 
     private not public consumption. The activities suggested in 
     the documents are neither unique nor inappropriate in any 
     manner. As this firm is bipartisan and has no Political 
     Action Committee, all members are encouraged to participate 
     in political development-individually and they do.''
       Gold and Liebengood is in the final year of a five-year 
     buyout and will be wholly owned by Burson-Marsteller at the 
     end of 1994.
       The memo also documents the firm's involvement in 
     leadership races.
       Written some 11 months ago, the Gold and Liebengood 
     ``Campaign Activity Outline'' discussed Merin's plans to work 
     on the year's most dramatic long-shot leadership race: 
     ``Charlie Rose for Speaker.''
       Merin's plans were to ``Continue working with Rose and his 
     campaign deputies to broaden the network of Member 
     commitments.''
       This type of activity is ``always a game of Russian 
     roulette,'' said Howard Marlowe of the lobbying firm, Marlowe 
     & Co., who served as president of the American League of 
     Lobbyists from 1988 to 1990 and is a member of the 
     organization's board.
       ``As long as you back the winner, then you've made the 
     right choice,'' said Marlowe. ``[And] in this case, the loser 
     is somebody who's still around and so whatever you did to 
     help him or her out is probably going to be remembered. So I 
     think that probably represents a smart political move on 
     their part.''
       But, Marlowe said, ``I think in general lobbyist ought to 
     probably try to refrain from getting involved in the internal 
     leadership of the House or Senate.''
       Said Merin of his involvement in the leadership race: ``The 
     election of a Speaker of the House, much like the appointment 
     of any Member to any committee, is a matter exclusively and 
     totally within the purview of the institution. The ability of 
     any outsider to leverage the process to his or her advantage 
     is virtually nil. The only real role any outside can play in 
     the process is to provide limited advice and counsel.''
       Said Rose: ``I don't see Chuck Merin much more than I see 
     other lobbyists that visit me. But be's a friend. * * * He 
     has been helping me [with] new candidates and [to] raise 
     money from some of his clients. * * * Some of the people he 
     represents have given money to my leadership PAC. * * * He's 
     told them that I have a good chance to be Speaker.''
       Rose noted that ``since the beginning of Congress, 
     [lobbying firms] have helped people become Speaker and 
     Majority Leader and get elected to Congress. The vote for 
     leadership around here comes from the Democratic Caucus. And 
     Chuck has helped me raise money for Democratic candidates.''
       Also on Merin's agenda is ``Vic Fazio for Caucus Chair.''
       The plan called for Merin to ``Assist Fazio [D-Calif] with 
     Member contacts on an as directed basis, relative to hid bid 
     to succeed Steny Hoyer.'' Fazio, the Democratic Caucus vice 
     chairman, is unopposed in a bid to succeed Hoyer.
       Asked about the memo, a Fazio aide said: ``Mr. Merin has 
     been a good friend and supportive of Mr. Fazio's campaigns in 
     the past.''
       [[Page S532]] The most prominent political activity listed 
     for Scruggs, meanwhile, is the ``Bob Walker for Whip'' 
     campaign. Walker (Pa) is running against Reps. Tom DeLay 
     (Texas) and Bill McCollum (Fla) for the GOP Whip post that 
     Rep. Newt Gingrich (Ga) will leave when he's elected 
     Republican Leader in December.
       Scruggs, the memo states, is ``Serving on advisory group of 
     lobbyists supporting Walker Whip campaign.'' It cites a 
     ``Commitment
      to do `meet and greets' for GOP candidates identified by 
     Walker as he campaigns for potential GOP freshmen in next 
     year's Congressional races.''
       Said Walker in an interview, ``This is a guy who is a 
     personal friend of mine of 20 years standing. * * * It's not 
     being done as a lobbyist. It's being done as a personal 
     friend.'' Walker said Scruggs ``consults with me from time to 
     time * * * and has put together some meet and greets.'' 
     Walker said Scruggs is only one of many lobbyists working on 
     his behalf.
       Gold and Liebengood does not have a PAC and does not as a 
     firm formally back specific candidates, although its 13 
     individual lobbyists are encouraged to follow their own 
     political development agendas. This sometimes leads Gold and 
     Liebengood lobbyists to support opposing candidates for the 
     same office.
       Underscoring this point, Scruggs said in the interview that 
     ``Gold and Liebengood is not working for Charlie Rose for 
     Speaker. Because I'm the managing director and I'm supporting 
     Newt Gingrich for Speaker and I think that sort of sums it 
     up.''
       Said Ellen Miller, executive director of the Center for 
     Responsive Politics: ``We always expect this happens. But you 
     know that level of involvement in leadership races is pretty 
     startling. It's another chapter in the book `How Washington 
     Really Works'. * * * I'm afraid it's not unique at all.''
       ``Do I know we get targeted? Sure,'' said Goss. As a public 
     official, ``You give up some privacy and you just expect 
     people are trying to figure out ways to get access to get 
     their views across.''
       Other political development projects listed for Merin:
       ``Mel Watts [sic] for a Rules Committee seat. The 
     Congressional Black Caucus will be able to recommend a 
     successor to [A]lan Wheat on the Rules Committee. Mel is the 
     CBC Chairman's choice for that vacancy. Assist Mel in 
     building a network of non-CBC Steering and Policy Committee 
     Members who will support his appointment.''
       Watt said this month he has no knowledge of the memo or 
     Merin's interest in winning him a spot on the Rules panel.
       ``Al Wynn for an Energy and Commerce Committee Seat. 
     Maryland is looking to get back the seat it lost with Tom 
     McMillen's defeat. Anticipated Member defeats/departures will 
     create Democratic vacancies at the Committee. Help Albert 
     craft his campaign for an appointment.'' Merin gave Wynn's 
     re-election $200, according to FEC records.
       An aide to Wynn--who had previously expressed interest in 
     Rules, not Energy and Commerce--had no comment.
       ``Greg Laughlin for a Ways and Means Committee Seat. The 
     departure of Representatives Pickle and Andrews from the 
     Congress will create two vacancies for Texas Democrats to 
     fill. Greg is the leading delegation choice for one of those 
     vacancies. Assist him in securing non-Texas Steering and 
     Policy Committee votes as the year goes on.''
       Laughlin could not be reached for comment.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, to summarize, this amendment is 
designed to prohibit lobbyists from making contributions to, or 
soliciting contributions for Members of Congress whom they have lobbied 
within the preceding year, and from lobbying Members of Congress to 
whom they have contributed or on whose behalf they have solicited funds 
within the previous year.
  If you have gone in--this includes staff as well--if you have gone in 
to see one of the Senators as a lobbyist or gone in to lobby with 
staff, then for 1 year--that is what we are talking about--you are not 
allowed to make campaign contributions. If you have contributed to a 
Senator, then within a 1-year period of time, you are prohibited from 
lobbying the Senator or staff.
  This is all about making this process more open. This is all about 
reform. This is all about making sure we have a system in our country 
of democracy for the many and not democracy for the few. This is all 
about congressional accountability. And yesterday, too many of my 
colleagues--as it did not get a majority vote--voted against ending 
this practice of receiving the gifts, the argument being we will get to 
it later. By the way, since I have been here in the Senate, I have 
heard that argument over and over and over again. I think we will get 
to it later this term. I know I will bring this up over and over and 
over again until we do get to it.
  Today I say this to my colleagues: If you are not going to agree with 
the proposition that we should put an end to the taking of these gifts 
now, then at least agree to the proposition--if we are talking about 
congressional accountability--that we ought not to be taking this money 
from lobbyists. At least agree there ought to be a 1-year period of 
time between the lobbying activity and the giving of money. Does it not 
seem as if this is reasonable? Does it not seem as if this is a prudent 
course? Does it not seem that if we are talking about reform, we ought 
to vote for this? We cannot separate the legislative lives we live and 
how we vote from the words we speak.


                            Amendment No. 5

      (Purpose: To restrict political contributions by lobbyists)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS BY LOBBYISTS.

       Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441a) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(i)(1) A lobbyist, or a political committee controlled by 
     a lobbyist, shall not make contributions to, or solicit 
     contributions for or on behalf of--
       ``(A) any member of Congress with whom the lobbyist has, 
     during the preceding 12 months, made a lobbying contact; or
       ``(B) any authorized committee of the President of the 
     United States if, during the preceding 12 months, the 
     lobbyist has made a lobbying contact with a covered executive 
     branch official.
       ``(2) A lobbyist who, or a lobbyist whose political 
     committee, has made any contribution to, or solicited 
     contributions for or on behalf of, any member of Congress or 
     candidate for Congress (or any authorized committee of the 
     President) shall not, during the 12 months following such 
     contribution or solicitation, make a lobbying contact with 
     such member or candidate who becomes a member of Congress (or 
     a covered executive branch official).
       ``(3) If a lobbyist advises or otherwise suggests to a 
     client of the lobbyist (including a client that is the 
     lobbyist's regular employer), or to a political committee 
     that is funded or administered by such a client, that the 
     client or political committee should make a contribution to 
     or solicit a contribution for or on behalf of--
       ``(A) a member of Congress or candidate for Congress, the 
     making or soliciting of such a contribution is prohibited if 
     the lobbyist has made a lobbying contact with the member of 
     Congress within the preceding 12 months; or
       ``(B) an authorized committee of the President, the making 
     or soliciting of such a contribution shall be unlawful if the 
     lobbyist has made a lobbying contact with a covered executive 
     branch official within the preceding 12 months.
       ``(4) For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `covered executive branch official' means 
     the President, Vice-President, any officer or employee of the 
     executive office of the President other than a clerical or 
     secretarial employee, any officer or employee serving in an 
     Executive Level I, II, III, IV, or V position as designated 
     in statute or Executive order, any officer or employee 
     serving in a senior executive service position (as defined in 
     section 3232(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code), any 
     member of the uniformed services whose pay grade is at or in 
     excess of 0-7 under section 201 of title 37, United States 
     Code, and any officer or employee serving in a position of 
     confidential or policy-determining character under schedule C 
     of the excepted service pursuant to regulations implementing 
     section 2103 of title 5, United States Code;
       ``(B) the term `lobbyist' means a person required to 
     register under section 308 of the Federal Regulation of 
     Lobbying Act (2 U.S.C. 267) or the Foreign Agents 
     Registration Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C. 611 et seq.) or any 
     successor Federal law requiring a person who is a lobbyist or 
     foreign agent to register or a person to report its lobbying 
     activities; and
       ``(C) the term `lobbying contact'--
       ``(i) means an oral or written communication with or 
     appearance before a member of Congress or covered executive 
     branch official made by a lobbyist representing an interest 
     of another person with regard to--
       ``(I) the formulation, modification, or adoption of Federal 
     legislation (including a legislative proposal);
      [[Page S533]]   ``(II) the formulation, modification, or 
     adoption of a Federal rule, regulation, Executive order, or 
     any other program, policy or position of the United States 
     Government; or
       ``(III) the administration or execution of a Federal 
     program or policy (including the negotiation, award, or 
     administration of a Federal contract, grant, loan, permit, or 
     license); but
       ``(ii) does not include a communication that is--
       ``(I) made by a public official acting in an official 
     capacity;
       ``(II) made by a representative of a media organization who 
     is primarily engaged in gathering and disseminating news and 
     information to the public;
       ``(III) made in a speech, article, publication, or other 
     material that is widely distributed to the public or through 
     the media;
       ``(IV) a request for an appointment, a request for the 
     status of a Federal action, or another similar ministerial 
     contact, if there is no attempt to influence a member of 
     Congress or covered executive branch official at the time of 
     the contact;
       ``(V) made in the course of participation in an advisory 
     committee subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
     U.S.C. App.);
       ``(VI) testimony given before a committee, subcommittee, or 
     office of Congress a Federal agency, or submitted for 
     inclusion in the public record of a hearing conducted by the 
     committee, subcommittee, or office;
       ``(VII) information provided in writing in response to a 
     specific written request from a member of Congress or covered 
     executive branch official;
       ``(VIII) required by subpoena, civil investigative demand, 
     or otherwise compelled by statute, regulation, or other 
     action of Congress or a Federal agency;
       ``(IX) made to an agency official with regard to a judicial 
     proceeding, criminal or civil law enforcement inquiry, 
     investigation, or proceeding, or filing required by law;
       ``(X) made in compliance with written agency procedures 
     regarding an adjudication conducted by the agency under 
     section 554 of title 5, United States Code, or substantially 
     similar provisions;
       ``(XI) a written comment filed in a public docket and other 
     communication that is made on the record in a public 
     proceeding;
       ``(XII) a formal petition for agency action, made in 
     writing pursuant to established agency procedures; or
       ``(XIII) made on behalf of a person with regard to the 
     person's benefits, employment, other personal matters 
     involving only that person, or disclosures pursuant to a 
     whistleblower statute.
       ``(5) For purposes of this subsection, a lobbyist shall be 
     considered to make a lobbying contact or communication with a 
     member of Congress if the lobbyist makes a lobbying contact 
     or communication with--
       ``(i) the member of Congress;
       ``(ii) any person employed in the office of the member of 
     Congress; or
       ``(iii) any person employed by a committee, joint 
     committee, or leadership office who, to the knowledge of the 
     lobbyist, was employed at the request of or is employed at 
     the pleasure of, reports primarily to, represents, or acts as 
     the agent of the member of Congress.''.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I, in a short period of time, have to 
get ready for a call-in that I do back with Minnesotans. So not seeing 
anybody, I am wondering whether colleagues are interested in debating 
this. If not, I will ask unanimous consent that this amendment, for the 
moment, be set aside.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. What was 
the specific point that the Senator from Minnesota requested?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I asked unanimous consent that if there 
was no further debate at the moment, that my amendment be temporarily 
set aside. I have another engagement, but I will be back at 11 and 
ready to debate.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I think some debate may proceed on your amendment while 
you are gone because people on our side of the aisle want to speak on 
that. So I would like to keep his amendment before the body.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Iowa that 
that course is very reasonable, as long as I would have time to 
respond. I will be back here at 11.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Obviously, we will be able to do that since there is no 
time agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the request withdrawn?
  Mr. GLENN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not, just to 
clarify this, if there is not sufficient opposition on this side to 
take up the time, if another amendment was brought to the floor before 
Senator Wellstone comes back, I presume it would be OK if we set it 
aside and went on with the other amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would be agreeable to either 
proposition. If Senators want to debate this--and certainly there 
should be debate on this amendment, as that is what we are all about, 
and it is an important debate--I would be pleased to have this 
amendment out on the floor. I will be back at 11 and I will be pleased 
to respond. If other Senators come with amendments and there are not 
Senators speaking directly to this amendment, I would be pleased to 
have this amendment set aside.
  Mr. GLENN. I will not object.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I do withdraw my initial unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the situation this morning, Friday 
morning, is that we are on S. 2. This is a bill that we Republicans, 
the new majority, promised that we would give early consideration to, 
and hopefully pass early on to get the bill to the President for 
signature.
  The House of Representatives, in their first day of session, 
unanimously, on a rollcall vote, passed this piece of legislation. This 
legislation provides that the exemptions that Congress as an 
institution and individual Members of Congress have had as employers 
from certain employment and safety laws, in some instances for over 60 
years, will no longer be in place.
  The purpose of this legislation is to end the environment in this 
country where we have two sets of laws--one for Capitol Hill and the 
one for everybody else, everywhere else in the country.
  It will end a situation where there is one set of laws for 
Pennsylvania Avenue and another set of laws for Main Street, U.S.A. It 
will end the situation where employees of Congress do not have the same 
employment and safety rights and access to the courts for the 
enforcement of those rights that private sector employees have.
  For a long period of time people, in the private sector, both 
employees and employers, but particularly employers, have resented a 
legal situation in this country where laws passed for the safety and 
the employment rights of individual private-sector employees of this 
country, have been in place for one set of employees but not for 
another. The burden of regulation on the private-sector employer has 
been in place, but that burden of regulation has not been in place for 
Capitol Hill. And, of course, that resentment has mounted, and mounted, 
and mounted over several years now that this has become an issue.
  It was No. 1 on the list of promises that the new majority made to 
the American people that we would pass. Consequently, that is why it 
did pass the House of Representatives and that is consequently why our 
distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole, made a promise to make 
that the first bill for consideration of this body.
  So we had a full day's debate on this bill yesterday and we are 
probably going to have a full day's debate today and into next week. 
But I notice from the debate yesterday and the debate so far today, it 
is not on the substance of the legislation: ending the situation where 
we have one set of laws for Congress and another set of laws for the 
rest of the country.
  I am glad to know that there is that fair amount of unanimity, maybe 
a great deal of consensus, at least, on the issue of the legislation. 
But debate yesterday was on the issue of lobbying and on the issue of 
gifts--very legitimate issues to be discussed before this body--and now 
this morning we are starting debate on unrelated legislation dealing 
with lobbying; again, a very legitimate subject for the Senator from 
Minnesota to bring to this floor.
  But is it legitimate at this time to bring it before this body? Well, 
of course, under the rules, it is. But does it fit in with the goals 
that people desired for this Congress early on when they made the 
decision in the last election to send a new majority to the House and 
Senate and to the House for the first time in 40 years? I think not, 
particularly in light of the fact that the distinguished majority 
leader, Senator Dole, has promised that all of these issues will have 
time for discussion on the floor of this body very early in this 
session, probably within the next 2, 3, 4 months, at the latest.
  So I beg the Senator from Minnesota and the Senators from other 
States that have other amendments not germane to the specific purpose 
of S. 2 to wait for the appropriate time so that 
[[Page S534]] we do not frustrate the will of the people expressed in 
the last election, and that we move forward with ending this special 
treatment of Capitol Hill to be exempted from 11 major pieces of 
legislation. Let us move on with this bill, get it to the President for 
signature--the President wants to sign it--and then take up the usual 
course of business and abide with faith in the promise of the 
distinguished majority leader that these issues will be brought up and 
bring them up at that appropriate time. We should not try to wreck a 
very good piece of legislation that passed the House unanimously and I 
will bet will almost pass this body unanimously as well.
  I yield the floor and urge Senators on my side who want to debate 
Senator Wellstone's amendment to please come over here and do that, 
because we will not have rollcalls as long as there is a leadership 
meeting down at the White House.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I do not have a dog in this fight. I do not 
have an amendment that I am proposing here, but I cannot help but 
respond to the remarks of my distinguished colleague from Iowa. I will 
be very brief because I know Senator Simon would like to make a 
statement here on the floor and I am happy to see him do that.
  But this idea that somehow because there is a push on for something 
here that we can avoid having anyone put on amendments is wishful 
thinking. I need only go back in my mind's eye and remember what was 
happening about 60 days ago or 90 days ago here on floor when anything 
we put forth was subject to amendments, extraneous or not. It was delay 
for delay's sake and it was a scorched earth policy.
  To say that we should let some piece of legislation, as much as I 
want it--and I am as big a backer on this piece of legislation on 
congressional accountability one could possibly be, but it is entirely 
within the right of any Senator who wants to offer an amendment. 
Although I do not have an amendment to offer, I do not want to let 
anything go by that would be critical of people who do have amendments 
to offer and are offering them in all good sincerity. They think it is 
right. If they want to attach it on by the rules of the Senate, we, 
obviously, can do that.
  We had talk here yesterday about we should be giving the new majority 
a chance to govern. Well, we do not set aside all the Senate rules in 
giving anybody a chance to lead or a chance to govern. I am all for 
leadership having all the leadership prerogatives, but those 
prerogatives do not mean that we are able to set aside amendments that 
people may, in all sincerity, propose, whether I agree with them or 
not.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate for 5 minutes as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________