[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 120 (Monday, July 24, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10512-S10531]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1060) to provide for the disclosure of lobbying 
     activities to influence the Federal Government, and for other 
     purposes.

  The Senate proceeded with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, before I proceed, let me ask unanimous 
consent that Senator McCain be added as a cosponsor. I see he was 
inadvertently left off of S. 1060 and S. 1061. I ask he be added to 
both.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Let me say to the Senator from Mississippi, I, like him, 
hope that we can reach an agreement relative to lobby disclosure, 
particularly as there has been some progress made on lobbying 
disclosure. In conversations over the last few days, we have a way to 
go, but on this subject we have made some progress. That progress, I 
hope, will continue today so we can come up with a strong lobby 
disclosure bill.
  This Senate approved overwhelmingly a lobby disclosure bill last 
year. It was an overwhelming vote. When the bill came back from 
conference, there were a few changes in it. Those changes were utilized 
by some Members of this body as the basis of opposition to the entire 
bill. There was dispute over the meaning of those changes. Some people 
said that those changes would chill grassroots lobbying and the 
opportunity for individual citizens to lobby their Members. There was 
no such intent, and we believe no such language.
  That is last year's debate. In any event, this year's bill does not 
contain the language which was pointed to. That, by the way, was 
language which was added by the House of Representatives and in 
conference. As I remember, there was no objection to that language. 
That became sort of the lightning rod here.
  Again, that language is not included in this version, just the way it 
was not in the version that last passed the Senate with, I think, over 
90 votes in the last Congress. So, we are going to renew our effort 
here today to address one of the most intractable issues that has been 
faced by the Congress over the last 50 years, and that is to try to 
reform the loophole-plagued lobbying disclosure law.
  The lobbying disclosure act was passed in 1946. It was called the 
Lobbying Regulation Act at that time. Within a few years, President 
Truman pointed out to the Congress that there were already so many 
loopholes in that bill, that Lobbying Regulation Act, that it, for all 
intents and purposes, needed reform by 1948. So the principal bill that 
governs the regulation of lobbyists, passed in 1946, was already, 
within 2 years, pretty useless, confusing, and in need of reform.
  President Truman asked the Congress to do exactly that. They did not 
pay heed. If they had paid heed we would not be here today. That is 
almost 50 years ago that the President of the United States told the 
public and the Congress that the act they had passed to require the 
registration of paid, professional lobbyists, was not doing its job.
  The purpose of that bill was to try to get folks who were paid to 
lobby Congress to disclose who is paying them, how much they are being 
paid, and to lobby Congress on what issue. That was the purpose of the 
act that was passed almost 50 years ago.
  Then again, in the 1950's, there was an effort made to reform the 
Lobbying Registration Act. Senator McClellan spearheaded an effort to 
reform the lobbying registration laws because, again, by then there 
were so many holes in it there were more holes than there were cheese; 
there were more loopholes than there was law. But Congress did not heed 
Senator McClellan's call in the 1950's. If they had, we probably would 
not be here today.
  In the 1960's, lobbying reform was taken up by the Senate, passed, 
but was not passed by the House of Representatives. If it had, maybe we 
would not be here today.
  In 1976, lobbying reform was passed by both Houses of Congress but in 
different versions. They were not reconciled in conference. If Congress 
had acted in 1976, and they got close, we would not have to be here 
today.
  Decade after decade, there has been an effort to close the loopholes 
in lobbying registration, to make sense of these laws, and they have 
failed.
  In 1978, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee was so divided 
over lobbying registration that it could not even report out a bill. 
Last year we came close, we came within a hair of passing both lobbying 
registration reform and a gift ban, but it got caught up in the last 
few days of the Congress, the bill was filibustered here and, as a 
result, was not passed.
  A lot of different issues defeated lobbying reform over the last 4 
decades. Sometimes it was the definition of lobbying. Sometimes it was 
whether or not the executive branch should be covered. Sometimes it was 
the threshold for coverage. Sometimes it was a question of disclosure 
of expenditures to stimulate grassroots lobbying or the disclosure of 
contributors to lobbying organizations. Decade after decade, reasons 
were given for why we could not reach agreement on lobbying reform and 
decade after decade it has been frustrated.
  So it has been a long and a sad history, in terms of trying to reform 
laws whose purpose it is to put a little sunshine into the area of paid 
lobbyists. Senator Cohen and I sought to address these issues when we 
introduced S. 2276, in the 102d Congress. We reintroduced basically the 
same measure in the 103d Congress, and we got that bill through the 
Senate. That was S. 349. But then it fell a few votes short, as I said, 
when it came to the floor.
  We are trying to address these issues again in S. 101, now in S. 
1060, which has a few additional modifications, and I believe there 
will be some further modifications on the Senate floor today.
  The right to petition government is a constitutionally protected 
right. Lobbying is as much a part of our governmental process today as 
on-the-record 

[[Page S10513]]
rulemakings for public hearings. Lobbying is part of democratic 
government, an inherent part of it, a constitutionally protected part 
of constitutional and democratic government. But the public has a right 
to know, and the public should know, who is being paid to lobby, how 
much they are being paid, on what issue.
  If we want the public to have confidence in our actions, this 
business has to be conducted more in the sunshine. Lobbying disclosure 
will enhance public confidence in government by ensuring that the 
public is aware of the efforts that are made by paid lobbyists to 
influence public policy. In some cases, such disclosure, perhaps, will 
encourage lobbyists and their clients to be sensitive to even the 
appearance of improper influence. In other cases, it is likely to alert 
other interested parties of the need to provide their own views in 
decisionmaking.
  The lobbying disclosure laws that are on the books today are useless. 
In the 102d Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government 
Management, which I then chaired--Senator Cohen was then the ranking 
member of it; and our roles have been reversed now--our subcommittee 
held a series of hearings on the lobbying disclosure laws. We learned 
that these laws are plagued by massive loopholes, confusing provisions, 
and an almost total absence of guidance on how to comply with them. For 
example, the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act, the basic lobbying 
registration law now on the books, to which I referred, the law that 
was passed in 1946, covers only lobbying of the Congress on matters of 
legislation, not lobbying of the executive branch. And that law has 
been interpreted to cover only those who spend the majority of their 
time in personal meetings with Members of Congress.
  As you can see from that loophole, that is not going to cover many 
people right off the bat. The way it has been interpreted, this basic 
law, is that in order to be covered, you have to spend a majority of 
your time actually in personal meetings with Members. There are not too 
many people who spend the majority of their time in personal meetings 
with Members of Congress, probably including our own secretaries. So, 
if you spend time with staff under this interpretation, with staff of 
the Members of Congress--and that is where, most of the time, lobbyists 
spend their efforts--that does not even count under that interpretation 
of the lobbying registration.
  There are many other loopholes that have been discovered in that 
basic act. As a result of these loopholes, the General Accounting 
Office found that fewer than 4,000 of the 13,500 individuals who are 
listed in the book ``Washington Representatives'' were registered under 
the act.
 That is less than a third.

  Despite the fact that three-quarters of the unregistered 
representatives interviewed by the General Accounting Office said that 
they contact Members of Congress and their staffs, that they deal with 
Federal legislation, and that they seek to influence actions of the 
Congress and the executive branch, the failure of these individuals, 
the organizations to register, does not mean that they are violating 
the law as it stands, because as it stands, again, there are more 
loopholes in this law than there is law.
  The definition of lobbying is so narrow that few professional 
lobbyists are actually required to register under the laws that have 
been strictly interpreted. Moreover, most lobbyists who do register do 
not disclose anything to anybody which is of much use. The minority of 
lobbyists who do register tell us that they have incurred such expenses 
as a $45 phone bill or a $10 taxicab fare or $16 in messenger fees. 
Others who decide to register provide lists of prorated expenditures 
for salaries, rent, and other expenses. There is no public purpose that 
is served by most of the disclosures that we currently get, but just 
from a minority of people who actually register and from a minority of 
people who lobby who take the time to register.
  At the same time, we are getting a lot of useless information from 
the relatively few that do register. We are not getting the most basic 
type of information that was intended by the statute, which is the 
total amount that is being spent on lobbying and for what purpose.
  The lobbyists are supposed to disclose their purpose. Many just 
simply state--those again who do register--that they lobby on ``issues 
that affect business operations of the client" or ``general legislative 
matters,'' or ``all legislation affecting the industry that they 
represent.''
  That language is so general that it does not reveal anything. Worse 
still, only a small amount of the money that is spent on lobbying 
actually gets disclosed. For instance, in 1989, the Legal Times 
estimated the gross lobbying revenue of 10 of the biggest and best 
known Washington lobbying firms, and they estimated that revenue to be 
$60 million. However, a review of the lobbying reports that were filed 
by those 10 firms revealed that they reported combined lobbying 
receipts from all clients of less than $2 million.
  By the way, they also reflect total expenditures of $35,000. Just to 
show you how distorted, how absurd, how useless these documents are 
where we do have people who register, we have three figures to keep in 
mind in that survey. This is a 1989 survey of the Legal Times estimate 
of the revenue of the 10 top firms of $60 million. When you look at 
their disclosure forms, they disclose revenue of $2 million and 
expenditures of $35,000.
  So what is disclosed is perhaps 3 to 4 percent of the revenue coming 
in in terms of revenue, and what is disclosed in terms of expenditure 
is a fraction of a percent of the money which is being received.
  Another study was made. This time, six top defense contractors 
reported to the Department of Defense that they spent a combined total 
of almost $8 million lobbying Congress in 1989. By comparison, when you 
look at the report filed by the six for the same six companies under 
the Lobbying Regulation Act, there was a total of less than $400,000 in 
lobbying income.
  So the contractors reported $8 million in lobbying expenses but their 
lobbyists disclosed a total of $388,000 in terms of their revenue. That 
is a total disconnect between what contractors report to the Department 
of Defense that they are spending on lobbying and what their lobbyists 
disclose in terms of their receipts from those same six contractors.
  Our existing lobbying laws have been characterized by the Department 
of Justice as ``inadequate'' and ``unenforceable,'' in effect. Those 
are their words, and that is charitable. The lobbying laws are a joke, 
and they are a bad joke, and they are a bad joke for everybody who is 
involved--first and foremost for the public, but they are also a bad 
joke for the lobbying community themselves.
  The current laws breed disrespect for the law because they are so 
widely ignored. They have been a sham and a shambles since they were 
first enacted 50 years ago. At this time the American public is so 
skeptical that their Government really belongs to them. Our lobbying 
registration laws leave more lobbyists unregistered than registered.
  Our subcommittee studied this subject in some detail. In 1993, we 
filed a report that I want to quote from because it contains in some 
detail the problems with lobbying disclosure laws and will give us a 
necessary understanding of what the problem is.
  There are four major lobbying disclosure statutes currently in 
effect. Here I am quoting from the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1993, the 
Report of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, that was filed on 
April 1, 1993.
  There are four major lobbying disclosure laws currently in effect:

       The Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act, the Foreign Agents 
     Registration Act.

  That is called FARA.

       And two provisions included in the HUD Reform Act 
     applicable to the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development, and the Farmers Home Administration, and section 
     1352 of Title 31 of the so-called FARA amendment. At least 
     two other statutes that require registration of lobbyists are 
     included in the Public Utility Holding Company Act and the 
     Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Act.

  Each of these statutes, the four basic statutes, imposes a different 
set of disclosure requirements on a specific or on a specified group of 
lobbyists. Because the coverage overlaps--some lobbyists may have to 
register under two or even three different statutes because each of the 
statutes excludes major segments of the lobbying community 

[[Page S10514]]
from coverage--many professional lobbyists do not register at all. As 
President Clinton stated in his book ``Putting People First,'' we need 
legislation to ``toughen and streamline lobbying disclosure.''
  First, the Lobbying Regulation Act--and I am continuing to quote from 
a portion of this report because it, again, identifies what the 
specific problems are with the current laws and will set the framework, 
I think, for our debate today.

       The Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act enacted in 1946 
     requires registration by any person who is engaged for pay 
     for the ``principal purpose'' of attempting to influence the 
     passage or defeat of legislation in the Congress. A covered 
     lobbyist is required to disclose his or her name and address, 
     the name and address of the person by whom he or she is 
     employed, and in whose interest he or she works, how much he 
     or she is paid and by whom, who all of his or her 
     contributors are, and how much they have given, an account of 
     all money received and expended, to whom paid and for what 
     purposes, the names of any publications in which he or she 
     caused articles or editorials to be published, and the 
     particular legislation that he or she has been hired to 
     support or oppose,
      lobby registration forms are required to be filed with the 
     clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate prior 
     to engaging in lobbying and updated in the first 10 days 
     of each calendar quarter so long as lobbying activity 
     continues. Violation of the act is a misdemeanor, 
     punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 or a sentence of up 
     to 12 months. Any person convicted of this offense is 
     prohibited from lobbying for 3 years.

  The report continues, and again we are talking about the current law:

       A 1986 Governmental Affairs Committee report on lobbying 
     disclosure indicates that the lobbying act was a hastily 
     considered law which was subject to no hearing, little 
     committee consideration, and almost no floor debate.

  And that 1986 Governmental Affairs Committee, quoted in this report, 
said the following:

       As the staff director of the joint committee later 
     conceded, the lobbying act was less than precisely drafted 
     legislation. Questions arose immediately about who was 
     covered under its definitional standards, the extent of its 
     reporting requirements and liability under its criminal 
     enforcement provision. Rather than settling the issue of 
     lobbyist influence, the act served only to make things more 
     confusing. Witnesses testified that the act was in many 
     respects an unsatisfactory law; that its effectiveness was 
     limited and that the provisions are in urgent need of 
     strengthening and revision if the objectives of the framers 
     are to be fully realized. Over the last 40 years, there have 
     been numerous unsuccessful attempts to address problems in 
     the lobbying act.

  Now, the committee report first looks at the question of coverage of 
the act, and I continue to quote from this report:

       The Lobbying Regulation Act covers any person who is 
     engaged for pay for the principal purpose of attempting to 
     influence the passage or defeat of legislation in the 
     Congress. In United States v. Harris, in 1954, the Supreme 
     Court ruled that a narrow construction of the act was 
     required to avoid unconstitutional vagueness. There are 
     several gaps in the coverage of the lobbying act as construed 
     in the Harris case.
       These include the following:
       1. The act applies only to lobbying of legislative branch 
     officials, not to lobbying of executive branch officials.
       2. It covers only efforts to influence the passage or 
     defeat of legislation in Congress, not other activities with 
     members and staff.
       3. It has been interpreted by many to cover only efforts to 
     lobby Members of Congress directly, not efforts to lobby 
     congressional staff.
       4. It covers only persons whose principal purpose is 
     lobbying. This language has been interpreted by many to mean 
     that the act applies only to people who spend a majority of 
     their time lobbying.

  The report continues:

       Taken together, these gaps in the coverage of the act could 
     mean that only a lobbyist who spends a majority of his or her 
     working time in direct contact with Members of Congress is 
     actually required to register. For this reason, it is not 
     surprising that many lobbyists view registration as 
     voluntary.

  Not as compulsory.

       As a result, it appears that a significant number of people 
     who engage in activities that the general public would view 
     as lobbying do not register at all and probably are not 
     required to do so. For example, the General Accounting Office 
     found that almost 10,000 of the 13,500 individuals and 
     organizations listed in the book ``Washington 
     Representatives" were not registered under the Lobbying 
     Regulation Act. GAO interviewed a small sample of the 
     unregistered Washington representatives listed and found that 
     three-quarters contacting Members of Congress and 
     congressional staff deal with Federal legislation and seek to 
     influence actions of either Congress or the executive branch.

  The report continues:

       The rate of registration by nonprofit organizations that 
     engage in lobbying activities does not appear to be much 
     better. For example, the committee reviewed the lobbying 
     registrations of 18 nonprofit organizations that reported 
     legislative expenses in excess of $300,000 each to the 
     Internal Revenue Service in tax year 1991 and found that half 
     of these organizations did not have even a single active 
     registered lobbyist in that year. The failure of these 
     organizations and individuals to register does not mean that 
     they are violating the law as it is written today. What it 
     does mean is that the definition of lobbying in the Lobbying 
     Regulation Act is so narrow and full of loopholes that few 
     people are actually required to register.

  The next issue which is addressed by this report relates to 
information disclosed.

       The lobbying act requires ``a detailed report under oath of 
     all money received and expended by a lobbyist'' during each 
     calendar quarter, to whom it is paid and for what purpose. 
     The forms expand upon this requirement by requiring reporting 
     of specific line items of an organization's expenditures such 
     as printed or duplicated matter, office overhead, rent, 
     supplies, utilities, etc, telephone and telegraph, travel, 
     food, lodging and entertainment, wages, salaries, fees and 
     commissions, public relations and advertising. Each lobbyist 
     is required to attach an addendum to his or her disclosure 
     statement listing the recipient, date and amount of each such 
     expenditure. Lobbyists who comply with this requirement file 
     sheets of paper listing expenditures such as $45 phone bills, 
     a $6 cab fee, a $16 messenger fee and prorated salaries, in 
     one case for $1.31. In addition, some lobbyists provide lists 
     of restaurants where they have paid for lunch.

  Continuing to quote from this report--and in this case the quote of a 
statement that I made during the subcommittee hearing:

       ``The people who did register are giving us information 
     which in many cases is utterly irrelevant. Here is one with a 
     telephone bill, $98.65. Underneath that, taxi fares, zero. 
     Why? Various carriers, no single expenditure of $10 or more. 
     Another firm is trying to prorate salaries for us to show how 
     they are apportioned to cover activities. Here is a salary 
     for a young man named Graves. His prorated salary, $6.50. 
     Someone named Young, $3.38. Someone named Horton, we are 
     told, the United States Government is told a man named Horton 
     was paid $1.31 in relation to lobbying activities. Just a 
     flood of irrelevant information pours in to us. Something is 
     basically wrong.''

  And now quoting from the report again:

       The disclosure record of nonprofit organizations engaging 
     in lobbying does not appear to be much better than that of 
     for-profit lobbying firms. The committee reviewed the 
     lobbying registrations filed by 5 nonprofit organizations 
     that reported nearly $5 million in lobbying income to the 
     Internal Revenue Service in the year 1991 and found that 
     while some of these organizations filed detailed reports 
     under the Lobbying Regulation Act, they reported barely 
     $200,000 in total lobbying expenditures to the Congress.
       There appear to be two basic reasons for these low levels 
     of reported expenses.
       1. Despite the requirements of the Lobbying Regulations 
     Act, many lobbyists do not appear to report income or 
     expenses at all. At the request of the subcommittee, the 
     General Accounting Office reviewed more than 1,000 lobbying 
     reports filed in 1989 and learned that few lobbyists actually 
     comply with the disclosure requirements. The GAO found that 
     fewer than 20 percent of the lobbyists included the required 
     attachments detailing expenditures. Almost 90 percent 
     reported no expenditures for wages, salaries, fees or 
     commissions, more than 95 percent reported no expenditures 
     for public relations and advertising services, and more than 
     60 percent of the lobbyists reported no expenditures at all 
     during the period covered.
       2. The narrow definition of ``lobbying'' as it is used in 
     the act means that disclosure and full compliance with the 
     law simply is not very revealing. Since the Lobbying 
     Regulation Act is generally considered to cover only meetings 
     with Members of Congress, many lobbyists disclose only income 
     and expenses directly associated with such meetings. For 
     example, suppose that a lobbyist received $1 million from a 
     client for 5,000 hours of work at $200 per hour.
       If the 5,000 hours of work included only 10 hours of direct 
     meetings with Members of Congress, many lobbyists would 
     report only $2,000 in income--

  That is of the million dollars that they actually got.

     even if the rest of the time was spent preparing for such 
     meetings and additional meetings with staff.
       There are similar problems with the disclosure of the 
     lobbyist activities or objectives. The registration forms 
     require each lobbyist to ``state the general legislative 
     interest" to the person filing and set forth the legislative 
     interest by citing short titles of statutes and bills, House 
     and Senate number of bills where known, citations of statutes 
     where known, whether for or against such statutes and bills.
       While many lobbyists provide lists of specific bills of 
     interest in each quarterly reporting period, others provide 
     description of 

[[Page S10515]]
     their interest that are so general that they reveal virtually nothing. 
     Like ``all operations in Congress that affect operations of 
     the client''; like ``general legislative interest''; like 
     ``matters pertaining to defense and military legislation''; 
     like ``all legislation affecting the insurance industry''; 
     like ``all legislation affecting the railroad industry.''
       Overall, the General Accounting Office found that only 32 
     percent of the reports that they reviewed stated titles and 
     numbers of statutes and bills that were subject to lobbying 
     as required by the statute.

  Now, a third problem that is described in this report with the 
current basic statute that covers the operation of lobbyists. Before I 
go on to that, I want to just repeat how useless some of this 
information is that we currently require, how the current laws perform 
a disservice to the country because they do not disclose what is 
intended to be disclosed, but how they also are useless and burdensome 
to the people who we need to disclose information.
  How in the name of Heaven is it of any use when we are told that 
somebody named Graves as a pro rata expenditure of his salary was paid 
$6.56; someone named Young was paid $3.38 as a pro rata part of his 
salary to lobby Members of Congress on some issue. Someone is sitting 
there typing up these forms that are filed, which tell us absolutely 
nothing of value. Somebody has to divide someone's salary of how many 
minutes that person spent with a Member of Congress and figure out that 
person named Young had $3.38 of his salary pro rated to some meeting 
with the Senator from Michigan or the Senator from Mississippi.
  Someone named Horton was paid $1.31, we are told in some form. This 
is the fault of the laws that we have kept on the books for 50 years. 
The minority of professional lobbyists who file disclosures are giving 
us that information, which is what they feel they are required to give 
us, which takes time to prepare and which is utterly useless 
information. These laws are a disservice to everybody and they have to 
be reformed.
  This has been going on 50 years; 50 years this sham has been going 
on. We have tried to repair it, we have tried to reform it, we have 
tried to correct it, but we have failed for five decades, for one 
reason or another. And I am hopeful that finally today we are going to 
be able to pass something in the Senate which we can call true reform 
which is going to finally tell us in a useful way--everybody that has 
paid money to lobby is going to tell us what the total amount is that 
they are paid in useful form and on what issues they are lobbying 
Congress or the executive branch.
  Obviously, we are leaving off people who are paying small amounts of 
money. I think $10,000 is going to be the threshold that we are going 
to use in a 6-month period. But where you pay a professional lobbyist 
more than that amount of money, at that point, we are going to trigger 
some useful information under our bill rather than to keep on the books 
these utterly useless laws which breed disrespect for the law in 
general and, where they are followed, provide the country with utterly 
useless information which nobody can understand or put into a useful 
form.
  As we said at the subcommittee hearing, this is a pretty dismal 
picture of a law that is not functioning as a law, that has been 
festering on the books too long. We either ought to clean it up, make 
it relevant, or get rid of it, and that seems to me to be the 
alternative.
  The second major act which applies to lobbyists is the Foreign Agents 
Registration Act. Again, quoting from the committee report:

       This act was passed in 1938. As the Supreme Court explained 
     in 1943, FARA was a new type of legislation adopted in the 
     critical period before the outbreak of the war. The general 
     purpose of the legislation was to identify agents of foreign 
     principals who might engage in subversive acts or spreading 
     foreign propaganda and to require them to make public record 
     of the nature of their employment.

  The committee report continues:

       In 1966, in response to overly aggressive lobbying by 
     foreign sugar companies, FARA was amended to cover a broader 
     range of foreign activities and interests. Since that time, 
     the focus of the act has shifted from the regulation of 
     subversive activities to the disclosure of lobbying on behalf 
     of foreign business interests. FARA requires any person who 
     becomes an ``agent of a foreign principal'' to register with 
     the Attorney General within 10 days thereafter. The term 
     ``agent of a foreign principal'' includes, subject to certain 
     exemption, any person who engages in political activities on 
     behalf of a foreign government, political party, individual 
     corporation, partnership, association or organization.
       Each FARA registration statement must include, among other 
     information, a comprehensive statement of the registrant's 
     business, a complete list of employees and the nature of the 
     work that they perform, the name and address of every foreign 
     principal for whom the registrant is acting, the nature of 
     the business of each foreign principal and the ownership and 
     control of each and copies of each agreement with a foreign 
     principal.

  The report continues:

       In addition, each registrant is required to file a 
     supplemental disclosure statement every 6 months updating its 
     registration and detailing all past and proposed activity on 
     behalf of foreign principals. Supplemental statements are 
     required to include, among other information, a detailed 
     accounting of income and expenses and a list of all meetings 
     with Federal officials on behalf of foreign principals.

  First, the report looks at the coverage of FARA. FARA requires any 
person who acts ``as an agent of a foreign principal" to register with 
the Attorney General and disclose his or her activities. However, broad 
exemptions to FARA's registration requirements appear to have resulted 
in spotty disclosure of foreign lobbying activities. The two most 
frequently cited exemptions apply to: First the practice of law in 
formal or informal proceedings before U.S. courts and agencies, and 
second, activities on behalf of a foreign-owned company in the United 
States that are in furtherance of bona fide commercial, industrial or 
financial interest of the U.S. company.
  Now, the lawyers exemption. The so-called lawyers exemption to FARA 
exempts attorneys who provide legal representation to foreign 
principals in the course of established agency proceedings, whether 
formal or informal. This exemption was adopted because the Congress 
determined that disclosure under FARA serves no useful purpose in legal 
proceedings where full disclosure of the agent status and identity of 
his or her client is required. Because terms such as ``legal 
representation in established procedures'' are not defined in the 
statute or the implementing regulations, the applicability of this 
exemption has been left to case-by-case determinations by the Justice 
Department and by respective registrants themselves.
  The Justice Department stated that the lawyers exemption applies only 
to services that can only be performed by an attorney and only in 
proceedings established pursuant to either statute or regulation. A 
letter from the Justice Department stated that ``The proceeding must be 
one established by the agency questioned pursuant either to statute or 
regulation.'' The Department interprets legal representation to include 
those services which could only be performed by a person within the 
practice by law--practicing law. However, the Justice Department was 
not able to identify any written guidance or other public documents 
which reflect its present interpretation of this issue.
  Now, perhaps for this reason, the Justice Department's interpretation 
of the lawyers exemption does not appear to be widely known or followed 
by attorneys who represent foreign clients. Interviews by subcommittee 
staff reveal that some attorneys take the view that the lawyers 
exemption applies only in cases where there is a docketed case with 
formal appearances entered, while others believe that virtually any 
service that they provide falls within the exemption, even when they 
have extensive contacts with executive branch officials on a regulatory 
issue of broad impact. Experts on the statute generally agree that the 
scope of the exemption is not clear.
  Mr. President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that some 
additional pages from the committee report be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               b. The ``Domestic Subsidiaries'' Exemption

       The ``domestic subsidiaries'' exemption to FARA excludes 
     from coverage any activities in the bona fide commercial, 
     industrial or financial interests of a domestic company 
     engaged in substantial operations in the United States, even 
     if the company is foreign-owned and the activities also 
     benefit the foreign parent corporation. Again, little formal 
     guidance on the application of this exemption is available. 

[[Page S10516]]

       The Justice Department's letter to the Subcommittee states 
     that the primary test for the applicability of the domestic 
     subsidiaries exemption is ``whether the presence of the 
     domestic person is real or ephemeral, in short, whether the 
     domestic person is a viable working entity or a so-called 
     `front' or `shell'.'' However, the Justice Department letter 
     also states that the domestic subsidiaries exemption does not 
     apply when a local subsidiary is making efforts to expand the 
     U.S. market for foreign goods. In particular, the letter 
     cites as definitive a passage in the legislative history 
     which states that--
       [w]here *  *  * the local subsidiary is concerned with U.S. 
     legislation enlarging the U.S. market for goods produced in 
     the country where the foreign parent is located *  *  * the 
     predominant interest is foreign.''
       The Justice Department interpretation has not been 
     memorialized in published guidance and does not appear to be 
     widely known or followed by representatives of foreign 
     principals. Some take the position that this exemption 
     applies to any lobbying activity on behalf of domestic 
     subsidiaries of foreign corporations. Others believe that the 
     issue is whether the parent corporation ``controls'' the 
     subsidiary in such a way that it can be seen as controlling 
     the lobbying. A third category of lobbyists argue that the 
     exemption applies only to ``commercial'' matters such as 
     contract awards and landing rights determinations.
       The widespread confusion over the proper application of 
     FARA exemptions and the lack of clear written guidance from 
     the Justice Department has left broad latitude for individual 
     representatives of foreign principals to reach their own 
     conclusions as to whether registration is required. As one 
     lobbyist who is registered under FARA explained:
       ``I can argue the commercial exemption for subsidiaries 
     almost any way ***. I think it is entirely up to the judgment 
     of the registrant, or potential registrant.''
       The result is spotty disclosure, and in some cases no 
     disclosure at all, of significant lobbying activities.
       For example, the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government 
     Management reviewed a heavily lobbied 1989 effort to overturn 
     a decision by the Customs Service regarding the tariff 
     classification of imported jeeps and vans. Although this 
     issue was of great importance to foreign manufacturers of 
     sport utility vehicles and exclusively involved the treatment 
     of imports, almost none of the lobbying activity in this case 
     was disclosed under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
       Of the 48 people identified as lobbying Customs and/or 
     Treasury on behalf of those who opposed the Custom decision, 
     only six were registered under FARA. Three of the six who 
     were registered worked for a single firm and were covered by 
     a single registration; almost all stated that they registered 
     out of an abundance of caution and probably were not required 
     to do so. The reason for this non-disclosure is that 
     virtually all lobbying against the Customs decision was 
     viewed as exempt from coverage under FARA pursuant to either 
     the lawyers' exemption or the domestic subsidiaries' 
     exemption. Consequently, only a small fraction of the 
     lobbying activities conducted on behalf of foreign companies 
     were disclosed under FARA.

                       2. Disclosure Requirements

       Each FARA registration statement must include, among other 
     information, a comprehensive statement of the registrant's 
     business, a complete list of employees and the nature of the 
     work they perform; the name and address of every foreign 
     principal for whom the registrant is acting; the nature of 
     the business of each foreign principal and the ownership and 
     control of each; and copies of each agreement with a foreign 
     principal.
       In addition, each registrant is required to file a 
     supplement disclosure statement every six months, updating 
     its registration and detailing all past and proposed activity 
     on behalf of foreign principals. Like the Lobbying Regulation 
     Act, FARA required detailed accounting of expenses such as 
     cab fares, copying, and telexing. In addition, and unlike the 
     Lobby Regulation Act, FARA requires a complete listing of 
     each federal official with whom the registrant has met during 
     the reporting period.
       The Justice Department interprets FARA's disclosure 
     provisions to require that registrants detail even activities 
     unrelated to their registrations--such as providing advice or 
     legal representation on matters that would not otherwise 
     require registration. This means that engaging in even a 
     single ``registrable'' activity exposes the entire scope of a 
     registrant's activities to public disclosure requirements.
       As a Justice Department representative explained at the 
     Subcommittee's hearing--
       ``Senator Levin. So if you have one contact with a 
     Government official and have to register, you then have to 
     disclose everything that you do for that principal even 
     though all those other activities would not cause you to have 
     to register ***?
       ``Mr. Clarkson. If you have one contact that is of a 
     registrable nature, yes, you would have to register and then 
     you would disclose your activities.
       ``Senator Levin. [Then] you agree with the interpretation 
     that you have to disclose all hundred [activities] even 
     though only one of them required you to register?
       ``Mr. Clarkson. We not only agree with it, that has been 
     our practice. I have no problem with that.''
       Perhaps because the FARA disclosure requirements are so 
     extensive, the General Accounting Office has found that half 
     of the registered foreign agents do not fully disclose their 
     activities on behalf of foreign principals and more than half 
     fail to meet statutory filing deadlines. The deficiencies 
     identified by GAO included conflicting responses to 
     questions, failures to list contacts with government 
     officials, failures to disclose finances, and failures to 
     include supplemental statements as required.

                  3. The Administration of the Statute

       The Department of Justice enforces FARA largely by sending 
     letters and making phone calls to registrants and potential 
     registrants. The chief of the Department's Registration Unit 
     estimates that about seven or eight formal notices of 
     deficiency were sent out from 1988 to 1991. This compares to 
     62 deficiency notices sent out by the Department over a 
     similar three-year period in the early 1970's.
       The Department has both criminal and civil injunctive 
     enforcement authority under the statute. However, the statute 
     does not authorize either civil monetary penalties or 
     administrative fines. As a result, a few court cases, either 
     civil or criminal, have ever been initiated under the Act. 
     The Justice Department initiated about ten cases in the 
     1970's, but did not file any in the 1980's.
       The Registration Unit also conducts inspections to review 
     the files of registrants and make sure that they have 
     accurately disclosed their activities. Inspections are 
     conducted on a nonconfrontational basis: they are always 
     announced in advance, and some registrants are given an 
     opportunity to amend their filings prior to the inspection.
       In 1989, the Registration Unit conducted 14 inspections; in 
     1990, only four inspections were conducted. These numbers are 
     down substantially from the mid-seventies, when the Unit 
     conducted 166 inspections in a period of a year and a half 
     and announced its intention to inspect every registered 
     foreign agent within a period of three years.
       Six of the inspections conducted in 1989 and 1990 were of 
     lawyer-lobbyists or other firms engaged in lobbying-type 
     activities. Several of these inspections identified 
     significant deficiencies in the lobbyists' registrations. For 
     example, one inspection report indicates that the registrant 
     had routinely filed disclosure statements which noted only 
     that the firm provided ``legal representation'' for its 
     numerous foreign principals. The registrant failed to 
     indicate that it was involved in extensive lobbying 
     activities, or to disclose the numerous federal officials who 
     were contacted in connection with these activities.
       In a second case, a registrant failed to disclose meetings 
     with dozens of federal officials, despite the fact that these 
     meetings were listed in its client billing documents. The 
     undisclosed contacts included meetings with the Secretary of 
     Commerce, the Deputy Attorney General, the Deputy Secretary 
     of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of State, the U.S. Trade 
     Representative, and several Members of Congress. The 
     registrant also failed to disclose almost $200,000 in income 
     and expenses on behalf of its foreign principals.
       In neither of these cases did the Department of Justice 
     seek to sanction the registrant. In each case, the registrant 
     was simply asked to amend its registration statement to 
     provide the missing details.
       By contrast, other inspection reports identify dozens of 
     so-called deficiencies that are of questionable significance 
     at best. For example, one report indicates that the 
     registrant accurately identified dozens of meetings with 
     federal officials, but failed to report such activities as 
     suggesting themes for a visiting foreign leader to address in 
     a speech to the U.N. and sending a thank-you note to a 
     federal official after a meeting (the meeting itself was 
     disclosed). The remedy in this case was the same as in the 
     case of the firm that failed to disclose meetings with the 
     Deputy Secretaries of State and Defense: the registrant was 
     required to amend its registration statements.
       While those who register under the Act are subject to 
     routine Justice Department inspection of their books and 
     records, those who do not register are not subject to any 
     review of their records short of a criminal investigation. In 
     one instance reviewed by the staff, an attorney for leaders 
     of the Cali (Colombian) drug cartel was reported to have 
     lobbied the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff and 
     State Department officials, proposing amendments to 
     international treaties that would make it harder to extradite 
     foreign drug kingpins to the United States--without 
     registering under FARA.
       When the Justice Department's Registration Unit inquired as 
     to why the attorney had not registered, the attorney told 
     them that he had engaged in lobbying activities in his 
     personal capacity, out of general interest in the treaties, 
     and not in his capacity as an attorney for cartel members. 
     Because the Justice Department did not have the authority to 
     investigate further without initiating a criminal case, it 
     did not inquire further into the matter.
       In short, the incentive for representatives of foreign 
     interests to avoid the burdens of registration under FARA is 
     exacerbated by the Justice Department's apparent inability to 
     investigate those who are not registered. While those who 
     register under the Act are required to make extensive 
     disclosure of all registrable and unregistrable activity and 
     are subject to Justice Department inspection 

[[Page S10517]]
     of their books and records to verify the information disclosed, those 
     who do not register are not subject to any review of their 
     records short of a criminal investigation.
       As Senator Cohen concluded at the Subcommittee hearings on 
     FARA, the statute is plagued with problems:
       ``The broad exemptions contained in the Act appear to 
     permit significant lobbying efforts on behalf of foreign 
     companies to go undisclosed * * *. There appears to be 
     genuine wide-spread confusion and disagreement concerning the 
     breadth of these exemptions * * *. There is also considerable 
     confusion and an absence of specific guidance as to what 
     information is required to be disclosed by those agents who 
     do in fact register * * *. There may also have been instances 
     where the Department of Justice has failed to impose 
     sanctions in cases of serious violations, while at the same 
     time devoting significant department resources to require 
     agents to amend their statements to include minor and 
     irrelevant facts.''


           c. the byrd amendment and the hud disclosure laws

       The Byrd Amendment, which was enacted in October 1989 as a 
     part of an Interior Appropriations bill, is codified at 31 
     U.S.C. 1352.
       The Byrd Amendment prohibits the expenditure of 
     appropriated funds to influence the award of a contract, 
     grant, or loan. Subject to certain exceptions, any payment 
     for such lobbying out of non-appropriated funds must be 
     disclosed by the recipient of the contract, grant, or loan. 
     The recipient is required to disclose the name and address of 
     each person paid to influence the award, the amount of the 
     payment, and the activity for which the person was paid. 
     Regulations implementing the Byrd Amendment require the 
     disclosure of each contact made with a federal official to 
     influence the award of the contract, grant, or loan.
       This disclosure must be filed with the awarding agency at 
     the time the contract, grant, or loan is requested or 
     received. Each agency head is required to compile the 
     information collected and submit it to the Secretary of the 
     Senate and the Clerk of the House twice a year, on May 31 and 
     November 30, Failure to file a disclosure form is subject to 
     a civil penalty of $10,000 to $100,000, to be levied under 
     the procedures of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act.
       Section 112, of the HUD Reform Act, which was enacted in 
     December 1989, two months after the Byrd Amendment, is 
     codified at 42 U.S.C. 3537b. This provision, like the Byrd 
     Amendment, imposes disclosure requirements on people who make 
     expenditures to influence the decisions of HUD employees with 
     respect to the award of contracts, grants, or loans. Section 
     112 goes beyond the Byrd Amendment by covering any other HUD 
     management actions that affect the conditions or status of 
     HUD assistance, and by requiring disclosure by lobbyists as 
     well as clients.
       Section 112 required disclosure of the income and expenses 
     of lobbyists, to whom the money was paid, and for what 
     purposes. Section 112, unlike the Byrd Amendment, does not 
     require the disclosure of specific contacts with federal 
     officials. Knowing failures to disclose under the HUD law are 
     subject to civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 or the 
     amount of the payment to the consultant, whichever is 
     greater. Any person on whom a civil monetary penalty is 
     imposed is barred from receiving any payment in connection 
     with an application for HUD contracts, grants or loans for a 
     period of three years.
       Section 401 of the HUD Reform Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. 
     1490p, creates a slightly different set of disclosure 
     requirements for persons attempting to influence financial 
     assistance awarded by the Farmers Home Administration. Under 
     Section 401, lobbyists are required to register and disclose 
     their name and address, the nature and duration of any 
     previous federal employment, and the name of their clients. 
     They are then required to file, on a quarterly basis, a 
     detailed report of all money received and expended, persons 
     to whom payments were made, and any contacts with federal 
     employees for the purpose of attempting to influence any 
     award or allocation of assistance.
       The penalties for violating Section 401 include the 
     rescission of the assistance, the debarment of the violator, 
     and a civil penalty of up to $100,000 in the case of an 
     individual or $1,000,000 in the case of an applicant other 
     than an individual. Despite these strong penalties, the 
     provision is so little known that the Department of 
     Agriculture failed to identify it in response to a CRS 
     request to identify any statute requiring persons 
     representing private interests before the Department to 
     register or otherwise disclose their lobbying activities and 
     or contacts with agency officials.
       The Byrd Amendment and the HUD disclosure provisions were 
     enacted in response to scandals at the Department of Housing 
     and Urban Development. According to published reports, top 
     HUD officials in the Reagan administration awarded large 
     discretionary grants to developer who retained well-connected 
     and favored consultants as lobbyists. At House hearings on 
     the scandal in 1989, one of these lobbyists agreed that the 
     work he did could be described as ``influence peddling''.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995--this 
is the bill in front of us today--will end the chaos, close the 
loopholes, and fix the badly broken current system.
  The bill before us today will ensure that we finally know who is 
paying, how much, to whom, to lobby Congress and the executive branch.
  This bill would cover all professional lobbyists, whether they are 
lawyers or nonlawyers, in-house or independent, whether they lobby 
Congress or the executive branch, or whether their clients are for-
profit or nonprofit. The bill is not intended to, and should not, 
create any significant new paperwork burdens on the private sector. 
Indeed, it would significantly streamline lobbying disclosure 
requirements by consolidating filing in a single form and in a single 
location, instead of the multiple filings that are required under 
current laws. Our bill would replace quarterly reports with semiannual 
reports. It would authorize the development of computer filing systems 
and simplify forms.
  Our bill would substantially reduce paperwork burdens associated with 
lobbying registration by requiring a single registration by each 
organization whose employees lobby, instead of separate registration by 
each employee lobbyist. The names of the employee lobbyists, and any 
high-ranking Government position in which they served the previous 2 
years, would simply be listed in the employer's registration form. Our 
bill would simplify reporting of receipts and expenditures by 
substituting estimates of the total, bottom-line lobbying income by 
category of dollar value, like the forms that Members of Congress use 
for disclosure.
  They would substitute those estimates for the current requirement to 
provide 29 separate lines of financial information, with supporting 
data--most of it meaningless. To further ensure that the statute will 
not needlessly impose new burdens on the private sector, the bill 
includes specific provisions allowing entities that are already 
required to account for lobbying expenditures under the Internal 
Revenue Code to use the same data collected for the IRS for our 
disclosure purposes as well.
  The bill also includes de minimis rules to ensure that small 
organizations and other entities located outside Washington will be 
exempt from registration, even if their employees make occasional 
contacts. As the bill is written, it would exempt from registration any 
individual who spends less than 10 percent of his or her time on 
lobbying activities and any organization whose lobbying expenditures do 
not exceed $5,000 in a semiannual period.
  We intend to offer an amendment to increase those thresholds to 20 
percent and $10,000 respectively, to ensure that we do not place 
unreasonable burdens on individuals and organizations that are not 
professional lobbyists.
  In short, we have exempted small organizations from registration 
requirements, as long as those paid lobbying activities are minimal. We 
have carefully avoided imposing any burden at all on citizens who are 
not professional lobbyists but who merely contact the Federal 
Government to express their personal views.
  Now, the so-called grassroots lobbying provision in last year's 
conference report, to which some objected in the last Congress, are not 
in the bill before us today. They were not in the original Senate bill 
last year. They were added in the House, or modified and accepted in 
conference--without much opposition, by the way. In fact, I do not 
think there was any opposition in the conference. But what we have 
returned to is the original Senate provisions on these points, as they 
were adopted by the Senate last year.
  In particular, this bill deletes definitions of grassroots 
communications, deletes requirements to disclose persons paid to 
conduct grassroots lobbying communication, deletes the requirement to 
separately disclose grassroots lobbying expenses, deletes the 
requirement to disclose if someone other than the client pays for the 
lobbying activities, and deletes all references to individual members 
of a coalition or association as clients.
  Let me just repeat that, because this became such a contentious issue 
last year. The grassroots provisions, which were in the conference 
report, and which became the subject of so much contention on the 
Senate floor here last fall, are not in this bill, just the way they 
were not in the Senate bill as 

[[Page S10518]]
it originally passed the Senate last year.
  Now, there have been a number of other concerns raised about our 
bill. We are going to be offering an amendment later on to address some 
of these concerns.
  First, we are going to further reaffirm that the bill does not cover 
grassroots lobbying by adding a specific statement that lobbying ``does 
not include grassroots communications or other communications by 
volunteers who express their own views on an issue.'' That is the first 
part of the amendment. Just to make it absolutely clear that we are not 
trying to, in any way, cover communications by people who are 
expressing their own views on an issue, we are going to make that 
express statement to address any lingering concern that people have in 
that area.
  Second, our amendment will address concerns that the bill might reach 
small groups and local organizations that engage in only incidental 
lobbying. We want to assure people that we are not trying to reach the 
small group, the local organization, who pay someone to lobby, or who 
spend money on paid lobbying activities, but whereas only incidental 
lobbying.
  What we are doing is increasing the amount of time--the threshold--we 
are increasing the amount of time that must be spent on lobbying to be 
considered a lobbyist. We are increasing that from 10 to 20 percent of 
a person's time over a 6-month period.
  What that means is a person would now have to spend more than 5 weeks 
lobbying full-time in a 6-month period to be considered a lobbyist. And 
we are increasing the exemption for small organizations that spend 
minimal dollar amounts on lobbying, we are increasing that amount from 
$5,000 to $10,000 in a 6-month period, and we are specifying that 
multiple lobbying contacts are required for a person to be considered a 
lobbyist.
  In addition, our amendment is going to address concerns about an 
independent agency being created to administrator and enforce this act. 
This concern is that somehow or another that an independent agency 
could become a rogue bureaucracy and could impair first amendment 
rights.
  What we are doing in our amendment is eliminating the provision that 
establishes the new agency. We are going to entrust all filing 
requirements to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House 
of Representatives who handle them now. We are going to permit the 
executive branch to provide guidance to potential registrants on how to 
comply through the Office of Government Ethics, but not giving that 
agency any investigative or enforcement power responsibility.
  We are eliminating the enforcement provisions of the bill altogether 
and replacing them with a simple provision, providing a civil monetary 
penalty for violations, and we are reducing the maximum penalty for 
violation from $100,000 to $50,000.
  In addition, the amount would lengthen the period of time for filing 
registrations and reports from 30 days to 45 days. We will permit 
nonprofit others to file duplicate copies of the IRS form 990 in lieu 
of disclosure of dollars spent on lobbying under the bill. We will 
clarify that written materials provided in response to a specific 
request do not count as lobbying, regardless of whether the request is 
oral or written.
  These amendments, a series of changes which we will make in our own 
bill by amendment, should remove concerns that the bill could impose 
registration and reporting requirements on organizations that engage in 
only incidental lobbying. We are removing the independent agency. We 
will address the concern that we are empowering an executive branch 
agency to audit investigative review, sensitive lobbying communications 
or deter citizens from exercising their first amendment rights through 
arbitrary or selective enforcement.
  At the same time, we are making these changes to address those 
concerns, we are going to leave intact the heart of the bill, which 
plugs loopholes in the current lobbying disclosure laws and ensures all 
professional lobbyists have to register and report who is paying them, 
how much, to lobby Congress and the executive branch, on what issue.
  We are going to require that if our bill passes, regardless of 
whether or not the paid lobbyist is a lawyer or a nonlawyer, whether or 
not the client is profit or nonprofit, and whether or not the lobbyist 
is an in-house lobbyist or a lobbying firm.
  Mr. President, while we want to avoid unnecessary burdens on the 
private sector, we must ensure that the public gets basic information 
on that critical point--who is paying who, how much to lobby Congress, 
and the executive branch, and on what issue.
  We will oppose any effort to eliminate important disclosure 
requirements or to exclude coverage of lobbying on certain types of 
issues or to limit disclosure to legislative branch lobbying, or to 
raise the thresholds in the bill to unrealistically high levels.
  In the last Congress, the Lobbying Diagnosis Closure Act was adopted 
by the Senate by a 95-to-2 vote. A conference report was then passed by 
the House and sent to the Senate for final consideration.
  Unfortunately, objections to certain provisions related to grassroots 
lobbying made it impossible to enact the bill at that time. Those 
provisions are not in this version, just as they were not in the Senate 
bill when this bill passed the Senate last year.
  The fact is, 95 Members of this body are on record as favoring a 
strong lobbying disclosure bill. Mr. President, there was a recent 
public opinion poll, 1993, a little over a year ago, where voters were 
asked who wields the real power in Washington. The answers should 
energize Members to act. The answer in that public opinion poll was--
and again, the question, who has the real power in Washington?--7 
percent said the President; 22 percent said Congress; 50 percent said 
lobbyists. Mr. President, 50 percent of the American people feel that 
lobbyists wield the real power in Washington--more than twice as many 
as feel that we bear the real power and have the real power in 
Washington, and over 7 times as many as feel that President Clinton has 
the real power in Washington.
  Lobbying disclosure is one of three pillars of reform. If we are 
serious about increasing public confidence in this democratic 
Government, we have to address at least three fundamental issues. One 
is lobbying disclosure. That is before the Senate in this first bill. 
Second, is gifts. That will come before the Senate in the next bill we 
take up. The third is campaign finance reform.
  Mr. President, I indicated that we have an amendment which will make 
a number of changes. Before I send that amendment to the desk I want to 
repeat them, because they address issues which have been raised and 
which are, I believe, important to all Members of this body.
  The first provision of this amendment will reaffirm that the bill 
does not cover grassroots lobbying by adding the specific statement 
that lobbying does not include grassroots lobbying communications or 
other communications by volunteers who express their own views on an 
issue.
  The amendment that we will offer also makes it clear that we are not 
reaching small groups and local organizations that engage in only 
incidental lobbying. We are doing that by increasing the amount of time 
that a person must spend lobbying, paid to lobby, from 10 to 20 percent 
of that person's time during the reporting period, and we are 
increasing the exemption for small organizations that spend minimal 
dollar amounts on lobbying from $5,000 to $10,000 during that 6-month 
period.
  Also, we are specifying that multiple lobbying contacts are required 
for a person to be considered a lobbyist--a single lobbying contact 
does not count. All three of those must exist before the person fits 
the definition of a lobbyist.
  We are also addressing the concerns about the creation of an 
independent agency to administrator and enforce the act by eliminating 
the provisions creating that agency. We are doing a number of 
additional things in this amendment, as I indicated in my prior 
description of the amendment.


                           Amendment No. 1836

  Mr. LEVIN. With that, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
myself and Senator Cohen and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page S10519]]

       The Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Levin] for himself and Mr. 
     Cohen, proposes an amendment numbered 1836.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 5, line 9, strike paragraphs (5) and renumber 
     accordingly.
       On page 6, line 5, strike ``Lobbying activities also 
     include efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying'' and all 
     that follows through the end of the paragraph and insert in 
     lieu thereof the following:
       ``Lobbying activities do not include grassroots lobbying 
     communications or other communications by volunteers who 
     express their own views on an issue, but do include paid 
     efforts, by the employees or contractors of a person who is 
     otherwise required to register, to stimulate such 
     communications in support of lobbying contacts by a 
     registered lobbyists.''
       On page 8, line 11, strike ``that is widely distributed to 
     the public'' and insert ``that is distributed and made 
     available to the public
       On page 9, line 11, strike ``a written request'' and insert 
     ``an oral or written request''.
       On page 13, line 15, strike ``1 or more lobbying contacts'' 
     and insert ``more than one lobbying contact''.
       On page 13, line 17, strike ``10 percent of the time 
     engaged in the services provided by such individual to that 
     client'' and insert ``20 percent of the time engaged in the 
     services provided by such individual to that client over a 
     six month period''.
       On page 16, line 3, strike ``30 days'' and insert ``45 
     days''.
       On page 16, line 8, strike ``the Office of Lobbying 
     Registration and Public Disclosure'' and insert ``the 
     Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives''.
       On page 16, line 23, strike ``$2,500'' and insert 
     ``$5,000''.
       On page 17, line 2, strike ``$5,000'' and insert 
     ``$10,000''.
       On page 17, line 22, strike ``shall be in such form as the 
     Director shall prescribe by regulation and''.
       On page 18, line 10, strike ``$5,000'' and insert 
     ``$10,000''.
       On page 18, line 19, strike ``$5,000'' and insert 
     ``$10,000''.
       On page 20, line 18, strike ``the Director'' and insert 
     ``the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives''.
       On page 20, line 21, strike ``30 days'' and insert ``45 
     days''.
       On page 21, line 1, strike ``the Office of Lobbying 
     Registration and Public Disclosure'' and insert ``the 
     Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives''.
       On page 21, line 12, strike ``$2,500'' and insert 
     ``$5,000''.
       On page 21, line 17, strike ``$5,000'' and insert 
     ``$10,000''.
       On page 21, line 23, strike ``the Director in such form as 
     the Director may prescribe'' and insert ``the Secretary of 
     the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives''.
       On page 22, line 6, strike ``shall be in such form as the 
     Director shall prescribe by regulation and''
       On page 23, line 20, strike subsection (c) and insert lieu 
     thereof the following:
       ``(c) Estimates of Income or Expenses.--For purposes of 
     this section, estimates of income or expenses shall be made 
     as follows:
       ``(1) Estimates of amounts in excess of $10,000 shall be 
     rounded to the nearest $20,000.
       ``(2) In the event income or expenses do not exceed 
     $10,000, the registrant shall include a statement that income 
     or expenses totaled less than $10,000 for the reporting 
     period.
       ``(3) A registrant that reports lobbying expenditures 
     pursuant to section 6033(b)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 may satisfy the requirement to report income or 
     expenses by filing with the Secretary of the Senate and the 
     Clerk of the House of Representatives a copy of the form 
     filed in accordance with section 6033(b)(8).''
       On page 25, line 24, strike subsection (e).
       On page 31, line 1 and all that follows through line
        17 on page 47, and insert in lieu there of the following:

     ``SEC. 7. DISCLOSURE AND ENFORCEMENT.

       ``(a) The Director of the Office of Government Ethics 
     shall--
       (1) provide guidance and assistance on the registration and 
     reporting requirements of this Act; and
       ``(2) after consultation with the Secretary of the Senate 
     and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, develop common 
     standards, rules, and procedures for compliance with this 
     Act.
       ``(b) The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the 
     House of Representatives shall--
       ``(1) review, and, where necessary, verify and inquire to 
     ensure the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of 
     registration and reports;
       ``(2) develop filing, coding, and cross-indexing systems to 
     carry out the purpose of this Act, including--
       ``(A) a publicly available list of all registered lobbyists 
     and their clients; and
       ``(B) computerized systems designed to minimize the burden 
     of filing and minimize public access to materials filed under 
     this Act;
       ``(3) ensure that the computer systems developed pursuant 
     to paragraph (2) are compatible with computer systems 
     developed and maintained by the Federal Election Commission, 
     and information filed in the two systems can be readily 
     cross-referenced;
       ``(4) make available for public inspection and copying at 
     reasonable times the registrations and reports filed under 
     this Act;
       ``(5) retain registrations for a period of at least 6 years 
     after they are terminated and reports for a period of at 
     least 6 years after they are filed;
       ``(6) compile and summarize, with respect to each 
     semiannual period, the information contained in registrations 
     and reports filed with respect to such period in a clear and 
     complete manner;
       ``(7) notify any lobbyist or lobbying firm in writing that 
     may be in noncompliance with this Act; and
       ``(8) notify the United States Attorney for the District of 
     Columbia that a lobbyist or lobbying firm may be in 
     noncompliance with this Act, if the registrant has been 
     notified in writing and has failed to provide an appropriate 
     response within 60 days after notice was given under 
     paragraph (6).

     ``SEC. 7. PENALTIES.

       ``Whoever knowingly fails to--
       ``(1) remedy a defective filing within 60 days after notice 
     of such a defect by the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk 
     of the House of Representatives; or
       ``(2) comply with any other provision of this Act; shall, 
     upon proof of such knowing violation by a preponderance of 
     the evidence, be subject to a civil fine of not more than 
     $50,000, depending on the extent and gravity of the 
     violation.''
       On page 48, line, strike ``the Director or''.
       On page 48, line 9, strike ``the Director'' and insert 
     ``the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives''.
       On page 54, line 9, strike Section 18.
       On page 55, line 23, strike Section 20.
       On page 58, line 5, strike ``the Director'' and insert 
     ``the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives''.
       On page 59, strike line 3 and all that follows through the 
     end of the bill, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

     ``SEC. 22. EFFECTIVE DATES.

       ``(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, this 
     Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on 
     January 1, 1997.
       ``(b) The repeals and amendments made under sections 13, 
     14, 15, and 16 shall take effect as provided under subsection 
     (a), except that such repeals and amendments--
       ``(1) shall not affect any proceeding or suit commenced 
     before the effective date under subsection (a), and in all 
     such proceedings or suits, proceedings shall be had, appeals 
     taken, and judgments rendered in the same manner and with the 
     same effect as if this Act had not been enacted; and
       ``(2) shall not affect the requirements of Federal agencies 
     to compile, publish, and retain information filed or received 
     before the effective date of such repeals and amendments.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as I said earlier this morning, I think it 
is important to point out again that every Senator on both sides of the 
aisle agrees that there needs to be lobbying reform. There are a number 
of changes that can be made that are long overdue, as a matter of fact. 
Unfortunately, in past years these issues have been bogged down by 
crowded schedules, sometimes partisan politics, sometimes 
misunderstandings. But for whatever reason, it has not been done. I 
think we have a chance to accomplish that today, and we intend to work 
together in a bipartisan effort to accomplish that goal.
  I do want to point out at the beginning, the majority leader, Senator 
Dole, to help facilitate this effort, did create a Bipartisan Senate 
Gift and Lobbying Reform Task Force to study these issues and develop 
proposals for reform. The leader set up this task force at a time when 
most Members were skeptical that anything could really successfully be 
crafted as a compromise.
  I am pleased to report that the task force has met, we have had a lot 
of discussions, and I think significant progress on the issue of 
lobbying reform has been accomplished and we are moving toward a 
bipartisan bill. I specifically would refer to several of the points 
the Senator from Michigan has just noted, the proposals that are 
included in the amendment he just sent to the desk.
  He changes the language with regard to grassroots lobbying efforts 
and adds additional guarantees and clarification that this is not 
intended to and will 

[[Page S10520]]
not in any way chill the efforts of our citizens and our constituents 
who come to Washington to try to seek redress from the Government to 
contact their Senators. That is a very important change from last year.
  We can go back and think again about the history of how we got that 
language in the bill last year. Last year it was added in conference. 
Members originally, I think, did not object to it because they had not 
really had a chance to assess what the ramifications might be, but, as 
Senators started looking into it, their concerns grew. But that has 
been clarified and will not be a problem here today.
  Also, changes have been made with regard to incidental lobbying that 
I think are very important. Some people will have occasion just to make 
an indirect, maybe one-time contact with a Senator or staffer that 
could qualify as incidental, and that would have language that would 
address that concern.
  I think it is important that the threshold in this compromise 
alternative is being raised. I believe the language that was in the 
original bill was at $2,500 for an individual lobbyist. I believe that 
was too low. Some significant movement has been made in that area. The 
penalty, while we feel if there is a blatant or repeated violation of 
the disclosure rules there should be an opportunity for some maximum 
penalty, I think it was excessive in the original Levin bill. Also, to 
increase the filing period from 30 to 45 days just makes fundamental 
good sense--gives them time, at least, to comply with the filing 
requirements.
  So I think all of those are very positive movements, and I think we 
will be able, hopefully, to narrow areas where we need discussion down 
even further very shortly.
  Before I delve into the details of some of the task force work, I 
would also like to begin by commending the members of the task force 
for their time. The Senate minority whip, Wendell Ford--Senator Ford 
from Kentucky has been very helpful in cochairing this task force. The 
Senator from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, who has for a long time been 
interested in serious lobbying reform, has assisted the efforts and, as 
chairman of the Ethics Committee, has been very involved. The chairman 
of the Rules Committee, Senator Stevens; Senator Ashcroft; Senator 
Breaux; Senator Cohen; Senator Dodd; Senator Feingold; Senator 
Lautenberg; Senator Levin; Senator Reid; Senator Rockefeller; Senator 
Simpson; and Senator Wellstone have all been involved in this effort.
  As I noted, we have made significant progress in the lobby area. It 
does not appear that as much progress has been made in the gift-rule 
area. That will come up next. But we will continue to work on that also 
throughout the day.
  Last month, when the Senate Lobbying Reform Task Force was created, 
we started to have these conversations that have led to some 
agreements. I think we have reached some changes that will lead us to 
sound policy, not just political sound bites. We want to continue to 
work in that area.
  But the task force has identified some areas that we still are very 
much concerned about and we want to work on. One of those is the 
definition of a lobbyist. The definition of a lobbyist--it is very 
important that we have a clear understanding of that. The original bill 
was, I think, way too broad and would have required a constituent back 
home, who maybe would have only come to Washington once a year, to 
register as a lobbyist. We feared this might be a deterrent to some 
constituents to actually doing what they might be entitled to under the 
Constitution. To avoid this situation, we have already reached an 
agreement on two significant changes in this area of definition of a 
lobbyist.
  First, I believe both sides of the aisle have agreed to increase the 
percentage of time an individual must spend lobbying to be considered a 
lobbyist from 10 to 20 percent. Second, we are in the process of 
negotiating changes in the level of compensation a lobbying firm or 
organization must receive in order to be required to register. The 
original bill, as I noted, only exempted firms receiving under $2,500, 
and organizations receiving under $5,000 for other organizations. The 
level is clearly too low. While this level might be appropriate under 
current law where lobbyists are only required to report contacts made 
with actual Members, the compromise we are working on would go beyond 
that, and I think we need to change the levels that are involved. We 
are talking about maybe even the involvement of contact with staff. So 
we are discussing a change of those limits even more. I do not think we 
have reached a final agreement, but we are getting closer.
  It is very important we do not begin this process by finding a way to 
create a new, additional Federal agency, as was originally included in 
this bill. I feel particularly strongly about that. To set up another 
organization with more people being employed at the Justice Department 
really is just not called for. I understand Senator Levin has agreed we 
would change that. And it would require that lobbyists register with 
the Clerk of the House or the Secretary of the Senate within 45 days of 
their first lobbying contact. That is a major movement.
  We should not create this new agency at the Justice Department or 
anywhere else. We should continue, basically, with the reporting 
receptacle that we have now, and they will be able to deal with it 
because I do not think there is going to be a great expansion in the 
number of filings. But we will just have to see how that will work out.
  There is one other point we continue to have disagreement on, and 
that is whether or not the executive branch should be included. The 
original Levin bill also included lobbying of the executive branch, and 
while this may or may not be a desirable goal, we are concerned about 
including coverage of the executive branch.
  The President has the authority to require lobbying disclosure by 
Executive order, if he wishes to do so. The President recently created 
a Lobbying Reform Task Force with the Speaker of the House, and their 
efforts may have some recommendations later on to change the coverage. 
But I think we should not preempt that.
  Let us make this applicable to the legislative branch. That is where 
we work. That is what we are really trying to deal with. There will be 
other processes and other ways that you can deal with whether or not 
the executive branch should be covered.
  So I know that Senator Levin and others have been working on this a 
long time. Senator McConnell I see is on the floor and will want to 
comment.
  I am very pleased that the majority leader went ahead and scheduled 
this early in the week rather than late in the week where this 
legislation might have been in a crunch with other legislation. We can 
consider it today, and hopefully come to a conclusion before the day is 
out on at least lobbying reform. And then we will see what we can do on 
gift reform.
  Mr. President, in view of the fact that Senator McConnell is here, I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me thank my good friend, the 
majority whip, for the effort he has made to move this issue along. I 
think all of are us are grateful to him for his leadership.
  I also want to commend the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, for 
coming a long way, it seems to me, in the proper direction with the 
latest alternative which he has suggested.
  Mr. President, I think it is important to remember what the 
fundamental issue before us is. The Constitution of the United States 
gives to each American citizen the right to petition the Congress. And 
the courts have held that there is no distinction among those who 
petition the Congress and are not paid to do so and those who petition 
the Congress and are paid to do so. In other words, a citizen does not 
waive his or her constitutional rights simply because they are paid to 
represent a group that does not have the time to come to Washington and 
do the job themselves.
  So there is no constitutional distinction between lobbyists and 
nonlobbyists when it comes to the protective constitutional right to 
petition the Congress. That is at the heart of this debate. Of course, 
the surface appeal facing lobbyists is overwhelming. But the 
Constitution is designed to protect the individual.
  So what we are seeking to achieve here, I think as the majority whip 

[[Page S10521]]
  pointed out there is a good chance we may well achieve it, is a 
consensus effort here to strengthen the lobby laws but not to 
discourage people from exercising their constitutional rights.
  I might say, at least as far as this Senator is concerned, that it 
seems appropriate, as we look to require further disclosure from 
lobbyists, that we consider not exempting those who lobby for the 
nonprofit sector and that we consider not exempting those who lobby for 
the Government sector. There are governments, State, and local 
governments, and even arguably divisions in each part of the Federal 
Government, the so-called legislative affairs offices of each Cabinet 
at the Federal Government, that are also seeking to influence us and to 
push us in the direction arguably of expanding the Government; or to 
spend more money on Government programs.
  One of the things I hope we can take a look at in the course of this 
debate is whether or not the distinction between those who lobby for 
the private sector and those who lobby for the Government sector or the 
nonprofit sector is a valid distinction. Why is it that one kind of 
activity designed arguably to promote the free enterprise system is 
somehow suspect and another kind of lobbying activity to promote the 
expansion of Government is somehow not suspect? So one of the things we 
will be discussing in the course of this debate is whether that is an 
appropriate distinction.
  But, Mr. President, my friend from Arizona is here. He is prepared to 
offer an amendment which I personally believe, having talked with him 
about it, is a good amendment. I will not speak any longer at this 
point. I am going to make an opening statement later this morning.
  But I want to commend the Senator from Michigan for the movement that 
he has made. I think we are moving in the direction of coming together 
here and passing a landmark piece of legislation.
  So with those opening observations, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank both the Senator from 
Michigan and the Senator from Kentucky. I realize the volatility of 
this issue. I realize the difficulty involved in it. There is no doubt 
that there are very strong arguments on both sides.
  Mr. President, I say to my friend from Michigan--and I intend to do 
this later in the day--but I believe that one of the reasons there is 
such a diversity of view here is that there is not a defining standard 
as to what is expected in the way of gift rules.
  I remember quite a few years ago when there were some very stringent 
gift rules enacted for the executive branch. I think the Senator from 
Michigan remembers, as I do, that there was great gnashing of the teeth 
on how it would not work, and that it would be impossible to enforce, 
et cetera. But it has worked.
  I urge both my colleagues to look at the rules as far as gifts are 
concerned that apply to the executive branch of Government. It has 
worked. It is fair. I have not heard, at least in recent years, 
inordinate complaints that it is an unworkable situation. Very frankly, 
the gift ban as it exists today as far as the executive branch, it 
seems to me should apply to the legislative branch. The members of the 
executive branch are subject to the same lobbying, and the same 
influences because decisions of enormous consequence are made in the 
executive branch.
  I look at the Defense Department and see that multibillion-dollar 
decisions are made in the executive branch which have frankly very 
little input from time to time from the legislative branch. Yet, I 
believe it was back in the 1970's, that a very stringent gift rule was 
enacted in order to cure some of the problems that existed in the 
executive branch, and those seem to be working today.
  Very fundamentally, Mr. President, these gift bans are $20 and $50 
aggregated. As far as the gift limit is concerned, gifts of $20 or less 
are allowable, with an aggregate limit of $50 from any one source in 
any given calendar year. There is no difference between in State and 
out State, difference for lobbyists versus nonlobbyist, and a Member 
must document all gifts received and make such information available 
every 6 months. The definition of a gift would be basically the same as 
is being proposed but it would be expanded to include meals and 
entertainment.
  As far as charitable events are concerned, payment of meals, if the 
staff member participates in a meal or dinner event. Exemptions would 
be that there is no difference between in State and out of State, and 
no difference between lobbyists and nonlobbyists. Meals up to $20 from 
any source would be allowed. Meals of any value may be accepted from 
charitable organizations if the Member attends an event sponsored by a 
charity, and substantially participates in those activities.
  Finally, if there is entertainment associated with a Member's trip, 
these should be paid for by the Member if the value exceeds the gift 
level ceiling.
  Again, since there seems to be significant differences between both 
sides of the aisle, I would urge my colleagues to go back and look at 
the rules that pertain to the executive branch of Government which have 
worked now for nearly 20 years. And I would suggest that would be a 
very important place we could begin, and perhaps reach some agreement 
here before we consume the entire week with debate on this obviously 
very emotional issue.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending 
amendment in order to propose an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1837

                 (Purpose: To repeal the Ramspeck Act)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1837.

  Mr. McCAIN. 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.  . REPEAL OF THE RAMSPECK ACT.

       (a) Repeal.--Subsection (c) of section 3304 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is repealed.
       (b) Redesignation.--Subsection (d) of section 3304 of title 
     5, United States Code, is redesignated as subsection (c).
       (c) Effective Date.--The repeal and amendment made by this 
     section shall take effect 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment basically repeals the 
Ramspeck Act, the act, which as I understand, was enacted around 1940. 
It provides an unequal playing field for those members of staff in 
Congress who have worked here. It is obsolete and unfair. The time has 
come to terminate it.
  It provides exclusive privileges to legislative and judicial branch 
employees attempting to secure career civil service positions within 
the Federal Government. The Ramspeck Act makes a special exception to 
certain competitive requirements of civil service positions for 
individuals who have served 3 years in the legislative branch or 4 
years in the judicial branch.
  Under this act, legislative branch employees are given competitive 
status for direct appointment to a civil service position if they are 
involuntarily separated from their job, and they are allowed 1 year 
from their date of separation in which to exercise this privilege. 
Furthermore, the Ramspeck Act waives any competitive examination which 
ranks applicants for jobs for individuals who are former legislative or 
judicial branch employees. Therefore, if a competitive exam is given to 
rank candidates for a certain civil service position, a select group of 
contestants are permitted by the Ramspeck Act to effectively skip a 
hurdle, yet they are assured of being able to be selected for the job.
  Finally, individuals appointed under that act become career employees 
in the civil service without regard to the tenure of service 
requirements that exist for other civil service employees. Most people 
who have successfully competed for a position within the civil service 
must then serve a 3-year probationary period before they achieve career 
status with their agency. Ramspeck appointees, however, are 

[[Page S10522]]
afforded with career status immediately.
  Mr. President, I wish to point out very clearly the amendment will 
have no impact on any former Senate or House employee who lost their 
job in the last election. I think it is very important that we point 
that out. The results of this last November's election caused a very 
large number of involuntary job losses among legislative employees from 
the other side of the aisle. Republican staffers have utilized their 
eligibility under the Ramspeck Act to gain preference as have others, 
so this amendment would not be enforced for 2 years in order to allow 
those individuals who were displaced by last year's election to have 
the same opportunity that others have had for the last 40 years.
  Mr. President, not only is the act itself very wrong but there have 
been several cases that have really been egregious. The GAO issued a 
report in May of 1994 concerning the Ramspeck Act, and they were able 
to come up with several examples of how really egregious some of the 
individuals have been in taking advantage of this legislation.
  They point out a case, and I quote from page 63 of the GAO report:

       The individual reestablished her Ramspeck eligibility by 
     returning to Congress after 9 years and 11 months and 
     remaining in the position for 5 days.

  Mr. President, what that means is the individual had left her 
employment here in the Congress, had been gone for 9 years and 11 
months, returned to work for a Member of Congress for 5 days and 
thereby reestablished eligibility and then obtained a job with the 
Department of the Interior.

       The individual's qualifying employment had been obtained in 
     Congress from 1975 to 1982. After positions both in and out 
     of Government, she accepted a noncareer schedule C position 
     with the Department of Interior in October 1991. On November 
     6, 1992, after making inquiries about her Ramspeck Act 
     eligibility and noncompetitive career appointment 
     opportunities at the Department of Interior, the individual 
     resigned from her noncareer position with the Department of 
     Interior. On the same day, DOI approved a new career position 
     to which the individual was subsequently appointed. She began 
     work for a congressional committee on November 9, 1992, 
     knowing that it was a 1-week special project. On November 10, 
     she applied for and on November 12 was approved for a 
     noncompetitive appointment to the new career position at the 
     Department of Interior under the Ramspeck authority. The 
     appointment became effective on November 16.

  Another case:

       The individual reestablished his Ramspeck eligibility by 
     returning to congressional employment after 4 years and 
     remaining in a position for 8 days with a Congressman who had 
     not been reelected. The individual had worked in Congress 
     from 1967 to 1989. He then held a noncareer SES appointment 
     at the Department of Interior until he resigned on November 
     30, 1992. At the time of his resignation, he was earning 
     $112,100 per year. On December 1, 1992, the individual 
     returned to a position on the staff of a Member of Congress. 
     The position paid $1,200 per year. The following day, the 
     individual obtained the Member certification that he would be 
     involuntarily separated because the Member had not been 
     reelected. Therefore, the individual would be eligible for a 
     noncompetitive career appointment under the Ramspeck Act. On 
     December 3, the individual applied for a new career position 
     at the Department of Interior. DOI created the position on 
     November 24 and on the same day requested, authorized and 
     approved a personnel action to appoint the individual 
     noncompetitively under the Ramspeck Act to the new position. 
     All this took place days before the individual had resigned 
     from his noncareer position.

  Another case:

       The individual established her Ramspeck eligibility by 
     returning to congressional appointment after 5 years and 7 
     months and remaining in the position for 12 days. The 
     individual, who had worked in Congress from 1970 to 1987, was 
     given a temporary appointment on June 11, 1987 and on June 21 
     was converted to a permanent noncareer schedule C position at 
     the GM-14 level. On June 15, 4 days later, the position was 
     upgraded to the GM-15 level and the individual was promoted 
     to the position on July 17. The individual resigned from the 
     noncareer position on December 5, 1992, and 2 days later 
     joined the staff of a Member of Congress who was planning to 
     retire. She obtained a Ramspeck certification on December 
     14--

  That is 9 days later.

     stating that she would be involuntary separated because the 
     Member was retiring. The individual terminated her employment 
     on December 18.

  That is 13 days later.

     and applied to DOI for a noncompetitive career appointment 
     under the Ramspeck Act on December 21. She received a career 
     appointment on January 11, 1993 in the same office in the 
     Department of Interior from which she had resigned. A 
     position to which she was noncompetitively appointed had been 
     created in July 1992, and it apparently had remained vacant 
     since that time. The new career position had some of the same 
     duties and responsibilities as the GM-15 noncareer position.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arizona yield for a 
question or comment?
  Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. LOTT. I wish to commend the Senator from Arizona for his work in 
this area. I must confess that when he first called the Ramspeck Act to 
my attention earlier this year, I had no idea really what was involved. 
He at that time agreed that he was going to try to educate us all a 
little bit better and he would be back with an amendment in this area 
later on this year. He is fulfilling that statement today.
  As I have gotten into Ramspeck, I think he has a very good point. 
This is something that should absolutely be changed. Most Americans 
have no idea what is involved here and I daresay most Members of 
Congress. Most of us just were not aware that there was any kind of 
special arrangement whereby a Member of a congressional staff could 
wind up getting preferential treatment in employment in the executive 
branch.
  Is that basically what happens under the existing law? If you are on 
a congressional staff, you can go over to the executive branch under 
special consideration and get a position on a noncompetitive basis, is 
that the way it could properly be summed up?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes. This bill was signed into law in 1940, and there is 
no doubt that it was an attempt to help individuals who had worked in 
the legislative branch obtain employment. We all know that the vagaries 
of the electoral process dictate that--and sometimes the death of 
Members. But that may have been valid in 1940. I am not prepared to 
judge the wisdom of this body at that time, but clearly at this time it 
is not only inappropriate but also there have been some very egregious 
abuses of the system as it existed.
  The system alone was bad, but then when we have people who go over 
and serve on the staff of a Member of Congress for 7 days or for 20 
days, who have not been working in Congress--as I mentioned, one of 
them had not worked in Congress for 7 years and 3 months, went over, 
worked for 20 days for a Member of Congress and then got a GS-15 
position, which is a permanent position, as the Senator from 
Mississippi knows. That is really something we need to do away with. I 
appreciate the question.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I 
certainly agree with him and will support his amendment when we get to 
a vote on it later on today.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, could I just mention in closing, I ask 
unanimous consent that several articles here, one from the National 
Journal, one from the Wall Street Journal, and an editorial from the 
Arizona Republic be made printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Arizona Republic, Nov. 19, 1994]

                         Losers Get Spoils, Too

       We've all heard the adage about the spoils going to the 
     victor. The impending changeover to Republican control of 
     Congress is a good example. That means thousands of patronage 
     workers on Capitol Hill--from committee staffers to drivers 
     and telephone operators--the vast majority of whom were 
     appointed by Democrats, could be looking for work.
       ``Could'' is the operative word here, thanks to a little-
     known federal law called the Ramspeck Act. Under the law, 
     named after the Georgia congressman who authored it decades 
     ago, congressional employees who lose out in the political 
     shuffle are given first preference for civil service jobs in 
     the federal bureaucracy. That's right! Even the losers stand 
     to gain taxpayer-paid spoils.
       As a practical matter, most low-level congressional workers 
     who will lose their majority party positions--committees in 
     the new Congress, for example, will have more Republican 
     staffers than democratic appointees--will likely have to find 
     jobs elsewhere. But the cream of the crop, most of them top 
     congressional aides, lawyers and policy experts, will be able 
     to go to the head of the employment line for jobs in the 
     executive branch under the Ramspeck Act.
       The Clinton White House will be under immense pressure to 
     accommodate these Democratic Party loyalists, says Mark R. 
     Levin, 

[[Page S10523]]
     director of legal policy for the Washington-based Landmark Legal 
     Foundation. Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Levin 
     observes that these are the same individuals ``responsible 
     for drafting the onerous, big-government approach that the 
     voters rejected on Nov. 8.''
       Under Ramspeck, hundreds of these policy-makers could 
     ``burrow'' into large federal departments and agencies 
     throughout the country, Levin says, and ``continue to impose 
     their liberal views on the public.'' The law applies to 
     congressional staffers with three years or more of service 
     who lose their jobs due to ``reasons beyond their control . . 
     . such as death, defeat or resignation'' of their bosses. 
     Thus, they are allowed to avoid normal competitive procedures 
     for filling federal jobs and gain immediate career status, 
     with civil service protection, when hired.
       When the shoe was on the other foot a few years ago and the 
     outgoing Bush administration sought to find jobs in the 
     federal bureaucracy for its top staffers, then-Democratic 
     Rep. William Clay, a champion of labor rights, condemned the 
     process. ``Burrowing in,'' as he put it, ``is an insidious 
     practice that undermines the civil-service system, takes jobs 
     away from better-qualified career employees and could 
     sabotage the efforts of the new administration to carry out 
     the will of the people.''
       We couldn't have said it better.
       Levin suggests that the new Republican Congress repeal the 
     Ramspeck Act. It is, after all, precisely the kind of double 
     standard that has served to set official Washington apart 
     from the rest of the nation and which helped to fuel the 
     grass-roots rebellion that turned Democratic incumbents out 
     of office.
       ``Make the former Hill staffers find real jobs in the 
     private sector,' urges Levin. And as an added bonus, he says: 
     ``If they ever come back to government, they will be more 
     sensitive to the needs of working Americans'' who have no 
     such exempts written into law for poor job performance. 
     Getting Washington to play by the same rule as the rest of us 
     ought to be high on the next Congress' agenda.
                                                                    ____

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 15, 1994]

                          They'll Never Leave

                           (By Mark R. Levin)

       When the American people fired the Democrat majority in 
     Congress last week, they also sent thousands of congressional 
     staffers into the private sector--or did they?
       The House Republicans have set up a transition committee, 
     headed by Rep. John Boehner (R., Ohio), to examine the 40-
     year-old Democrat patronage system. Rep. Boehner's spokesman 
     infoms me that there are some 13,000 committee staffers and 
     patronage employees in the House, the vast majority of whom 
     work for, or were appointed by, Democrats. (This does not 
     include the untold hundreds of individuals who work on the 
     personal staffs of congressmen.)
       Although Rep. Boehner has sought, but not yet received, a 
     complete list of these jobs from the Democrats, it is 
     estimated that several hundred of the patronage employees 
     serve as doorkeepers, barbers and beauticians, printers, 
     photographers, elevator operators, security personnel, 
     furniture movers, drivers, telephone operators, librarians 
     and the like.
       Padding the public payroll with friends and loyalists is 
     not particularly new, but it is wasteful and ought to be 
     eliminated. However, the real issue in terms of policy and 
     governing involves the fate of Congress' shadow government--
     i.e., what will come of the thousands of soon-to-be 
     unemployed Democratic staffers who are responsible for 
     drafting the onerous, bit-government approach that the voters 
     rejected on Nov. 8? These are the folks who wrote such 
     oppressive legislation as the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
     Act of 1993 (which brought us retroactive taxation, among 
     other things), the Elementary and Secretary Education Act 
     (which federalizes such local educational curriculum), and 
     the Endangered Species Act (which threatens private property 
     rights).
       If the Republicans keep their promise to cut a third of 
     Hill jobs, such a reduction--plus the turnover of a majority 
     of the committee staff positions from Democrats to 
     Republicans--will result in an unprecedented, large-scale 
     exodus of these shadow legislators. But where will they go? 
     Many of the staffers are lawyers. Not even in Washington are 
     there enough legal or lobbying positions to employ most of 
     them. And few businesses can use the remaining aides, many of 
     whom have nothing
      but Capitol Hill experience. That's where the Ramspect Act--
     a decades-old law widely known to most Hill dwellers--
     comes in. This law allows out-of -work staffers to find 
     employment among the ranks of career civil servants in the 
     executive branch. The only requirements are that the ex-
     staffer must have worked a minimum of three years in 
     Congress, must be qualified for the position (of course, a 
     position can be created to ensure that the applicant 
     qualifies), and must exercise his Ramspeck eligibility 
     within a year of losing his congressional job.
       Upon receiving a Ramspeck appointment, the former 
     congressional aide receives the same job security and 
     protection as a civil servant. In fact, he becomes a civil 
     servant who can only be removed from his new position for 
     cause--a rare event in our federal bureaucracy.
       There will be immense pressure on the Clinton 
     administration to hire Democratic congressional aides. And 
     since there are only a relative handful of political jobs the 
     White House can offer, federal departments and agencies may 
     be pressured to accommodate them through Ramspeck 
     appointments. This would enable hundreds of congressional 
     staffers to burrow into large federal departments and 
     agencies throughout the country.
       Why is this a concern? Every year thousands of pages of 
     regulations are written, imposed, interpreted and enforced by 
     workers employed in the executive branch. These individuals 
     make decisions every day that affect our lives. There is a 
     real danger, therefore, that many of the same congressional 
     staffers whose bosses were just deposed by the American 
     people will assume important decision-making positions in the 
     federal bureaucracy, permitting them to continue to impose 
     their liberal views on the public.
       The incoming Republican leadership should take immediate 
     steps to prevent the possible abuse of Ramspeck hiring. For 
     one, the future speaker, Newt Gingrich, and senate majority 
     leader, Bob Dole, should write immediately to each federal 
     department and agency head, advising them that come January 
     1995, appropriate oversight will be exercised to determine 
     whether (and the extent to which) Democrat congressional 
     staffers have merely relocated from the halls of Congress to 
     the bowels of the bureaucracy. The GOP leaders should also 
     consider legislation abolishing the Ramspect Act, which is 
     intended to protect congressional staffers at the taxpayer's 
     expense.
       Make the former Hill staffers find real jobs in the private 
     sector. There's an added bonus here: If they ever come back 
     to government, they will be more sensitive to the needs of 
     working Americans.
                                                                    ____

                [From the National Journal, March 1994]

                              Ramspecked!

                           (By Viveca Novak)

       (The 1940 Ramspeck Act allows some congressional aides to 
     circumvent the traditional civil service hiring process and 
     secure immediate--and highly coveted--career status. But 
     critics say that ``Ramspecking'' is as good a symbol as any 
     of what's wrong with the labyrinthine federal personnel 
     system.)
       Phyllis T. Thompson, known to most as Twinkle, got lots of 
     experience working on Interior Department issues on the 
     staffs of Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., and the Senate 
     Select Committee on Indian Affairs. In 1987, she was rewarded 
     with a political appointment to Interior's Bureau of Land 
     Management. But in December 1992, not long after Democrat 
     Bill Clinton was elected President, she jumped back to 
     Capitol Hill--oddly, to the staff of Sen. Steven D. Symms, R-
     Idaho, who had not run for reelection and would be leaving 
     office on Jan. 3.
       Thompson worked for Symms for 11 days. Then she suddenly 
     resurfaced at Interior, drawing an annual salary that's 
     somewhere from $69,000-$90,000 in a career civil service job 
     for which she was given preferential consideration.
       Thompson was engaged in a neat bit of ``Ramspecking.'' The 
     bizarre-sounding maneuver is great for those who can use it, 
     but not so great for those who happen to believe in a purer 
     merit system or who get edged out of jobs or promotions by 
     Ramspeckers. Although Vice President Albert Gore Jr's 
     National Performance Review sparked some hope of sweeping 
     changes in the federal bureaucracy, sources who worked on the 
     ``reinventing government'' report said that Ramspecking and 
     other preferential hiring systems, which have drawn much 
     criticism over the years, are too hot to handle and probably 
     won't be taken on.
       The 1940 Ramspeck Act, named for its chief House sponsor, 
     gives a leg up on executive branch jobs to congressional and 
     judicial branch employees with at least three years of total 
     service who are ``involuntarily separated'' from their jobs--
     if their bosses die, retire or are defeated, for instance, or 
     if their jobs are restructured out of existence. They avoid 
     the regular competitive process and are given immediate--and 
     highly coveted--career status.
       In short, its a perk.
       Make no mistake about it: The Ramspeck Act, which results 
     in maybe 100 or so appointments a year, may seem like little 
     more than a speck in center of a federal work force that 
     includes about two million workers, not counting the U.S. 
     Postal Service.
       ``When we're fighting about whether or not there are going 
     to be RIFs [reduction in force], whether or not there are 
     going to be buyouts,'' said Robert M. Tobias, the president 
     of the National Treasury Employees Union, ``this doesn't get 
     to the top of the list.''


                           gaming the system

       But in an environment in which the federal bureaucracy is 
     under intense scrutiny as part of a high-level effort to make 
     it more efficient and more responsive Ramspecking is as good 
     a symbol as any of what can be so disheartening about the 
     labyrinthine federal personnel system. Seemingly well 
     intentioned, the law can be used to good effect, according to 
     some who have had experience with it. But schemers have found 
     ways to game the system while staying within the letter of 
     the law. And even when it's used as directed, critics say, 
     it's circumvention of the traditional civil service hiring 
     process weakens the system and erodes morale. 

[[Page S10524]]

       ``The Ramspeck Act is discriminatory,'' Fredric Newman, a 
     retired director of civilian personnel for the Army, said, 
     ``It contradicts the merit system, and I tried to avoid 
     applying it.''
       Donald J. Devine, who headed the Office of Personnel 
     Management (OPM) from 1981-85, wrote a memo to Clinton after 
     the election in which he urged him, among other things, to 
     get rid of the Ramspeck Act. ``It's one of the innumerable 
     provisions undermining the merit principle.'' Devine said in 
     an interview. ``There's no real justification for it. It's 
     basically one of countless benefits of the legislative 
     branch.''
       The 1992 election provided laboratory conditions for 
     observing the two principal species of Ramspeckers. First, 
     there was a change not only in Administration, but also in 
     party. Former Capitol Hill aides who'd gotten political jobs 
     in the Republican executive branch were looking for
      life rafts in the career civil service--various ways to 
     burrow in. Sen. David Pryor, D-Ark., sent the General 
     Accounting Office (GAO) a list of 150 names and 50 
     department or agency reorganizations that his office had 
     received complaints about in this regard, some of them 
     involving Ramspecking. The GAO's final report is expected 
     out in a few weeks.
       Second, 1992 brought the largest exodus of Members of 
     Congress since 1948, and attached to each lawmaker were 
     several aides who were faced with the prospect of finding new 
     employment. Morton Blackwell, a conservative activist, was 
     running seminars in House Annex I on how to Ramspeck. 
     ``Conservatives must match the Left's mastery of the Ramspeck 
     Act,'' he declared (although statistics don't indicate that 
     either party has a lock on this). ``Dedicated conservatives 
     now can use non-competitive routes to secure career 
     employment in the federal government. . . . In government, 
     personnel is policy.''
       Without a presidential contest in the wings, Ramspecking of 
     the first type will be little practiced until 1996 or later. 
     But the 1992 election brought plenty of it, some of which 
     looked fishy under even a lenient threshold of acceptance 
     transition behavior.
       OPM, investigating complaints about 14 Ramspeck 
     appointments at the Interior Department in 1992 and early 
     1993, found that seven political appointees had returned to 
     Congress for periods of only a few days to a few weeks. This 
     reestablished their Rampseck eligibility; the law doesn't 
     require an employee's three years of congressional service to 
     be continuous, but it does require that the Ramspeck transfer 
     take place within a year of leaving Capitol Hill. While such 
     brief appearances on the Hill between political and Ramspeck 
     jobs seem to be technically permissible, OPM report called 
     them cause for ``grave concern.'' The report went on to say 
     that ``it is difficult to conceive that the act was intended 
     as a means to convert political executive branch employees 
     into career civil servants.''
       OPM zeroed in on two cases. One was that of Timothy 
     Glidden, who held a political appointment as legal counsel to 
     then-Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan Jr. Glidden, a former 
     congressional aide, quit his job at Interior shortly after 
     the election and went on the payroll of Rep. John J. Rhodes 
     III, R-Ariz., who'd just have been defeated. He worked there 
     from Dec. 1-8, earning all of $26.67. Then he returned to 
     Interior with a Ramspeck appointment as a program analyst in 
     the Office of American Indian Trust.
       Some officials of the Interior Department apparently 
     weren't surprised. According to OPM, the job was created for 
     Glidden even before he left. (Glidden told OPM's 
     investigators that he was unaware of that.) The report 
     branded Rhodes' hiring of Glidden and Glidden's return to the 
     Interior Department ``a cynical manipulation of the Ramspeck 
     authority to achieve a preordained result, the placement of 
     [Glidden] in a position especially designed for him.''
       OPM also assailed the recent career path of Hattie 
     Bickmore, who'd worked on Capitol Hill for eight years before 
     she accepted a political appointment in 1991 as a special 
     assistant in the Minerals Management Service. But she left 
     that position for a one-week job (Nov. 9-13) with the Senate 
     Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government 
     Management, at the request of Sen. William S. Cohen of Maine, 
     its ranking Republican--a particularly ironic placement 
     because the committee sometimes investigates complaints about 
     Ramspeck abuses. On Nov. 16, she was appointed under Ramspeck 
     authority to a career
      GM-15 position in Interior's Take Pride in America program.
       Bickmore told OPM, among other things, that she wanted to 
     qualify for retirement benefits, for which she'd be eligible 
     in February 1994. And, she said. ``it's a known fact that 
     it's all right to go back [to the Hill] to get Rampseck 
     eligibility reestablished.''
       But OMP found this case to be much like Gidden's: 
     Affidavits and other evidence indicated that a job was being 
     created for her to return to before she even left. ``No 
     reasonable person examining the total situation in these two 
     cases could conclude that these two appointments met either 
     the letter or the spirit of the Ramspeck Act.'' OMP said. 
     Besides having prearranged, custom-made jobs waiting for them 
     at Interior Glidden and Bickmore couldn't argue that their 
     departures from their short stays on the Hill were 
     involuntary.
       OPM recommended that both Glidden and Bickmore be 
     terminated. Bickmore was fired, and lost her appeal to the 
     Merit System Protection Board on March 15 of this year. 
     Glidden departed as well. though it could not be ascertained 
     whether he retired or was fired.
       OPM fond these two cases the most egregious because jobs 
     were created for them, said Michael D. Clogston, the 
     assistant director of its compliance and evaluation office. 
     ``But we found in a number of cases, people were going up [to 
     the Hill] for a quick cup of coffee, in effect.'' he said. 
     ``That conferred upon them eligibility to get a job in the 
     executive branch. And a lot of people are of a mind that if 
     you went up for quick cup of coffee, that in itself was 
     enough to violate the spirit of the law.''
       The Rampseck process ``was started for these poor devils 
     who worked long years on the Hill and fond themselves out of 
     a job because their boss lost or died.'' Clogston added, ``In 
     the cases we looked at, none of them fit those 
     circumstances.''


                          the silver parachute

       Most who use the Rampspeck privilege come straight from the 
     Hill after the lawmaker they've worked for leaves Congress. 
     That was the intent behind the law. Its legislative history 
     indicates that Members wanted to provide something for the 
     loyal aides, who had little job security and could, through 
     no fault of their own, be out of work overnight. Because
      they usually had some expertise to offer, the reasoning 
     went, why not allow them to put it to use in another 
     branch of government?
       There was also a strong ``me too'' motivation. ``If there 
     is justification for `blanketing' into permanent civil 
     service positions many thousands of persons, there is 
     certainly justification for granting this opportunity to 
     employees of the legislative branch,'' said the conference 
     committee's report from 1940, which also noted that a similar 
     provision was available to White House employees.
       ``On Capitol Hill, you've got these people who are 
     professionals and have no civil service protection--people 
     who have put in years of service, who have some 
     qualifications and know their areas,'' said Edward J. 
     Gleiman, the chairman of the Postal Rate Commission and a 
     former staff director of the Senate Governmental Affairs 
     Subcommittee on Federal Services, Post Office and Civil 
     Service, which Pryor chairs.
       Said a former Senate administrative assistant in recounting 
     the vagaries of life on Capitol Hill, ``John Heinz's staff 
     goes out to lunch and comes back and they're out of a job.'' 
     Heinz, a Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, was killed in 
     an airplane crash in 1991.
       And some who are on the hiring end of things, in federal 
     departments and agencies, say that Ramspecking offers other 
     advantages. ``Generally, I think it's probably a useful 
     thing,'' said Thomas S. McFee, the assistant Health and Human 
     Services (HHS) secretary for personnel. ``These people have 
     had unusual experience and can make a valuable 
     contribution.'' Ramspecking cuts time-consuming red tape that 
     would otherwise mean advertising a position, ranking and 
     evaluating applicants and so forth. McFee pointed out--and 
     Ramspeck candidates must qualify for the positions they take.
       According to a survey by National Journal, HHS had by far 
     the largest number of Ramspeck hires--17--of all federal 
     departments and agencies in the 13-month period beginning in 
     December 1992; Interior had 9 and the Agriculture and 
     Veterans Affairs Departments each had 8. Over all, at least 
     80 workers were hired as Ramspeck appointments in that period 
     (several agencies didn't respond).
       Some congressional offices were especially adept at 
     Ramspecking. Former Rep. Gerry Sikorski, D-Minn., for 
     example, sent three aides to dry land that way after he lost 
     in 1992. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee--
     after its chairman, Quentin N. Burdick, D-N.D., died--managed 
     to Ramspeck four of Burdick's people. When the House Select 
     Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control went out of business 
     early last year, two of its employees were Ramspecked into 
     HHS. Former Rep. Mike Espy, D-Miss., took some aides with him 
     as political appointments when he became Agriculture 
     Secretary; he took three more under the Ramspeck Act.
       For all its seeming humanitarian utility, however, the 
     Ramspeck Act seems to have more critics than it does fans or 
     neutral observers.
       ``If you believe in separation of powers, why give 
     preference to legislative branch employees?'' a federal 
     personnel expert asked. ``This is a special privilege that 
     ought to be examined. If we're truly to have an apolitical 
     civil service, these kinds of things shouldn't go on. They 
     denigrate the underlying principles of an open and 
     competitive civil service.''
       Ramspecking is sometimes used as a kind of political 
     appointment, but with indefinite security. Applications for 
     jobs with Ramspeck certifications attached were a common 
     sight in the White House personnel office in the early days 
     of the Clinton Administration.
       ``I would argue that it's really not necessary,'' said Mark 
     Abramson, the president of the Council for Excellence in 
     Government, a not-for-profit organization of former public 
     officials. ``The political people can get political 
     appointments at any time through Schedule C or non-career SES 
     [Senior Executive Service]. I just don't see any reason to 
     give special treatment to congressional staff 

[[Page S10525]]
     members, I think it's outlived its usefulness, if there ever was one. 
     There's political appointments and then there's the career 
     process.''
       And clearly, congressional offices can manipulate the 
     process. One gambit plays off the fact that employees are 
     eligible for Ramspecking not only if the Member they work for 
     leaves Congress, but if their office goes through a 
     restructuring that leaves them out of work.
       ``If [a staff member] is interested in a civil service job, 
     congressional offices will go through the motions of 
     restructuring and certify them for Ramspeck,'' the staff 
     director of a Senate office said. ``If [it] doesn't hurt 
     anything, we will try to do it for them. Of course, we don't 
     say we did it at their request.''
       Offices also ``sometimes say they've restructured and they 
     haven't,'' one aide added. ``The way I look at it is, the 
     quality of life here is pretty low. It's long hours and low 
     pay, and for people with a family,
      it's hell. If there are small ways we can bend the rules to 
     make things easier, we do it.''
       Making things easier for a congressional aide, however, 
     doesn't necessarily make things easier for those on the other 
     end of the process.
       ``They come in with the support of a Congressman or a 
     Senator, and you're told as a manager that this person is 
     coming in at a given level,'' said a former agency manager 
     who now works for the White House. ``There are sometimes 
     complaints filed by other employees, but the grievances don't 
     hold up because it's legal.''
       A supervisor's resentment over being forced to hire someone 
     rarely has happy consequences. Stephen Hoddap, a staff member 
     of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee for three 
     years and a 17-year veteran of the National Park Service 
     before that, wanted to Ramspeck back to the Park Service 
     after his boss, Rep. Robert J. Lagomarsino, R-Calif., was 
     defeated in 1992. He became the assistant superintendent of 
     Shenandoah National Park over the objections of the 
     superintendent, who was told to hire him by higher-ups. 
     According to Hoddap, when he arrived, all his duties were 
     taken away and he had nothing to do. ``I had no job,'' Hoddap 
     said. He left after two months, returning to his old position 
     on the Hill but this time attached to Rep. Don Young, R-
     Alaska.''
       For career civil servants who are hoping to advance, 
     Ramspeck and other preferential appointments, which are often 
     at the highest levels, can ``shoot morale right to the 
     bottom,'' said a former employee of the Small Business 
     Administration, who saw such appointments bottle up the 
     promotion hopes of career civil servants in his office. ``It 
     affects quality of work, motivation and incentive to 
     achieve.''
       Ramspeck isn't the only preferential hiring loophole in the 
     federal personnel system. There are, for instance, a veterans 
     preference, a preference for those who have served in the 
     Peace Corps, a measure that in some cases gives priority to 
     Native Americans--even a preference for people who have 
     worked in the Panama Canal system. The huge number of special 
     hiring authorities and arrangements makes it clear that 
     merit--supposedly the backbone of federal personnel policy--
     is far from the only yardstick used in sizing up candidates.
       ``The general concept of having a congressional person go 
     to the head of the class is hard to justify in a merit 
     system,'' the staff director of a Senate committee said. 
     ``But the precedent has been set: the merit system has been 
     encroached on in other ways. Veterans get preference, I can't 
     justify that, either. We're talking about characteristics 
     that have nothing whatever to do with the ability to do the 
     job.''
       ``The merit system is very disjointed, and the definition 
     of merit is something that truly needs to be reexamined.'' 
     Patricia W. Ingraham, a professor of public administration at 
     Syracuse University's Maxwell Graduate School of Citizenship 
     and Public Affairs, said, ``It's a word that in many ways has 
     lost its meaning.''
       The multiple layers and tangled strands of the federal 
     personnel system were spotlighted by the National Performance 
     Review's report last fall: The 850 pages of federal personnel 
     laws, 13,000 pages of OPM regulations and 10,000
      pages of the Federal Personnel Manual don't make for 
     efficient and productive government, Gore declared. And 
     there's been some progress. Recently the manual was 
     slashed to 1,000 pages. Federal departments and agencies 
     are supposed to be developing their own hiring guidelines.
       But doing away with or reforming Ramspeck and its brethren 
     would require legislation, and no one expects the Clinton 
     Administration, for all its reinvention efforts, to tackle 
     preferential hiring systems head-on. ``There was an early 
     look at this,'' a participant in the National Performance 
     Review said. ``The decision was made not to tackle it. It was 
     a strategic decision; we could have lost the whole ball of 
     wax. Why throw up red herrings that would have Congress 
     pissed off at us?''
       The constituency for Ramspeck, after all, is Congress 
     itself.
       ``People are staying so far away from this, ``a top aide to 
     a congressional committee that deals with personnel matters 
     said. ``You have some trying to eliminate it, others saying 
     it serves a legitimate purpose. But the debate would be 
     around this being a perk for congressional staff, and I for 
     one would not relish that in the current atmosphere'' in 
     Washington.
       Some would simply argue for better policing of the Ramspeck 
     Act to prevent abuses. Currently there's no central oversight 
     of Ramspeck appointments, something the GAO may recommend in 
     its forthcoming report. OPM's review of Glidden's case and a 
     few others covered only the Interior Department and was 
     prompted by a large number of complaints and by requests from 
     a Senate committee: it is the only such review that OPM has 
     ever done, and the agency has no authority or plans to 
     routinely examine Ramspeck placements.
       Meanwhile, this year is shaping up as one that will bring 
     turnover on Capitol Hill rivaling that of 1992. As lawmakers 
     retire, run for other office or take their hits at the polls, 
     their staffs will be looking for someplace nice and safe to 
     land--someplace like the civil service. Look for plenty of 
     Ramspeck appointments to wash into the executive branch, 
     triggering the usual complaints from career civil servants--
     particularly because, as the federal work force, and 
     especially midlevel management, is downsized, there will be 
     more competition than ever for a limited pool of jobs.
       Potential Ramspeckers, start your engines. Demand for 
     Ramspeck certification forms is starting to pick up again at 
     the House Clerk's Office, according to records coordinator 
     Robert Duncan. It's a handy bit of paper to have in your hip 
     pocket come election time.
                          A LAWMAKER'S LAMENT

       What a legacy. Imagine if, after years of public service, 
     many people mentioned your name only in connection with an 
     employment perk for congressional staff, if they mentioned it 
     at all. In this case, even those who know the ins and outs of 
     the Ramspeck process have no idea who the man was; his name 
     has become a verb.
       Georgia Democrat Robert Ramspeck served in the House from 
     1929-45, a portion of which time he chaired the Civil Service 
     Committee; during his last two years, he was Democratic whip. 
     In the 1950s, he chaired the Civil Service Commission 
     (subsequently absorbed into the Office of Personnel 
     Management and the Merit Systems Protection Board).
       Ramspeck seemed to be acting in the interests of long-
     suffering congressional aides when he introduced legislation 
     to give them an edge in getting into more-secure government 
     jobs if they were thrown out of work on Capitol Hill.
       Making a living was a subject near and dear to Ramspeck's 
     heart. His colleagues reportedly were surprised when Ramspeck 
     resigned from Congress at the end of 1945 to take a job as a 
     lobbyist (yes, it was ever thus) with the Air Transport 
     Association. In March of the following year, his byline 
     appeared under the headline ``I Couldn't Afford to Be a 
     Congressman'' in a first-person piece for Collier's magazine. 
     Ramspeck wrote that on a Member's $10,000-a-year salary, he 
     could ``barely skin by,'' especially because at that time 
     lawmakers financed their own reelection campaigns and there 
     was no provision for retirement pay. Ramspeck proposed a 
     retirement system for Members similar to one that executive 
     branch employees had. It passed, but ``editorials denounced 
     us as moochers, as hogs in the public trough . . . the entire 
     Congress was besmeared,'' Ramspeck wrote, and the law was 
     rescinded. Congress eventually got its own retirement system.
       Ramspeck, incidentally, had other complaints about Congress 
     that seem eerily familiar nearly 50 years later. Among them: 
     ``I have known of some cases of scared voting by good men who 
     could foresee nothing but disaster for themselves if they 
     antagonized certain groups.''
       Ramspeck died in 1972.
                                                                    ____


                [From the National Journal, April 1995]

                       A Safe Haven for Ex-Aides?

                          (By Michael Crowley)

       The 1940 Ramspeck Act, designed to help congressional 
     employees who become unemployed ``involuntarily through 
     circumstances beyond their control'' find federal 
     jobs, has been put to good use since the November elections. 
     Now it's being put under the microscope.
       Suspecting that use of the act would surge after the 
     election left hundreds of Democratic aides jobless, Senate 
     Governmental Affairs Committee chairman William V. Roth Jr., 
     R-Del., asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) in November 
     to tally Ramspeck appointments.
       The GAO did, and found a 500 per cent increase in the over-
     all-rate of executive branch appointments since November, as 
     compared with the first 11 months of 1994. The 74 Ramspeck 
     Act appointments since November are already more than triple 
     the 21 in the first 11 months of last year.
       Roth, who says that he is ``shocked'' at this apparent 
     inconsistence with attempts to downsize the federal 
     government, has asked for more GAO reports, although he plans 
     no further action at this time.
       Even before the elections, congressional aides had their 
     eyes on Ramspeck opportunities. Last fall, the House 
     Administrative Assistants Alumni Association, a group that 
     helps former congressional staff members find new employment, 
     held a seminar offering tips on finding Ramspeck jobs.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I hope that my colleague from Mississippi 
and my colleague from Michigan, if they 

[[Page S10526]]
agree with this amendment, would also be amenable to adding this 
amendment, if there is a compromise, which I believe there will be, to 
either the gift ban or the lobbying ban or the combination of the two. 
I would appreciate their consideration on that.
  Mr. President, I will not ask for the yeas and nays because I have 
some anticipation that this amendment may be agreed to by both sides, 
although Senator Glenn, who has worked on this issue extensively, would 
probably want to be involved in the consideration of this amendment.
  Also, Mr. President, let me mention that there was a hearing held, 
thanks to the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens, in 
the Governmental Affairs Committee. I do not think there was any doubt 
that the testimony presented in that hearing was clear that this law 
long ago outlived its usefulness, if it ever had any.
  So I want to thank the Senator from Mississippi for supporting this 
amendment. I hope that the Senator from Michigan can. And although we 
could bring this legislation freestanding, I think it might be 
appropriate as an amendment on this bill since this legislation is an 
attempt to do away with some practices to which the American people 
object.
  Again, I want to congratulate the Senator from Mississippi, the 
Senator from Kentucky, and the Senator from Michigan, as well as 
Senators Feingold and Wellstone. I hope we can reach an agreement on 
this gift ban issue. I do not think it reflects great credit on this 
body when we seem to be arguing over whether $20 or $50 is an 
appropriate amount of money to purchase a vote of a Member of Congress. 
I hope that we can reach some level of accommodation and comity so that 
we reflect well on this body and the Congress as a whole.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Craig). The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me be brief, while the Senator from 
Arizona is on the floor. I am not as familiar with the amendment as 
others on the Governmental Affairs Committee, so I cannot comment at 
any length on this point.
  I just have one question I would like to ask the Senator from 
Arizona, however, and that is, I believe Senator Stevens has suggested 
some language which had been added to one version of the amendment 
which would have allowed, I believe, the past experience of the 
legislative staff to be considered at the time of the appointment. I am 
not familiar with the language, but I am wondering, I gather that 
language is not part of the Senator's amendment. We are trying to get 
hold of Senator Stevens relative to that language. I understand Senator 
Pryor has not yet arrived at the Capitol. I know that he had an 
interest in this legislation as well. I do not know what his position 
is relative to the amendment, however, and I do not want to suggest 
that he opposes it. He might not. I just do not know. He is en route to 
Washington from Arkansas.
  I just make those two comments for the information of my friend. 
Particularly I do want to alert him to the fact that I understand 
Senator Stevens did have language which was added at one point which 
was not in this form. We are trying to alert Senator Stevens so he will 
be aware of it.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor.
  Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I would like to offer a few comments this 
morning in support of the legislation dealing with lobby disclosure and 
gifts for Members of Congress.
  I think it is clear that the level of cynicism and disillusionment of 
the American people about the performance of Government and the 
integrity of public officials has reached rather historic heights. I 
think what helps fuel that sense of outrage is the public sense that 
the system is not serving the public good but instead is being 
manipulated by so-called special interests that serve their own ends. I 
would like to take a few moments to talk about the special interests 
and this anti-Government feeling that is so pervasive throughout the 
country.
  It seems to me that the word ``politician'' over the years has always 
been taken in a negative fashion. We hear radio commentators, for 
example, talk about ``the politicians.'' It is not said in a 
complimentary sense but rather a negative one. I have always preferred 
to use the phrase ``public official'' or ``public servant,'' because I 
think that is basically what we are sent here to be, and that is to 
serve the public's interest. Again, the word ``politician'' has that 
negative connotation or spin, and I suspect the words ``lobbyist'' and 
``special interest'' fall in the same category.
  Everyone who serves in the House and Senate understands that we are 
not specialists. We are great generalists. Perhaps in our past lives as 
private citizens, we had some degree of specialty. Mine was as a trial 
attorney. I tended to specialize in certain fields within that practice 
of trial work.
  Coming to Congress, I no longer was able to specialize by virtue of 
the fact that I had to have a much broader view of things. I had to try 
to make myself as knowledgeable as possible in a great variety of 
areas.
  So I became, like most of us here, a generalist. Of course, we are 
all familiar with the expression that a generalist is someone who reads 
less and less about more and more until he knows absolutely nothing 
about everything. I do not think we all fall in that category but, 
nonetheless, we often have to float along the top of issues by virtue 
of the very volume of issues we are required to confront. So when we 
hire people to work for us, our staff members, we try to hire the best 
and brightest to make sure that they are well informed on the issues 
that we are going to confront during the course of a legislative 
session.
  Lobbyists also play a very important role in our system. They are not 
to be derided or denigrated or criticized or condemned. They, in fact, 
are hired as experts to represent the people who, indeed, have special 
interests that come before the Congress. The notion somehow that 
special interests are antidemocratic could not be more wrong. Indeed, 
our Founding Fathers determined that our country was comprised of 
special interests. Virtually everybody in the country has a special 
interest.
  If you are talking about farmers who want subsidies or other 
Government programs to assist them in the production of their products, 
they are clearly a special interest. If you talk about homeowners who 
wish to have a tax deduction for interest payments on their mortgage, 
that clearly is a special interest. It is a policy we have adopted to 
encourage people to become homeowners but, again, it is a special 
interest. We have business men and women who would like to have 
accelerated depreciation schedules so that they can continue to 
modernize their businesses. That is a special interest. You can go to 
any facet of our society, and virtually everyone has a special interest 
in Government policies.
  Perhaps one of the clearest examples of this came about many years 
ago when I was flying on Delta Air Lines from Bangor to Washington. As 
I boarded the plane, a flight attendant stopped me, and she said, ``Are 
you bothered by all of those lobbyists down in Washington every day?'' 
I could see by her facial expression that she, in using the term 
``lobbyist,'' saw them as some sort of evil affliction upon our system.
  I said, ``Frankly, I am never bothered by a lobbyist in Washington.''
   The only people who lobby me intensely are flight attendants who 
insist that I preserve their tax-free travel status. There was a 
measure under consideration by the Senate Finance Committee some years 
ago to tax so-called fringe benefits. Many flight attendants, instead 
of receiving direct compensation, get free travel benefits for 
themselves and their spouses. Congress was considering taxing those 
benefits as income. So every time I got on the plane, guess what 
happened? I was lobbied by the flight attendants, saying, ``Please do 
not touch our tax-free travel benefits.''

  A point I was trying to make to the flight attendant was that she, in 
fact, was a lobbyist. She was lobbying me, as were her colleagues, on 
each and every occasion I got on a plane. It was another case of 
lobbying on behalf of a particular special interest. 

[[Page S10527]]

  So we have this notion that somehow lobbyists are an evil upon the 
system--that is wrong--and that special interests are somehow also 
something to be condemned, when, in fact, they are an inherent part of 
our system. People organize along the lines of their special interests. 
We can see many people here in the galleries today, visitors to 
Washington. They may be on school vacations or family vacations. They 
come to the Senate and to the House to sit in the galleries to look 
upon the system at work. For the most part, they cannot take the time 
out of their daily lives--and they probably cannot afford it--to be 
lobbying Members of Congress on a regular basis. But they may have a 
very special interest. They may have a very special interest in 
legislation that will have a major impact upon their businesses, upon 
their professions, upon their lives. And so what many are forced to do, 
by circumstances, is to hire an expert, hire a trade association, or 
hire a law firm that has developed expertise over the years to better 
articulate their viewpoints and to bring their views to the attention 
of the legislators who are elected to represent them. That is all part 
of our system. That is exactly what the democratic system is all about.
  The difficulty, of course, comes when there is a misperception that 
it is the special interests who hire the lobbyists who are gaining 
access and unfair advantage over the general commonweal, the general 
public good. That is where the cynicism starts to set in when there is 
a perception that just a few key people are being paid very high 
dollars in order to shape and influence and alter public policy in ways 
that are very damaging to the overall good of the country.
  That, Mr. President, is why we are here today to talk about lobbying 
disclosure, because the current system is simply a sham. It does not 
work. The laws are confusing, vague, overlapping, and duplicative. They 
require some to register--not many. Those who do register file 
information which is virtually meaningless. And so the cynicism starts 
to set in once again.
  We can recall that during the last Presidential campaign, when Ross 
Perot started to call the attention of the American people to those 
high-priced lobbyists and special interests in Washington controlling 
the destiny of the American people, he struck a cord, a deep cord of 
public approval. What we need to do is to reform the system in a way 
that provides uniformity, that provides simplicity, and that provides 
clarity. Those are the goals that Senator Levin and I have been 
striving to achieve for several years now.
  Frankly, we found during the course of the hearings on this 
legislation that there was not great disagreement from the lobbying 
community itself. They were, in fact, eager to have some piece of 
legislation, comprehensive in nature, that would lay out with clarity 
exactly what are their responsibilities. So we tried to address the 
issue of who is required to register? Who is being paid to lobby? How 
much is that person or organization or firm or association being paid 
to lobby? And to lobby on what?
  So basically, who is being paid how much to lobby on what? Those were 
the essential ingredients of the legislation we have proposed in past 
sessions. Regrettably, there was a good deal of misunderstanding in the 
final days of the last session that delayed action on the bill. I 
believe this is an issue that cannot continue to be delayed without 
contributing to this deep sense of cynicism that continues to exist 
among the American people.
  It is my hope that as we discuss this today, and focus, also, on the 
issue of gifts, we can reach agreement. I might say that few of us 
believe that any Member of this body or the other body is going to be 
corrupted by a steak dinner or a pocketknife or some other token that 
comes through a Member's office during the course of a year. 
Nonetheless, it is an issue that we have to address.
  I think Senator McCain struck precisely the right note when he said 
we should not be arguing whether the gift limit should be $20, $50, or 
$100. The issue is whether there should be any at all. Should we try to 
remove the seeds of discontent, even though we feel that it has been 
perhaps mischaracterized, that it is a false perception? Nonetheless, 
it is a deeply held perception, so we ought to remove it.
  Mr. President, Senator Levin and I have proposed an amendment to the 
lobby disclosure bill which is designed to meet the objections of our 
colleagues. We think that it fairly does that. First, as Senator Levin 
already indicated, the grassroots lobbying provisions that were 
included in last year's conference report that caused such controversy 
are no longer included in this bill. They are excluded. The pending 
amendment would go even further to the extent there is any uncertainty 
on this point. It provides additional clarification that the bill does 
not apply to grassroots lobbying or other communications made by 
volunteers to express their own views.
  The amendment also doubles the thresholds when individuals or 
organizations are required to register as lobbyists. It eliminates the 
provisions that would establish a new agency to administer and enforce 
the law. It maintains the current system of having reports filed with 
the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House.
  I understand the concern on the part of our colleagues, who say, 
``Here they go again, another new layer of bureaucracy. Here is a brand 
new agency that is going to be created with all the attendant levels of 
bureaucratic delay and redundancy.'' I think there was a measure of 
merit to the concern. Our problem was that we did not know where to put 
the repository for the reports. We have agreed, however, that we do not 
want to complicate this matter and create another bureaucratic layer of 
duplication for the people who have to file. So we have agreed to 
eliminate that provision.
  Finally, the amendment would strike the enforcement provisions and, 
instead, provide the Secretary or the Clerk to notify lobbyists who may 
be in violation, and refer possible violations to the appropriate U.S. 
attorney if no corrective action is taken.
  We have tried to accommodate our colleagues' concern that this is 
somehow going to turn into a witch hunt of lobbyists who might have 
made innocent mistakes. That is not our intent at all. I have tried to 
indicate by my own comments that I believe lobbyists provide a valuable 
contribution to the legislative process. We, frankly, cannot function 
effectively without having lobbyists who represent ``special 
interests,'' who are in fact the American people. We need their 
expertise to be brought to our staffs and to us, and to weigh their 
views. That really is what we are elected to do--to weigh the relative 
merits of the case made by those advocates who are hired by the 
American people to come to us to urge a particular position.
  As long as a system is open to everybody, the American people will 
benefit. The danger is when there is a perception that only a few big 
lobbyists are getting through, only a few big special interests are 
getting through, only the ones who can afford to hire the high-priced 
individual can get through. That is where the cynicism comes in, and 
that is what we have to do our level best to seek to eradicate.
  We want to make sure that the public is fully aware of who is being 
hired, by whom, how much they are being paid, and to do what. As long 
as there is full disclosure of those activities, then at least there is 
hope that we can reduce that level of distrust, that level of 
alienation, that level of cynicism.
  Mr. President, I hope as we move through the afternoon's debate that 
we can arrive at an understanding or accommodation. We have tried to 
take into account our colleagues' concerns. We believe that we have 
moved substantially in that direction, to remove any doubts about what 
the goal ought to be.
  I think the goal is shared by all--simplification, uniformity, and 
clarity. Those are the goals that Senator Levin and I seek to achieve, 
and I believe with a measure of good will demonstrated throughout the 
day we can arrive at a consensus where there will be virtually 
unanimous consent for the legislation that will emerge. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me first thank my friend from Maine for 
the continuing contributions which he has made to political reform. 

[[Page S10528]]

  This bill before the Senate on lobby disclosure is one of three 
pillars of reform. He has been steadfast in his support of lobby 
disclosure reform. Whether I have chaired the subcommittee or he has 
chaired the subcommittee, we have worked together on this through a 
number of Congresses.
  Hopefully, we will be able to pass a strong bill today to put an end 
to a situation which breeds total disrespect for law. We have a number 
of laws on the books that purportedly require lobbyists to register and 
disclose but are both a sham and in a shambles--and have been that way 
for decades.
  Hopefully, we will not only pass a strong bill here today on lobby 
disclosure and lobby reform, but we can at long last get a bill that 
passes the House, gets through a conference, and gets adopted by both 
Houses in exactly the same form. When that happens, I am sure we will 
be celebrating together just as we have worked so hard together through 
this past decade and a half on this and so many other subjects. I want 
to thank him for his leadership in this area.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be relatively brief. First, I 
thank Senators Levin and Cohen for their very fine work, and I am very 
pleased to be an original cosponsor. As all of my colleagues know, we 
have taken up lobbying reform first and then later we will take up the 
gift ban legislation.
  I think both Senators make a compelling case. We really have not made 
any changes since the late 1940's--I think, since 1948. The point is, 
for those that are paid to lobby, whether lobbying legislators or 
members of the executive branch, this is part of the way in which we 
conduct politics in Washington, DC. People in the country have a right 
to know who is being paid to lobby and have a right to have some 
understanding--or a clearer understanding, let me say--of the kind of 
scope of those activities. I think that is what we are trying to do in 
this lobbying reform effort.
  Mr. President, again, I think this goes to the heart of 
accountability. I think it goes to the best of good government. I 
certainly hope that this very important lobbying reform effort will 
bear fruit and we will pass a reform measure.
  Senator Cohen said it well as I was coming in. I believe what I heard 
him say, that it was absolutely nothing to do with the denigration of 
the work of any particular lobbyist, that is not it at all. It has much 
more to do, again, with just making sure that it is a political process 
that is open and accountable. That is the issue.
  I commend both Senators for their very fine work, and say that I am 
very proud to be a part of this. It is also true, Mr. President, and I 
want to be clear, we will take up gift ban later on. That is not what 
is on the floor right now.
  We have two different amendments--two different initiatives--that we 
will be dealing with separately. I do think, however, there is an 
important connection, namely, as we move forward and pass--and I 
believe we will, I believe we must--a comprehensive gift ban reform and 
as we put some restrictions on this. It is very important. Obviously, 
if we are going to have some very clear restrictions about what 
lobbyists can give, then it will not work if only a small fraction of 
those who are actually paid to lobby are ever really listed, or if we 
do not have a clear idea as to who the people are who are getting paid 
to lobby, or we have no clear idea of what their scope of activities 
are. Those measures, in a policy sense, are very closely related.
  Mr. President, the last point--and let me again point out for 
colleagues that gift ban is later; right now it is lobbying reform. One 
more time, in 1994, 88 current Senators, 85 veteran Senators and 3 of 
the 6 freshman Senators who served in the House of Representatives in 
1994 voted in favor of the comprehensive gift ban bill which we will 
have on the floor tonight or tomorrow. I just would say to those 
Senators that I think there was a reason for that kind of broad-based 
support. I hope people will not retreat from that or essentially change 
their positions or flip-flop, or whatever characterization can be used.
  Mr. President, this is an issue that people in the country feel very 
strongly about. I think it goes beyond just the gift ban reform. I 
think it has more to do with the very strong sense that people have 
about politics in Washington.
  The Senator from Kentucky and I have many disagreements in these 
different areas, but I personally think--and I apologize to the Senator 
if I am being presumptuous--but I personally believe there is one very 
strong area of agreement, which is that neither Senator would be in 
public service if we did not believe in our work. I reject the across-
the-board bashing and denigration of public service, whether it is 
Democrats or Republicans or Independents. I think it takes us nowhere 
good as a nation.
  My very strong feeling about this is that the sooner we move forward 
and pass what I think would really be some strong reform measures, 
credible reform measures, that changes some of the political culture in 
the Nation's Capital, the better off all will be. We need to let go of 
it. I think people want us to let go of it. I think we have at the 
moment, whether tonight or tomorrow or whenever we get to gift ban, 
some very major differences.
  I say to my colleague later, when we get a chance to debate this, 
because I do not want to move in on the lobbying reform time, but I 
think that at the moment, at least, the Republican proposal has just 
some gigantic loopholes, large enough for a truck to drive through.
  Later on tonight, not now, Mr. President, I will include an editorial 
from the New York Times on Saturday called ``Republican Gift Fraud.'' 
Frankly, before it is all over, I think we can pass a strong 
comprehensive gift ban legislation.
  To give but one example, if we essentially say any gift under $100 is 
fine, lobbyists or others, and it does not aggregate, in theory, every 
day of the week someone can be taking Members out or paying for a 
ticket to an Orioles game or whatever. This is where there is agreement 
and disagreement.
  On the agreement part, I do not actually think that Senators ``are 
for sale.'' I do not look at any of this as sort of representing the 
wrongdoing of individual officerholders.
 I just do not believe that is what it is about. But at a systemic 
level, I must say that what people of Minnesota say to me is, ``Look, 
Senator, people do not come up and ask to take us out to dinner.''

  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Does the Senator from Kentucky have a question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I want to commend the Senator for his observation, 
because I do think there is a lot of rhetoric about people selling 
influence for lunch. I appreciate the observations of the Senator from 
Minnesota that is clearly not the case.
  I also think that the only thing I agree with my friend from 
Minnesota about is, I think, on the gift issue, it is time to get it 
over with one way or the other. I think it is time to make a decision. 
I think we will have a good debate about what is appropriate; hopefully 
in restrained tones, without a lot of implications that things are 
going on that are clearly not going on.
  So I commend the Senator from Minnesota for his observation that any 
such suggestions that Members of the Senate are selling influence for 
lunch are absurd. And I hope we can have a high-level, appropriate 
debate on this issue. Second, I agree with the Senator from Minnesota, 
I think it is time to wrap it up on the gift rule and, hopefully, we 
will be able to do that later tonight or first thing in the morning.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky 
again. I said to my colleague from Michigan I did not want, now, to 
make gift ban the focus. We are now on lobbying reform. Of course the 
disagreement the Senator from Kentucky and I have, and I think also 
with the Senator from Michigan and others, that while I do not think 
the issue was the wrongdoing of an individual officeholder, that was my 
position--while I reject the denigration and the bashing of public 
service and people who are in public service because I am very proud 
the Minnesotans have given me this opportunity to be a Senator--on the 
other hand, I think as I started to say, when people in Minnesota come 
up to me--you may have had the same thing happen to you, Mr. 
President--what people say is, ``Look, Senator, in all due respect, 
people do not offer to take us 

[[Page S10529]]
out. Lobbyists are not asking us to go out to dinner. They are not 
always contributing tickets for games, they are not paying for us to go 
to various events in the country, for our travel for ourselves or our 
spouses. And we do not think it is appropriate that you take those 
gifts either. Because whether or not this leads to undue influence, it 
certainly seems that way to us.''
  I must say that it does become a part of the pattern of influence in 
Washington. It does become a part of the political culture in this 
city. And that is what makes it so profoundly wrong.
  So, while I am not here to bash individual Senators or 
Representatives, or point the finger and say that somebody sold out for 
a particular lunch, I would say in the aggregate this is the way in 
which business is now conducted that does lead to a situation where too 
few people have way too much access and way too much say. And too many 
people, too many of the people we represent, are left out of the loop. 
That is why I think this will be such a fundamental debate later on.
  Mr. President, we may get to it tonight or we may get to it tomorrow. 
I think we ought to be voting one way or another and we ought to be 
held accountable.
  Again, I say to all of my colleagues, last year, 85 Senators and 3 of 
the 6 freshman Senators who served in the House, voted for this measure 
that Senator Levin, myself, Senator Feingold, Senator Lautenberg, 
Senator McCain and others have worked on. So I do not see why in the 
world now, especially when everybody has been talking about reform, 
there would be a retreat from this.
  The majority leader himself, I think, last October 15 came out on the 
floor and said: No lobbyist lunches, no entertainment, no travel, no 
contributions to legal defense, no fruit baskets, no nothing. It could 
not be clearer. We will get to that later on.
  At the moment, I say to colleagues, I hope there will be a coming 
together over the next couple of days. First, we will pass a good, 
strong, lobbying reform effort. This is very significant, what Senator 
Levin and Cohen have been working on. This goes to the heart of a 
really important reform issue that, by the way, people in the country 
care fiercely about.
  It is not true that people in the country are not focused on good 
Government, are not focused on making Government more open and more 
accountable. This goes to the heart of that. So I think it is 
imperative that we come together and pass a strong reform effort in the 
lobbying reform area.
  The same thing could be said for the gift ban, Mr. President. The 
same thing can be said for the gift ban. For my own part, I would like 
nothing better than to see Senators on both sides of the aisle come 
together and support two major reform initiatives in these two decisive 
areas, lobbying reform and gift ban.
  On the other hand, when it comes to gift ban, given what I have seen 
on the Republican side so far, I do not view that as a step forward. I 
view it as a great leap sideways or backwards. If that is the case, 
then we will have a major, major debate and then all of us will be held 
accountable. But I say to colleagues: People in the country are serious 
about this. I think we can come through for people.
  If we do, I think it will be good for the Senate. I think it will be 
good for the political process, the legislative process, in the 
future--in the distant future when many of us are no longer serving 
here. I think we can feel like we made a huge difference. And I 
certainly think it will go a significant ways toward restoring some 
confidence that I think people yearn to have in our political process.
  The missing piece is the campaign finance reform piece which I also 
hope we will take up later.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first let me thank our colleague from 
Minnesota for the tremendous energy and leadership which he has 
displayed in a whole host of reform efforts; first, on the gift ban, 
but also very actively involved in lobbying disclosure reform as well, 
and campaign finance reform. Those three reforms are the three most 
critical reforms that we need around this place if we are going to 
restore public confidence in Government. It is at a low point. It is 
tragic when that occurs. When public cynicism runs deep about a 
democratic Government, Government has to act to restore that public 
confidence. That is what we are in the midst of doing.
  That famous handshake between the President and the Speaker of the 
House in New Hampshire was over that issue, reform. They spoke about a 
lot of other issues. They spoke about welfare reform and they spoke 
about a whole host of issues at that meeting with seniors. They talked 
about Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security. But when it came down 
to a handshake, where they reached to each other and said we have a 
deal, what that deal related to was political reform.
  The people want us to change the way we do business in Washington. 
They want to feel, and they are entitled to feel, that this Government 
is their Government. When the public opinion polls show that the 
majority of Americans feel that lobbyists are the real power in 
Washington and only 22 percent think Congress is the power, and 7 
percent think the President is the power, we must act to restore 
confidence that in fact their elected representatives will control the 
power in Washington.
  Lobbying reform is the first item we are taking up. Hopefully, again, 
we are going to be able to do what no Congress for the last 50 years 
has done, which is to plug the loopholes in lobby disclosure laws which 
have resulted in these laws being useless and probably worse than 
useless.
  How could a law be worse than useless? First of all, its presence on 
the books, if it is ignored, breeds disrespect for law. If the public 
is told there are lobby disclosure laws on the books, which there are, 
and if it knows most paid lobbyists do not register because of the 
loopholes in the law, then those laws are worse by being there than if 
they were not there at all. Better if you have no laws than to have 
laws that are such a sham and in such a shambles. Nothing breeds 
disrespect much more for law than having a law on the books, which is 
aimed at doing something, which totally fails to do something.
  Another reason why it is worse than nothing to have those laws on the 
books is because it is producing ream on ream of paperwork, which takes 
time to produce, time to prepare, time to file, time to maintain, and 
which is giving us almost useless information, information which is not 
in a form which is useful to anybody. So we know probably a majority of 
the paid representatives in this town are not registering because of 
the loopholes in the law and those that do are giving us information 
which is not in a form which is usable by anybody.
  So what we are engaged in here is to try to address the first big, 
major reform which is required if we are going to restore public 
confidence in Government and that is the lobbying disclosure bill, 
which is a bipartisan bill. Let me emphasize this. Senator Cohen has 
been working with me, Democrats and Republicans have been working on 
this issue, for a long time. The same thing is true with the gift ban. 
We have Democrats and Republicans who are supporting a strong gift ban.
  So we are going to continue to try to work together today to see if 
we cannot finally pass a lobbying disclosure bill, and then once that 
is addressed and once that is resolved move on to the gift ban 
legislation.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me just reinforce one point that 
Senator Levin made. Again, I do not know anybody in the Senate that has 
provided more leadership for reform of good government than the Senator 
from Michigan over the years.
  I do not know if it is the conventional wisdom here any longer, but 
at one point in time I think the conventional wisdom here in the 
Congress, Representatives and Senators, Democrats and Republicans 
alike--I make a nonpartisan point here--was these reform issues, 
lobbying disclosure reform, comprehensive gift ban reform, and also 
campaign finance reform. But let me take the lobbying disclosure reform 
and gift ban reform. 

[[Page S10530]]

  I think that unfortunately too many Democrats and Republicans alike 
believe that these reform issues are of interest to ``goo-goo,'' good 
government, people. There has been a certain cynicism about it. But it 
is just not true. There have been a lot of public interest 
organizations that have been at this for years--Public Citizen, Common 
Cause. You could go on an on. But the much more important point is that 
people yearn for good Government. They yearn for a political process 
they can believe in. These are no longer, if they ever were, reform 
issues. These are really issues that people talk about in their 
kitchens and their living rooms. I just think that we make a huge 
mistake when we try to stonewall the change.
  So my hope, starting with lobbying disclosure reform and then with 
comprehensive gift ban reform, is that before the debate is over, we 
can in the next several days be very proud, all of us, that we will 
have made some huge changes, significant changes, positive changes. I 
think, if there is stonewall, to come up with measures that sort of 
have the label of reform but the closer you look at them the more 
dubious they are--in fact, they do not meet the credibility test--I 
think the worse off all of us will be.
  So let us start with the lobbying disclosure reform. I say to the 
whip, let us move forward, let us come together, and let us pass 
something that we are all proud of. Then let us try to do exactly the 
same thing with comprehensive gift ban reform.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I indicated earlier I think we can see 
the light at the end of the tunnel in terms of the lobby disclosure 
bill. The Senator from Michigan indicated Friday afternoon, as he has 
further indicated this morning, his willingness to make some 
adjustments that I think move us a long way toward a truly bipartisan 
lobby disclosure bill.
  The Senator from Michigan indicated that he is willing to double the 
threshold in terms of definition of a lobbyist from 20 percent of time 
spent over 6 months. That is something we are actively discussing now 
at the staff level in the hope of resolving it. The Senator from 
Michigan is also willing to double the threshold for registration and 
reporting by organizations. That certainly is a step in the right 
direction of protecting people's ability to petition the Congress. And 
the Senator from Michigan is making further efforts to clarify the 
grassroots lobbying communication exemption. Of course, that is 
critically important. These folks have constitutional rights, too, and 
deserve not to have them walked on by the Congress.
  In addition to that, I think an important step in the right direction 
is the elimination of a new Government agency. Frankly, Mr. President, 
the last thing we need to do in this almost $5 trillion debt 
environment is to create yet another Government agency with yet more 
responsibility. It seems to me, the whole thrust of the 103d Congress 
is to go in the direction of less government. And clearly this bill 
ought to be consistent with that.
  Mr. President, let me say that I think we need to reform our lobby 
registration and disclosure laws. I think we are on the threshold of 
being able to accomplish that in a way that does not unduly interfere 
with the rights of citizens, whether they are paid or not paid, to 
petition the Government because the courts make no distinction. You do 
not waive your constitutional rights because you are paid to represent 
a group that may be too busy to come to Washington. That is what 
lobbyists largely do, represent American citizens who choose not to 
become experts on legislation and employ someone else to speak for 
them. There is nothing un-American about that. Under the Constitution, 
we have the obligation not to interfere with this constitutional right 
to express ourselves that each of us enjoy.
  Mr. President, with regard to the original bill, S. 101, the bill had 
set up a new Government agency. As I said earlier, we commend the 
Senator from Michigan for discarding that. It seems to me that clearly 
was not a good idea, and that moves us in the direction of passing this 
legislation.
  The original bill, in my view, would have chilled the exercise of 
constitutional rights, and would have caused some who were inclined to 
contact the Congress with their views to simply refrain from doing so 
because of the fear of prosecution. The disclosure and reporting 
requirements in the original bill were clearly elaborate, and apply to 
virtually anyone with business before the Congress. And that would have 
the effect of keeping people from expressing their views to us. From my 
perspective, that is exactly the wrong message to be sending to the 
American people. We should welcome them to Washington. We should be 
glad to receive their views. We should not be making it so difficult 
for people to communicate with Congress that they choose to stay home 
and avoid telling us how they feel.
  Third, the original bill, it seems to me, had some difficulties with 
regard to creating a patchwork of lobby regulations. It contained a 
host of exemptions that did not make sense. For example, why are public 
officials exempt? If the American people have a right to know how much 
the American Soft Drink Association, for example, spends on lobbying, 
then why not the city of New York, the State of California, or the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors?
  Fourth, the original bill touched on grassroots activity. That goes 
down a road we do not need to go. And the Senator from Michigan is 
trying to make adjustments to clear that up. I commend him for that. We 
are working on that at the staff level as we speak to try to further 
clarify where we may be on that so that we can move forward with a 
compromise.
  I have been working on an alternative. My alternative is clear and 
consistent. And most importantly, it is simple and will get those who 
lobby Congress registered so the public knows who is influencing public 
policy. Let me explain what the alternative I may propose would do.
  First, the main problem with the lobby law is that it only reaches 
contacts with Members of Congress. Clearly, we all agree that those 
groups and individuals who contact Congress for the purpose of 
influencing matters pending before Congress, even if they contact 
staff, should be registered. So our alternative would apply to those 
who make more than a single contact with legislative branch officials 
on behalf of a client for the purpose of influencing any pending matter 
before Congress. And any pending matter means more than legislate. It 
means oversight hearings, investigations, and anything that is within 
the jurisdiction of a Member of Congress. The definition of lobbyist 
also includes the preparation and planning for lobbying meetings.
  But where we disagree with the Senator from Michigan, at least in his 
original version, is the amount of time spent on lobbying that it takes 
to meet the definition of lobbyists. The Senator from Michigan has 
moved in our direction. I want to commend him again for that by raising 
the threshold to 20 percent of his or her time lobbying, therefore 
bringing you within the scope of the bill. Our concern is that such a 
definition could catch within its net those who work outside of 
Washington who have very limited contacts with Congress. So the 
definition I would prefer is to set the threshold at 25 percent. But 
obviously we are not too far apart here, a difference between 20 and 25 
percent; that is, someone who spends one-quarter of his or her time, or 
a substantial part of his or her professional life, lobbying would then 
fall within the requirements of the alternative.
  Another major difference is the scope of our bill. Senator Levin's 
original bill would reach executive branch lobbying as well as 
Congress. To accomplish that, Senator Levin in his original bill 
created a new Federal agency to enforce and administer the law. We part 
company with the need to address the executive branch lobbying and the 
establishment of a new Government agency to enforce the new law.
  Now the Senator from Michigan has taken a different tack on that at 
this point, and I am pleased he has. I think that certainly makes it 
much more likely we can finish up this legislation on a bipartisan 
basis. As I indicated earlier, the American people did not send us here 
to create more Federal Government, and the movement away 

[[Page S10531]]
from it is certainly welcomed, certainly by me and I think many on both 
sides of the aisle.
  The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House are well 
suited to continue receiving lobby registration forms. These offices 
can improve the dissemination of this information, making it more user 
friendly for the public. That is what our alternative aims to do.
  As far as the executive branch coverage, an item we are still 
discussing here as we hope to work this matter out, my view is it is 
just not necessary. Contacts with the executive branch are highly 
regulated under the Administrative Procedure Act. Regulations are 
formulated by a very detailed process that allows interested parties to 
participate. And Congress always has oversight and legislative power 
over regulations issued by Aencies. Administrative adjudication is also 
a formal process.
  Moreover, we know from the experience of the health care task force 
run by the First Lady that efforts by the executive branch to make 
policy in secret generally backfire anyway. And a legal challenge has 
resulted in that particular case in all of that information becoming 
public.
  So, Mr. President, from our point of view, we should clean up our own 
house. Let us get the right coverage of lobbyists who lobby us here in 
the Congress. Let us get information related to their work properly 
available and disclosed to the public. Let us not make registration and 
disclosure so cumbersome that we signal to the American people that 
their voices are simply not welcome here in Washington. We want their 
input. We encourage Americans to join organizations that represent 
their views, and we hope they will let us know what they think.
  When James Madison wrote Federalist No. 10, he envisioned a 
competition of ideas from, as he put it, ``factions.'' Today, we would 
call those factions lobbyists. We who are elected to represent our 
constituents are called upon to build consensus among the various 
factions. Where we are unable to build consensus, we are called upon to 
choose from among the competing ideas put forward by the lobbyists or, 
if you will, the factions.
  So there is nothing wrong with lobbying. It is not an evil thing. It 
was envisioned by the Framers. It is part of our Constitution's first 
amendment which protects free speech and petitioning the Government 
with grievances.
  And finally, while lobbying is an honorable profession, we want to 
make sure that those who abuse the public trust they hold as lobbyists 
are punished for their misdeeds. We propose to let the U.S. attorney 
prosecute those who violate the law. The first offense would be subject 
to civil sanctions and subsequent offenses would be subject to criminal 
penalties. We want lobbyists to register; we want their activities 
disclosed, but let us not chill protected constitutional rights in the 
process.
  Mr. President, the discussions on this matter are proceeding. And 
again, let me say we are hoping we can achieve at least close to a 
consensus on the lobby disclosure bill which we can pass by an 
overwhelming margin sometime later today or tonight.
  Mr. President, I do not see anyone else wishing to address the 
Senate. Therefore, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grassley). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McCain). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, there are active negotiations underway on 
language in the lobby reform bill. I think we are making progress and 
some important changes and agreements have already been reached. There 
are a few areas where, obviously, there is still some disagreement or 
some lack of clarity as to what it would do.
  Since the principals are here on the floor, it would be helpful, I 
believe, if we go ahead and recess until a time certain to allow the 
principals in this legislation to talk directly.
  Also, we hope, when we come back in after that recess, we will be 
able to get an agreement on a specified time, agreed-to time to vote on 
or in relation to the McCain amendment. It may be other amendments will 
be ready at that time, but at least we would like to get an agreement 
to get a vote at 5:45 on the McCain amendment.

                          ____________________