[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 120 (Monday, July 24, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10535-S10536]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to talk about the 
bill that is on the floor.
  Mr. President, I think that we are coming to a very important time in 
this Congress, and that is the time that we are going to be dealing 
with reform of our lobby laws, and later the gift laws that apply to 
Members of Congress.
  Mr. President, it is important that we have Government in the 
sunshine.
  The bill that is before us, lobby reform and lobby control, is an 
important one, and we have passed a similar bill in previous 
Congresses. Last year, I voted for a bill that would have required more 
disclosure of lobbying efforts without in any way though infringing on 
the right of individuals to seek an audience or a time with their 
Members of Congress.
  We do not want to do anything that would keep a teacher who happens 
to be a member of a teachers organization from directly contacting a 
Member of Congress. But there are many lobbying activities that may now 
not be disclosable that should be disclosable. I know the Members of 
our parties on both sides of the aisle are working on a compromise 
right now, and I hope we can come up with something that will provide 
public information of everything that is going on, every contact that 
is being made by a registered lobbyist or someone representing a lobby 
group. I think it is very important that the people of this country 
know who it is seeing Members of Congress when we are talking about 
important legislation.
  We are also going to be taking up gift reform, and that is another 
important issue. I think it is important we have contribution limits, 
and we do have contribution limits. And I have voted to make those 
contribution limits even lower. We also have limits on how much you can 
take in a gift, which may be a T-shirt or it may be a basket of fruit 
or it may be something very small but that someone gives you just as 
they would give you if you worked in any office.
  I wish to just say that those are appropriate limits. We do now have 
limitations which I think are very appropriate. I think we must be very 
careful as we go into the debate on gift ban not to go to such a level 
that you would then be able to be prosecuted for something which would 
really be inadvertent.
  For instance, if you go to a zero gift, then presumably if you have 
coffee and doughnuts or a lunch with someone who happens to be a friend 
who may also work for a corporation or may be a teacher, then are you 
going to violate a ban on gifts?
  I do not think anyone who is thinking rationally believes that just 
because you talk to someone or have lunch with someone or dinner with 
someone or a group gives you a T-shirt that is going to affect the way 
you vote on important public policy issues. These are things that 
happen in offices all over our country. It is the way people show 
normal appreciation for a friendship or for working together on some 
kind of issue. So I think we have to be very careful to make sure we do 
the things that would keep you from being able to abuse the ability to 
receive a gift without going to such a length we then allow for 
selective prosecution by people who do not have good will or for 
inadvertent things to happen that do not mean anything but nevertheless 
would put you in the position of a technical violation.
  Mr. President, I just think as we go forward we need to keep in mind 
that everyone wants openness in Government, reporting of things that 
are received, without in any way, though, keeping a normal person from 
being able to contact or have the minimal ability to send a flower or a 
T-shirt to someone who they have worked with on an issue and had a good 
result or want to show some appreciation.
  I go to functions across my State, and I may go to the chamber of 
commerce and make a speech to a chamber of commerce banquet. They will 
send me flowers or they will send something from the city, a cup or 
something. I appreciate that. I think it is a nice gesture. It makes me 
think of that city. I have things all over my office, cups and candy 
jars and things from the city of Lamar, from the city of Gainesville, 
or the city of Houston, or the city of Dallas. We cannot stop normal 
behavior, normal appreciativeness, contact with chambers of commerce or 
teachers or unions. That just does not make sense.
  So I hope we will keep the commonsense test as we go forward. I do 
not think anyone believes that being able to have the normal course of 
business is in any way prohibiting a fair look at legislation.
  So I just hope common sense will be the test, Mr. President. I think 
it is very important that we make improvements. I think we are doing 
that. I think as we go along and we see what works and what does not 
work or what is falling through the cracks we will take the steps to 
close those loopholes. That is what we are trying to do, and I hope we 
will have a good result. I hope we will have a big lobby reform vote 
today, just like we did last year. It was something like 96 to 5 that 
the lobby reform bill passed last year, but then it got hung up in 
conference, and it got changed and did not pass.
  So I hope we can pass a good bill this year; that it will go through 
conference and that it will be an overwhelming, bipartisan effort to 
close the loopholes we have in the law today. But let us make sure we 
have enough common sense that an inadvertent error which really does 
not make a difference does not cause someone who does not have good 
will or good intentions to be able to prosecute or in any way build 
something up so that it makes a criminal out of a public servant.
  It is not easy to be in public service at this point in time, and I 
certainly do not want to harass people who are just trying to do what 
is right by having some kind of law that would allow a technical 
violation. So let us go forward in a positive and bipartisan way and 
see if we cannot work to close the loopholes that are there and have 
sunshine in Government. That is what we all want, and that is what I 
think we can come to agreement on if we will just look at the big 
picture and put common sense in the equation.
  I thank the Chair.
  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. BROWN. 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. BROWN. Mr. President, what is the pending business of the Senate? 


[[Page S10536]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is amendment No. 1837 to 
the bill, S. 1060.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
business be set aside and that I be allowed to offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1838

 (Purpose: To amend title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to 
       require a more detailed disclosure of the value of assets)

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

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1838.

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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 in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC.  . DISCLOSURE OF THE VALUE OF ASSETS UNDER THE ETHICS IN 
                   GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978.

       (a) Income.--Section 102(a)(1)(B) of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978 is amended--
       (1) in clause (vii) by striking ``or''; and
       (2) by striking clause (viii) and inserting the following:
       ``(viii) greater than $1,000,000 but not more than 
     $5,000,000, or
       ``(xi) greater than $5,000,000.''.
       (b) Assets and Liabilities.--Section 102(d)(1) of the 
     Ethics in Government Act of 1978 is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (F) by striking ``and''; and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (G) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(G) greater than $1,000,000 but not more than $5,000,000;
       ``(H) greater than $5,000,000 but not more than 
     $25,000,000;
       ``(I) greater than $25,000,000 but not more than 
     $50,000,000; and
       ``(J) greater than $50,000,000.''.

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the amendment is somewhat straightforward. 
What it does is attempt to update the categories that we have for 
disclosure. It does not attempt to give full valuation or more accurate 
valuation of the lower amounts. What it does do is address the cutoff 
we now have in the statute. Right now someone may have an asset worth 
$100 million but would report it only as above $1 million.
  A recent article in Roll Call, I think, illustrates some of the 
ambiguities of our current disclosure statutes. They listed the top 10 
lawmakers they felt had substantial assets serving in both the House 
and the Senate.
  As the chart adjacent to me shows, what resulted from our disclosure 
was something of a misrepresentation, if you assume Roll Call's numbers 
are correct. Let me emphasize, I do not know that Roll Call's estimates 
are correct. They may well be incorrect. What is quite clear is that 
our disclosure categories are not complete. An asset worth $150 
million, or perhaps even more, is reported on the disclosure form 
simply as over $1 million.
  Is there a difference in the potential conflict of interest, is there 
are difference in the significance of assets that might be $200 or $300 
million versus $1 million? I believe so. Such substantial amounts tend 
to indicate control, tend to indicate the level of interest that is 
quite different than simply something that might be above $1 million as 
is shown on the disclosure form.
  This amendment adds new categories. There is nothing magic in what we 
suggest. We do provide modest relief from that $1 million limit. It 
creates a category of $1 million to $5 million. It creates a category 
of $5 million to $25 million. It creates a category of $25 million to 
$50 million and a category of over $50 million.
  The amendment does not attempt to cover all possible values. Someone 
could well criticize it for not having more subcategories. It could 
well be criticized because it does not differentiate assets over $50 
million. But it is meant to provide at least some additional definition 
to these categories that have become so inadequate in terms of 
disclosing accurately assets that we require to be reported.
  Being in a statute form as it is, it will apply not only to the 
Senate but to the House of Representatives and to the executive branch 
as well.
  I think the amendment is straightforward. It is meant to give us a 
clear picture in our disclosure forms and more accurately alert Members 
and the public to potential conflicts of interest.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. 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. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am not 
trying to stop the Senator from offering his amendments. But those who 
have a vital interest in this particular part of the legislation that 
we are debating here this afternoon are not available. I am caught in 
the position of protecting this side without having the advice and 
counsel of those Senators that are now negotiating to try to work 
something out.
  I am not trying to prevent the Senator from introducing amendments. 
But pretty soon we will have three or four amendments out here, and I 
am not sure where we are going to be. That will be the pending 
amendment when they come back, and they may want to go back to the 
original amendment. There may be a unanimous consent agreement which 
can be reached.
  Will the Senator give me an opportunity to check before he offers his 
amendment and let me see if there is any disagreement with what he is 
trying to do?
  Mr. BROWN. Surely.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, if my colleagues are going to continue to 
discuss this subject for a bit, I intend to speak for 10 minutes as in 
morning business, unless it interrupts the flow.
  I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________