[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 121 (Tuesday, July 25, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10594-S10596]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. May the Chair announce at this time that under 
the previous order, the hour of 11 a.m. having arrived, the Senate will 
now resume consideration of S. 1060, which the clerk will report.
  The bill 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 resumed consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
Jersey is recognized to offer an amendment on which there shall be 60 
minutes of debate.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, that 60 minutes is to be divided, as I 
understand it, between my legislation proponents and those who oppose, 
to just alert those who are interested.

[[Page S 10595]]



                           Amendment No. 1846

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that lobbying expenses 
                     should not be tax deductible)

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

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1846.
       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT LOBBYING EXPENSES SHOULD 
                   REMAIN NONDEDUCTIBLE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that ordinary Americans 
     generally are not allowed to deduct the costs of 
     communicating with their elected representatives.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that lobbying expenses should not be tax deductible.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. It 
expresses the sense of the Senate that a practice currently in law be 
continued; that is, that lobbying expenses should not be tax 
deductible. It simply affirms current law and puts the Senate clearly 
on record in opposition to any efforts to reinstate the lobbying 
deduction.
  The question is reasonable. It says, ``Why bother? Why bother, Frank, 
when in fact it is in law now?'' Because I get rumblings, I get 
communications, indirectly, that there are people who think that we 
ought to reinstate the deductibility for lobbying expenses. I want to 
see the Senate clearly on record that says if we have the majority of 
the votes, that this is a practice that ought to be continued.
  What provokes this? It is that I offered an identical amendment in 
the Budget Committee, on which I sit, during this year's markup of the 
budget resolution. The amendment was solidly backed by a voice vote and 
it passed the Senate as part of the Senate version of the budget 
resolution.
  Unfortunately, I guess somebody blinked in conference and the 
provision was dropped. So what the conference said is, ``Well, we don't 
want to confirm the fact that present practice should continue, but it 
implies, therefore, that perhaps the deductibility of lobbying expenses 
ought to come back into the arena.''
  One can question why it was dropped, but one cannot obtain a 
satisfactory answer.
  So, Mr. President, since we are discussing lobbying reform, and this 
is an excellent bill and just the right time to make sure that 
everybody knows what goes on here and that lobbyists have no advantage 
that other people in this society should be having, while it is not 
possible to clearly do that because of the physical presence, we ought 
to get as close to leveling this field as we can. I want to see the 
Senate clearly go on record in final opposition to providing a tax 
break for lobbying efforts.
  After all, this year we are in the process of developing budget 
legislation that will impose severe costs on ordinary Americans. 
Congress has already asked senior citizens to accept deep cuts in 
Medicare and Medicaid. I can tell you from the calls I get back home in 
New Jersey, and across this country, people say, ``For Lord's sake, 
Senator Lautenberg, don't let them do that. Right now I am burdened 
with the extra costs on top of my Medicare reimbursement that I get to 
the tune on average of 20 percent of my income.''
  They say, ``I can't afford to pay more.'' They say to me that, ``When 
I face the prospect of spending $3,300 more in the next 7 years, the 
last year being $800 or $900, it could break the bank, as far as I am 
concerned,'' remembering that 75 percent of our senior citizens live on 
$25,000 a year or less in income; 35,000 live on $10,000 a year or less 
in income.
  So as we examine our budget, we want to make sure that we are being 
fair with ordinary, hard-working American people or, if not hard-
working, those who worked hard for many years and finally have retired.
  Students are going to be asked to accept sharp reductions in student 
loans. It is going to cost them a lot more, and I hear pleas from young 
people who want desperately to go to college, who say, ``My folks just 
cannot hand me the money to do that and I have to go out and borrow the 
money and pledge my future against it.'' Everyone knows they are clever 
enough, those young people going to college, to know that it is going 
to cost them more for their student loans than it did before. They are 
not like I who was able to get the benefit of a GI bill because I 
served in World War II and got my education paid for. These young 
people are not going to have that opportunity.
  Working families will be asked to endure a significant tax increase 
as Congress cuts back on the earned income tax credit, a provision to 
help lower income people keep their head above water.
  The people who lose in this year's budget generally are people who 
have no lobbyists representing them. They are simple, ordinary 
Americans who hardly know what is about to happen to them; thus, the 
frustration that we see is transferred into anger and rage. Most are 
too busy to follow developments in Washington. They have their own jobs 
to do, their own families to raise, their own bills to pay, and they do 
not have lobbyists on retainer to watch out for their interests and 
call them up and say, ``Hey, Joe, guess what is happening? They are 
going to make you pay more for'' this, more for that, ``what do you 
think?'' Their opinions are not sought.
  Meanwhile, many of the special interests that benefit from the lavish 
subsidies are well represented in Washington. Special interests, 
lobbyists are already working hard to protect their clients' favorite 
Government handout, and you can be sure they will be doing everything 
they can to ensure their wealthy clients will not lose any of their tax 
breaks.
  Mr. President, there is no question that those Americans who can 
afford to hire lobbyists for special interests already have a major 
advantage in the legislative process. They ought not also to get an 
advantage in the Tax Code. Fortunately, the 103d Congress recognized 
and repealed the deduction for lobbying. That repeal saved the U.S. 
Government $653 million over 5 years, a substantial sum. More than half 
a billion dollars over a 5-year period. And, yet, not everybody is 
happy with the repeal of that deduction.
  Now that we have a new majority in the Congress, some believe that 
the lobbying deduction ought to be reinstated. According to the 
newspaper Roll Call, a national grassroots campaign is now underway to 
push for restoration of the lobbyists' tax break. The main targets of 
this campaign are those who are members of the House Ways and Means 
Committee and the Finance Committee in the Senate. But all Members are 
likely to feel the pressure, and I know I have heard from people in New 
Jersey urging that the deduction be reinstated. I can only assume that 
all of my colleagues have been subject to similar lobbying efforts.
  Mr. President, I believe that the vast majority of the public opposes 
a tax break for lobbying. In fact, this proved to be a significant 
issue in my campaign last year for my third term. My opponent in 1994 
called for reinstatement of the lobbying deduction. I strongly 
disagreed with him and, obviously, did it publicly. In judging from the 
reaction of the people I met in New Jersey, this was an argument that I 
won hands down.
  Unfortunately, the possibility of reinstating the lobbying deduction 
so far has not received a great deal of attention in the public at 
large. So long as the American people do not know what is going on, it 
can be easy to quietly insert a related provision in a huge tax bill. I 
do not think that ought to be allowed to happen. As we are getting 
close to the consideration of the reconciliation bill, I think it is 
important that the Senate go clearly on record in opposition to the 
idea of reinstating that tax deduction.
  The need to put the Senate on record is especially important, given 
the opposition from the House to including this same amendment in the 
conference report on the budget resolution. The House was willing to 
accept other sense of the Senate language, but for some reason they 
could not bring themselves to accept this. Our Senate negotiators could 
not keep it in the bill. One can only conclude that the House 
leadership apparently thinks 

[[Page S 10596]]
that the lobbyists ought to get this tax break back.
  Now, Mr. President, I understand the view of some that say that 
lobbying should be considered like any other cost of doing business, 
and so it should be deducted. That is a view that apparently many in 
the other body believe. Based on the feedback that I have heard from 
constituents, the American people would strongly disagree. In their 
view, I think it is a matter of basic fairness, a matter of priorities.
  Mr. President, if an ordinary citizen writes a letter to their Member 
of Congress to express their concern about proposed cuts in education, 
that is not deductible. If an ordinary citizen takes the train or a 
plane or drives down to Washington from New Jersey or other places to 
meet with Senate staff about the high cost of Federal taxes, the cost 
of that train ride or the plane ride are not, generally, deductible. If 
a senior citizen, concerned about Medicare cuts, drives across his or 
her State to collect signatures on a petition, these costs are not 
deductible.
  Now, Mr. President, if ordinary citizens like these cannot deduct 
their lobbying expenses, neither should a special interest group who 
hires a lobbyist to protect its favorite Government subsidy and neither 
should a billionaire who hires a lobbyist to protect his favorite tax 
break or his special opportunity to grow his profits.
  It is a question of fairness. It is a question of priorities. Think 
of it this way, Mr. President. Reinstating the deduction for lobbying 
would cost the Government over $100 million a year for the next 5 
years--in fact, $650 million. Even if we think that lobbying expenses 
should be deducted, is this really a priority in these times of fiscal 
austerity, in these times of extreme sacrifices by many of our citizens 
who work hard and are barely treading water?
  How can we in good conscience spend $650 million for a tax break for 
lobbyists and then severely cut Medicare? How can we spend $650 million 
for a tax break for lobbyists and then turn around and cut education? 
How can we spend $650 million for a tax break for lobbyists and then 
turn around and increase taxes on ordinary Americans, lower income 
citizens, by cutting back on the earned income tax credit?
  Mr. President, with all the problems facing this country, we simply 
have to set our priorities straight. And giving a tax deduction to 
lobbying just should not be high on that list.
  I want to be clear about something. I am not here to bash lobbyists. 
Not by any means. In fact, I would be the first to say that they often 
get a bum rap. Most are top-notch professionals--some of them trained 
in postgraduate courses, law school, Government, et cetera--and they 
perform important functions. They have every right, under the first 
amendment to the Constitution, to petition Government officials. What 
they do not have as a right is the ability to have their expenses 
deductible.
  Now, this is not a radical idea, Mr. President. Congress reached the 
same conclusion 2 years ago. My point today is simply that we should 
not reverse that earlier decision, that, in fact, we ought to reaffirm 
that earlier decision so there cannot be any mistake about what this 
Congress stands for in terms of that deduction. This is a declaration 
of fealty, of loyalty, that we are going to preserve the 
nondeductibility of those expenses.
  It would only strengthen the public cynicism about the Congress, 
which they already see as controlled by lobbyists and special 
interests. We cannot wonder why. It is quite apparent.
  I want to add this point. I appreciate, Mr. President, there is some 
controversy about some of the details of the current law and how it is 
administered. My amendment is not intended to address these issues. I 
am not here to endorse every dot and comma in the IRS regulations, or 
to oppose minor modifications to current law in the area. I am here to 
make a more general point. If ordinary Americans are not allowed to 
deduct the costs of communicating with their elected representatives, 
lobbying expenses should not be deductible, either. It is a basic 
matter of fairness and priorities.
  So, to repeat, Mr. President, my amendment simply expresses the sense 
of the Senate that lobbying expenses should not be tax deductible. 
Present law ought to continue. I hope that my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle intend to continue the present policy. That is what we are 
going to see by the vote that we will be requesting, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, as I understand, any opposition to this amendment has 
half an hour to express their opposition.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask that the time be charged 
equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I interrupt the quorum call simply to 
make certain that we are ordering the yeas and nays.
  I ask the distinguished manager of the bill on the Republican side 
whether he will join me in calling for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator seek consent to have the time 
divided between the two sides?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. As was requested, unless it expedites the process 
further by yielding back?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, my indication from floor staff is they 
prefer the two votes to occur at 12. I am unaware of any speakers on 
this side.
  If Senator Lautenberg would like additional time, I will be happy to 
yield it.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the case was made, I hope clearly and 
sufficiently.
  I therefore will yield all time and just have the vote occur as 
planned at 12 o'clock.
  Mr. McCONNELL. We are planning on the vote occurring at 12. So my 
suggestion would be for us to just put in a quorum call and let the 
time run and the two votes will occur at 12.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The time will be equally deducted from both sides.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________