[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 177 (Thursday, November 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16858-S16892]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                           Amendment No. 3045

(Purpose: To strike title III which restricts the use of private funds 
     for political advocacy activities by nonprofit organizations.)

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to 
what is now title III of the continuing resolution. I might say that I 
did vote for the original Senate language. I opposed this provision as 
part of the Treasury-Postal conference committee. And I will tell you 
why. This measure, if adopted, would effectively eliminate the ability 
of nonprofits throughout this Nation to express their political views 
to their elected representatives at every level--at the Federal level, 
State level, local level, and tribal level. This legislation, I think, 
slams the door of Congress in the face of hundreds of thousands of 
grassroots organizations.
  In the Senate Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, this body adopted 
an amendment to keep large, well-financed nonprofit organizations from 
abusing the lobbying regulations. Certainly they should not use 
taxpayers' money by the millions simply to lobby to get more taxpayers' 
money. But the House-passed version, on the other hand, goes much 
further and muzzles grassroots organizations and puts roadblocks in the 
way of legitimate advocacy efforts.
  It would affect, as I understand it, churches, Boy Scouts, tribes, 
art groups, chambers of commerce, water conservancy districts, and 
hundreds of other very diverse nonprofit groups. In effect, it would 
muzzle the free speech of millions of people. These groups are the same 
groups that as elected officials we are supposed to be here to defend 
and represent. I see a clear difference, as many of my colleagues do, 
between the high-powered, well-financed professional lobbying firms, 
who hire well-financed professional lobbyists, and the grassroots-based 
community organizations. I think my colleagues see the difference too.
  For the last couple of months the Senate has focused its efforts on 
getting Government out of people's lives. Well, this provision would do 
just the opposite because it would tell the nonprofits how they could 
spend their private moneys. By law, these organizations cannot spend 
Government funds for lobbying activities, which I think makes sense.
  What does not make any sense to me is that we are stepping in and 
legislating how nonprofits can spend their privately raised funds on 
advocacy efforts. It is wrong for us to do that. That is why I will 
offer a motion to strike title III. This provision is bad for our 
communities because it treats State and local organizations and their 
national affiliates as one. This provision is bad because the 
definition of advocacy is too broad. This provision is bad because it 
hamstrings the many organizations that, with reduced Government, we 
will have to rely on more heavily than ever to deliver services to our 
communities. It also is bad because this provision casts a net so wide 
it will muzzle political advocacy groups in our towns, our communities, 
in our States.
  In short, it is bad language. The administration has already 
threatened to veto it, as the Chair knows. I think it is important to 
send a message to our constituents that we will not allow them to be 
silenced. We want Government out of people's lives, but we do not want 
to keep people out of Government.
  With that, Mr. President, I would move to strike title III of the 
continuing resolution, and send an amendment to the desk, and ask for 
the yeas and nays after the motion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator sending an amendment to the 
desk?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Then the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], for himself, Mr. 
     Kerrey, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. 
     Glenn, proposes an amendment numbered 3045.
       Strike Title III of the resolution.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Did the Senator request the yeas and nays on 
this amendment?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I request the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, the Istook amendment before the Senate 
today presents a difficult issue because the principles fueling both 
sides of the debate have some merit.
  On the one hand, organizations that are subsidized by the Federal 
Government should not be allowed to lobby the Government or engage in 
unlimited grassroots political activism. When highly subsidized 
organizations are actively participating in political activities, the 
public perception is that taxpayer funds are being used for partisan 
purposes.
  This perception if formed even if there are safeguards in place to 
prohibit the use of Federal funds for lobbying or political 
campaigning.
  On the other hand, our political process would suffer if nonprofit 
groups were restrained from engaging in public debate. These 
organizations represent millions of Americans who do not have the time 
or ability to monitor day-to-day events in Congress or their State 
legislatures, but want their interests to be represented on issues 
ranging from environmental protection to the right to bear arms. To 
place severe restrictions on the ability of these organizations to 
analyze legislation, testify at public hearings, comment on pending 
regulations, and advocate their views in the political arena would not 
only deprive policymakers of valuable expertise, but would leave many 
Americans without an effective voice in the political process.
  In my view, our Tax Code does a fairly good job of balancing these 
competing principles. Section 501(c)(3) of the Code allows taxpayers to 
deduct contributions to charitable organizations. Since virtually all 
the revenue of these 501(c)(3) organizations are federally subsidized 
through the Tax Code modest limitations are placed on the 
organizations' lobbying and grassroots activities. However, in 
recognition of the important role that charitable organizations play in 
our society, they are allowed to comment on regulations that affect 
them, join litigation that implicates their interests, and communicate 
with their members on political issues without limitation.

  The Simpson-Craig amendment to the Treasury-Postal appropriations 
bill made an important modification to the Tax Code. The amendment 
applies to tax-exempt nonprofit corporations, which, under section 
501(c)(4) of the Tax Code, are allowed to lobby without limitation. 
Under the amendment, 501(c)(4) organizations with annual revenues in 
excess of $10 million would no longer be permitted to both lobby 
without limitation and receive Federal grants. I support this change in 
the law because I do not believe that large organizations engaged in 
substantial lobbying activities should be eligible to receive taxpayer 
funds. If an organization wants to apply for Federal funding, it should 
be required to submit to the restrictions on lobbying activities 
contained in section 501(c)(3) of the Code.
  The Istook amendment, however, would have a much more sweeping impact 
on nonprofit organizations. It would affect every organization that 
receives Federal grant money, as well as, organizations that believe 
they may wish to apply for grants in the future. In addition, the 
Istook amendment places limits on a broad category of activities that 
have never been regulated by the Federal Government before such as 
filing an amicus brief, writing a letter to the editor, or providing 
office space to an affiliate organization.
  Most significant, the Istook amendment would impose a byzantine set 
of reporting requirements on nonprofit corporations. Each organization 
would be required to establish separate accounts to keep track of how 
much money it spends on lobbying and political advocacy, since the 
amendment imposes different monetary thresholds on each category of 
activity. They would also be required to determine whether any 
corporation or organization they do business with spends more than 15 

[[Page S 16859]]
percent of their funds on political advocacy, because, if so, any funds 
transferred to such an organization counts toward the grantee's 
advocacy threshold. Through this provision, the sponsors of the Istook 
amendment have imposed a new recordkeeping requirement on virtually 
every private corporation in the country.
  The Istook amendment will cause many more problems than it would 
solve. If there are nonprofit organizations that are abusing their tax 
status or misusing Federal grantees, adjustments to the Tax Code such 
as the Simpson-Craig proposal may be necessary. But there is no reason 
to impose such a restrictive and burdensome new law on a sector of 
society that does much good work and plays an important role in our 
democracy.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as an American and a Member of the Senate 
of the United States of America, I have certain responsibilities 
regarding what I say here on the floor.
  But unlike thinking individuals in most other societies throughout 
human history, I--uniquely in my role as a U.S. Senator--can come to 
the Senate floor and speak my mind freely, and no one can stop me, or 
retaliate against me, so long as I follow the few rules of common 
courtesy.
  If we adopt the Istook language, other American citizens, not lucky 
enough to be Members of this august body, are going to be told they can 
no longer speak freely before their Government. The Istook amendment to 
restrict advocacy, under consideration by the Senate will send this 
message loud and clear to every American citizen.
  Well, almost every American citizen.
  What the Istook amendment says is this: If you belong to a nonprofit 
group you will be restricted from lobbying Congress. If, however, you 
are a member of a Fortune 500 company or any other special interest 
constituency with money, you will have no restrictions.
  If you as a senior citizen join a group to receive services designed 
for seniors like you, your Government has no problem with that, and 
might even give your group a grant to do their important work.
  But if part of what your group does is relay to your Senator your 
wish to keep pharmaceutical prices down, your Government is no longer 
going to allow that to happen.
  If, however, you work for a large pharmaceutical company, you can 
lobby Congress like there's no tomorrow for your company's needs.
  I believe most Americans have a problem with this. Over half of the 
Members would argue with me, but I believe this Tuesday we heard at 
least the first rumblings among Americans about what their Government 
is about to do to them. I believe when America wakes up, Members of 
this Congress won't be able to shut out the free speech. We will hear 
from all of America loud and clear if this language becomes law.
  Not since the days of McCarthyism has such an assault on the rights 
of free speech been considered. There are already protections in 
Federal law that restrict the use of Federal funds for lobbying 
activities. There are already stiff penalties for breaking the rules. 
There is no evidence that ladies from trailer parks in Middle America 
have been misusing Federal funds to buy Congress.
  And if there was evidence of such a crime, then the knitting circle 
would be going up against the Internal Revenue Service of the United 
States of America. That's under current law. Surely, there are few 
deterrents stronger than the first-strike capabilities of our tax 
watchdogs.
  I would like us all to remember: People mostly join nonprofits to 
help other people. I would like us all to remember: If the current 
budget cuts go through, people in this country are going to need a lot 
of help. And, I would like people to remember: If we do get information 
from a nonprofit group helping Americans at the grassroots, the 
information is coming from a place far closer to the needs of real 
people than the halls of Washington, DC.
  Most of the nonprofits I hear from give me good information from 
people who cannot speak for themselves, and be heard 3,000 miles away. 
Yes, I get calls and visits from citizens in my State, but I also 
represent people without plane fare, telephones, and some who don't 
even have a roof over their head. And now we're going to tell them they 
can't even lobby Congress. That is not reform Mr. President, that is 
muzzling the citizens I represent, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes 
for the Campbell amendment.
  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I earlier was presented substitute 
language by the distinguished Senator from Wyoming and the 
distinguished Senator from Idaho. I would be willing to accept the 
original language that was on the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. 
This substitute language is not the same. Though it appears that it 
might be relatively close, it is simply not the same.
  I continue to argue, for those who are wrestling with this issue and 
it can be a difficult issue, I believe a sufficient reason to vote to 
strike this should just be this does not belong on a continuing 
resolution. It does not belong on a continuing resolution. If I, as I 
indicated earlier, wanted to try to put all kinds of things on this 
continuing resolution, I could do so. As I said, I have interests in 
impact aid; I have interest in agriculture; I have interest in a 
variety of things that are unlikely to be addressed this year.
  This amendment belongs on lobbying reform. But guess what, Mr. 
President? There is no vehicle in the House for lobbying reform, 
because they have not passed lobbying reform. They have not taken up 
that issue. We took up that issue. It is a very contentious issue, a 
very difficult issue. We passed lobbying reform that restricts 
lobbyists' access to Members of Congress. It passed this body. It was a 
long and healthy debate, but the House has not taken it up. So all 
their conversation about ``we are going to clean up the lobbying 
activity'' begs the question. If that is the case, where is your bill? 
The answer is, they do not have one.
  So they are putting lobbying reform on a continuing resolution 
because they have not taken the issue up on the other side. I think it 
is very important for Members of this side, regardless of how you feel 
on this issue--you might support this language, you might feel this 
language is good language and ought to be enacted into law, but not on 
a continuing resolution, Mr. President, particularly in an environment 
where the House has not even taken up lobbying reform and this body 
has. That is where it belongs. It is highly inappropriate for it to be 
taken up here.
  Next, the proponents of this amendment refer to grants given to 
501(c)(3)'s as welfare for lobbyists. Let us be clear on this, the law 
says that lobbying activities are currently prohibited with the use of 
taxpayer-funded grants. That is the law. That is the current law. And 
if somebody has an instance where they think a 501(c)(3)--a church or 
veterans group, YMCA, the Red Cross--if they think they are in 
violation of the law, then they should bring a case against them. They 
should come and say, ``This organization is using taxpayer money in 
violation of the law.''
  I say it for emphasis, citizens who say, ``You know, those House guys 
are right, we ought to change the law to make lobbying illegal with 
public funds,'' as I say, the law already prohibits that activity. That 
is not what this amendment does, propose changes in the law. It says 
that private money cannot be used. That is what it does. Let us be 
clear on that.
  All conversations and statements that were made last night on the 
floor saying, ``We don't want to subsidize lobbyists,'' Mr. President, 
A, if you House Members are excited about lobbying reform, why do you 
not pass a bill? And, B, why do you not tell the American people that 
we cannot subsidize lobbyists, you cannot use tax dollars for lobbying 
activity?
  If you have a church in mind, I say to the proponents on the House 
side, if there is a veterans group out there or somebody at your 
community level that you think is flying back here to Washington trying 
to influence legislation, for gosh sakes, find somebody to file a 
criminal charge against them, because it is illegal now.
  The next thing I will say is it is odd this legislation is being 
proposed by people who are constantly talking 

[[Page S 16860]]
about decreasing regulation on the private sector. This increases 
regulation on the private sector. Again, once that is pointed out they 
say, ``Oh, we have written in exemptions.'' Now we have exempted 
veterans organizations. We have raised the threshold so it only affects 
a very small number. Mr. President, every 501(c)(3) would have to prove 
they are in compliance. Everyone would, and they would have to keep 
records for 5 years to prove that they are in compliance.
  For Members who are wondering on the substance of the issue, if you 
can get over the threshold that this continuing resolution is an 
appropriate vehicle for lobbying reform, which I think is a pretty 
substantial hurdle to jump, if you can get over that hurdle and you 
say, ``Fine, let's do lobbying reform on a continuing resolution,'' 
then, first, be advised that use of public funds for lobbying is 
already prohibited under law and, second, be advised that this law is 
serious business.
  You are going to hear from people out there in the community that are 
going to come to you a year from now, 2 years from now and say, 
``Senator, did you have any idea of the paperwork I was going to have 
to fill out? Did you have any idea what you were doing?''
  We get this all the time, whether it is leaking underground storage 
tanks or other regulations that we pass here that sound real good--
clinical laboratory regulations--it all sounds terrific, but when the 
rubber meets the road out in the community, all of a sudden the 
citizens comes to us saying, ``I just spent 100 hours on this thing. I 
hope you are getting something beneficial out of it, because I am 
spending a lot of time.''
  For a 501(c)(3) out soliciting funds and typically today struggling 
to get that money, I daresay that increased cost of doing business at 
the community level is a rather substantial burden, and we are going to 
hear about it. We are going to hear about it from citizens who are not 
going to like this change in the law.
  Next, Mr. President, how many of us talk about public-private 
partnerships? How many of us, when we are talking about how to maximize 
and stretch and lengthen the use of our tax dollars, get up and say, 
``The Government cannot do it all''? I cannot take tax dollars and have 
the Government doing it all. I have to develop partnerships, not just 
with State government, local governments, but I have to get the private 
sector engaged. What better vehicle, what better opportunity than a 
501(c)(3)?
  And, indeed, that is the case today. We are asking the Red Cross to 
do more with their money. We are asking them to help us with disaster 
programs. We are asking the YMCA and the YWCA and other 501(c)(3) 
organizations to get involved.
  Mr. President, the real problem here is that some people do not like 
what these 501(c)(3)'s do. That is the problem.
  I ask unanimous consent that a story that appeared in yesterday's 
Wall Street Journal be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 8, 1995]

  Consumer Groups Attack Bill Curbing Political Advocacy by Nonprofit 
                                 Groups

                           (By David Rogers)

       Washington.--A Republican initiative to limit political 
     advocacy by nonprofit organizations is meeting strong 
     resistance from consumer groups, which accuse business 
     interests of using the bill to silence their critics on 
     regulatory issues.
       The measure, which passed the House this summer, has drawn 
     an amalgam of conservative and industry supporters from the 
     Christian Coalition to the National Beer Wholesalers 
     Association. But yesterday, Mothers Against Drunk Driving 
     accused the beer lobby of using the bill to weaken and harass 
     its own efforts at the state level to tighten drinking laws.
       The Beer Wholesalers group responded angrily that its 
     involvement has had nothing to do with MADD but was provoked 
     more by smaller, less-known advocacy groups that have 
     received federal grants. But MADD officials said it and the 
     beer wholesalers and their affiliates are frequent foes at 
     the state level, where MADD has sought legislation to tighten 
     blood-alcohol standards for judging when a driver is 
     intoxicated.
       ``While MADD will be buried in an avalanche of red tape and 
     paperwork, the beer industry will be free to lobby to their 
     heart's content,'' said Katherine Prescott, MADD's national 
     president. ``The voice of the special interest will be 
     unimpeded, while the voices of the public interest will be 
     silenced.''
       Yesterday's attacks, in which MADD was joined by such 
     groups as the American Lung Association, reflect a concerted 
     effort to reframe the debate by focusing on special interests 
     behind the GOP initiative. House Republicans, who last night 
     attached their proposal to a stopgap spending bill that will 
     be voted on today in the chamber, have championed the measure 
     as ``anti-welfare'' for lobbyists; the groups yesterday cast 
     the fight as one of public vs. private interests.
       A variety of business organizations have been active in 
     support of the initiative. The chief sponsors include Reps. 
     David McIntosh (R., Ind.) and the Ernest Istook (R., Okla.), 
     who have taken the lead on antiregulatory legislation favored 
     by many of the same groups. The Beer Wholesalers, for 
     example, have promoted House-passed legislative riders to 
     block the Labor Department from developing new worker safety 
     rules affecting the industry. And in general, the group has 
     raised its profile this year in tandem with the rise of House 
     Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R., Texas). He is a leader of the 
     antiregulatory forces and chief proponent of the legislation 
     now to curb advocacy by non-profit organizations receiving 
     federal grants.
       David Rehr, the Beer Wholesalers' vice president of 
     governmental affairs, assisted in Mr. Delay's race for the 
     leadership, for example. But not all those involved in the 
     fight have so welcomed the influence of business interests.
       Sen. Alan Simpson (R., Wyo.) has been Rep. Istook's Senate 
     counterpart in recent negotiations between the two chambers 
     aimed toward striking some compromise on the issue. During 
     one session, Mr. Simpson was apparently surprised to find 
     outside, private interests in the room during the talks. ``I 
     just told all of them to get the hell out,'' said Mr. Simpson 
     yesterday.
       In a statement yesterday, the Beer Wholesalers group said 
     it shares with MADD ``a serious commitment to reduce drunk 
     driving and end illegal underage drinking'' and had supported 
     bills in Congress with that aim.
       But at the state level, officials painted a more severe 
     picture. New Mexico was a major battleground two years ago 
     for legislation to curb drunken driving and tighten standards 
     for the blood alcohol content of drivers. ``MADD has been 
     four-square behind these efforts to toughen up the laws,'' 
     said Kay Roybal, press secretary for the state's attorney 
     general. ``The beer industry, and liquor industry more 
     generally, have consistently opposed all of these efforts.''

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the headline on this says, ``Consumer 
Groups Attack Bill Curbing Political Advocacy by Nonprofit Groups.'' It 
points to a rather interesting confrontation with beer wholesalers and 
an organization called Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I know MADD well. 
I know this group called Mothers Against Drunk Driving. They are tough.
  They come to the local level, the State level and they want these 
laws changed. They will bring a victim in, somebody who is disabled, 
someone who was injured permanently as a consequence of a drunk driver, 
and they will say to you, ``Senator, I understand you just attended a 
fundraiser with the beer wholesalers, liquor distributors,'' so forth, 
``and they are telling you, ``Let the market take care of it.' I tell 
you, Senator, the market is not taking care of it.''
  We have changed our liquor laws in the State of Nebraska as a 
consequence of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. They can be plenty 
irritating, let me tell you. They come with evidence and they come with 
a proposed change, and it is darn hard to say no to them. Sometimes it 
can have an impact upon your retail sales. It can change the behavior 
of people, as a consequence of the law being changed. But our streets 
are safer as a result, and our people are healthier as a consequence. 
It has produced a constructive change.

  So let there be no mistake about it. One of the things motivating 
this proposed change in the law--particularly the feverish urgency that 
is attached, threatening to hold up the continuing resolution, 
threatening to hold up an appropriations bill, and anything that is out 
there. This was not in the Contract With America. If you want to do 
lobby reform, I say to the House, then pass it; pass lobbying reform. I 
quite agree that the people are sick and tired of watching lobbyists 
unnecessarily and unfairly influence the process around here. But if 
you want to change that, Mr. President, pass lobbying reform, pass 
campaign finance reform.
  Senator McCain, Senator Thompson, and Senator Simpson, I believe, 
have a piece of legislation to change campaign finance laws. Let us 
enact it and reduce the amount of money that can be spent in a 
campaign. Let us provide an opportunity for more people to come to 

[[Page S 16861]]
the U.S. Congress. Let us get after the special interests so that 
citizens can have confidence, in fact, that they will have some 
influence over this Government. One of the most alarming polls I have 
seen recently is a poll that showed that, by a 3-to-1 margin, people in 
the United States believe that special interests have more power than 
either the President or the Congress. So there is a need to change, to 
empower Americans so that they feel more a part of the process.
  There is a need to change our lobbying laws and to change our 
campaign finance laws. We have to address those issues, Mr. President. 
This body has dealt with lobbying reform. This body is trying to 
develop a bipartisan movement to change our campaign finance laws. 
There is an urgency attached to it for the sake of representative 
democracy and people's confidence that they can have some influence 
over this. But not on a continuing resolution, Mr. President, and 
certainly not in this form.
  This does not give citizens more power; it gives them less power. 
This does not tilt the balance of power in favor of the people, who are 
out there scratching around trying to organize these sorts of efforts. 
It tilts it away from them. I do not know why--frankly, I have been on 
501(c)(3) boards, and I do not know why anybody, given the hurdles they 
have, are out there raising money all the time and holding raffles and 
auctions and trying to generate enthusiasm--it is darned hard work, and 
you sometimes scratch your head and wonder why citizens are willing to 
do it, and then you thank God they are. All of us have seen these 
organizations perform miracles and do wonderful things out there with 
families and young people in their communities.
  For the life of me, I do not understand the vitriol attached to this 
legislation, to the point to saying we are willing to shut down the 
Government, which is what some have said--as if we do not care if 
Social Security checks are issued or if anything passes this body 
again. We do not care if it was in the contract. We want to make this 
change. We believe it is the most important change that can be made.
  So, as I said, I was happy to accommodate the change that the 
distinguished Senator from Wyoming proposed on the Treasury-Postal 
appropriations bill. I said earlier, Mr. President--the Senator from 
Wyoming was not on the floor at the time. He asked that we give this 
proposed substitute of his some reasonable consideration. I do not know 
that I gave it reasonable consideration. I gave it consideration. I 
would be pleased to accept the precise language that the distinguished 
Senator from Wyoming had attached to the Treasury-Postal bill some 30 
days or so ago when that appropriations bill was taken up. But I 
support the motion to strike made by the Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I hear very clear what my friend from 
Nebraska is saying. I enjoy working with him. We proved up together on 
many issues, and we will again because the tough ones are still out 
there, like Social Security and Medicare, Medicaid, Federal retirement. 
We seem to be the only ones who are willing to leap into that cauldron. 
But it is because of my admiration for him in what he did on the 
entitlements commission--the bipartisan entitlements commission, 
chaired by the Senator from Nebraska and our fine friend, Jack Danforth 
of Missouri, that we know what we have to do. The American public, 
hopefully, will know, when we finish telling them, what they have to do 
on those issues. So that is separate and apart from this.
  Let me be as brief as possible. That is quite a difficult task in 
itself. But there really is not a need for a lengthy debate and, yet, 
we must be aware of what we are doing here. I have been in the Senate a 
good long time, since 1978, to be exact. My role for 10 years was to 
learn how to count votes. If there were a motion to strike the language 
that came from the House, there is a question in my mind that that 
would carry. But in this situation, there is more to it than this.
  We did some work here on this issue in the Senate. All of you were 
present. The Senator from Michigan was involved in that debate. Many 
others on both sides of the aisle also were. Questions arose: Who does 
this affect? Does it affect the Red Cross? Does it affect the Boy 
Scouts? Does it affect the Girl Scouts?
  Let me share this with you, once again, until we have our eye on the 
rabbit. What I did was to affect only section 501(c)(4) corporations. 
There are a lot of them. Some of them spend nothing much, and some 
spend a ton because if you are a 501(c)(4)--this is all I was ever 
speaking of--you have the ability of unlimited lobbying. You can spend 
yourself to oblivion. You are able to lobby without monetary 
restriction.
  Now, some 501(c)(4)'s love that role and perform it beautifully. 
Others simply have huge resources and revenues and seem to restrain 
themselves somewhat. But 501(c)(4) is a corporation under the tax laws 
that is ``nonprofit,'' if you will, in that sense, that can do 
unlimited lobbying. And so what we were saying was very simple: Any 
501(c)(4) that receives money from the Federal Government in the form 
of a grant, or anything of that nature, will not be allowed to lobby; 
or if a 501(c)(4) loves to lobby, then they will not get Federal money. 
That was not directed at the AARP. I have had some interesting 
discussions with them, however, through months past. It was not 
directed at them. It was directed at any corporation, any 501(c)(4), 
whether it was the NRA, AARP, any other 501(c)(4) corporation in 
America that chooses that particular title.
  The reason they choose that title is to do what they do best, in many 
ways, which is to lobby. It seemed incongruous that a corporation would 
then receive money from the Federal Government, which would help them 
then go lobby the Congress for more money for their members. That is 
exactly what some of them do. They lobby vigorously, and they will say, 
``We do not keep that, we do not get that money; that goes to the 
citizens, to our members, to the good of society.'' But it also reduces 
the amount of money they have to dig out of their own coffers to do 
their work. So we were saying if you want to play in the big time, you 
want to be a 501(c)(4), and you get grant money from the Federal 
Government, you are not going to be able to lobby without 
restriction. Then that passed here by a vote of 59-37, a good, strong, 
bipartisan vote.

  Then we went forward into the usual procedures of legislating. It 
went out in that fashion. As we began to try to compose our differences 
in the conference committee on Treasury and Postal--remember, this 
measure came up on the Treasury-Postal bill here when it went through 
the House on the Labor Committee, that appropriation--Labor, Health, 
Human Services.
  So it ended up a little off center in the sense of jurisdiction. We 
agreed to try to resolve things there to make that limit, instead of 
$10 million, where it would apply to any organization, the original 
Simpson-Craig language, Senator Larry Craig and I, these are the 
cosponsors of this measure. That was the ban on C-4's which was above 
$10 million. That passed the Senate by unanimous voice vote. I did not 
hear any objection to that. Treasury-Postal was a unanimous vote, 
including the $10 million threshold.
  Now, we are ready to bring that down to a $3 million threshold and 
say that it does not apply to those under that figure. What occurred, 
then, with the Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich proposal--it was a very sweeping 
measure; there is not any question about that. Senator Craig and I 
worked with them and said this is going to be very difficult, if not 
impossible, to pass in the Senate. They felt very, very strongly that 
they should proceed. They did.
  In that proposal that the three fine House Members prepared, there 
was tremendous complexity. There was tremendous controversy. That was 
borne out again last night when the measure was discussed and debated 
in the House with regard to the continuing resolution. You can bet it 
was contentious.
  There is an amendment that I will shortly propose at some appropriate 
time which would strike the lion's share of the language passed by the 
House known as the Istook amendment.
  The language has been the subject of much, much controversy and 
excitement here in Washington these past few weeks--editorial 
commentary, opinion pages. It is something that the 

[[Page S 16862]]
House Members feel very strongly about. I cannot identify how 
passionately they feel about it. I hear that. That is why I have tried 
to work with them.
  I find staff--and Chuck Blahaus, my legislative director, has 
invested innumerable hours of his day in this effort. Senator Larry 
Craig and his fine staff person have done the same. We have been 
actively, all of us, involved in negotiations with the House sponsors 
of it.
  I know that much of what has been said about it is simply not true. 
Now is not the time nor the place to debate the fine points of that 
amendment--the Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich amendment. This amendment is too 
complex at this time, too cumbersome at this time, to subject to any 
lengthy debate here in the context of a continuing resolution. If it 
were any other place, it would be highly appropriate. In fact, there is 
a vehicle for it that is just built for it. That is lobbying reform, 
and lobbying reform will be up very shortly in the House of 
Representatives--I believe next week.
  In the context of the continuing resolution, it is simply 
inappropriate and, more importantly, impossible to move the language 
that has been worked on so hard by my colleagues and friends in the 
House.
  It is precisely because of that complexity that this language, known 
as that amendment, will not pass the Senate. That is reality. The votes 
are not there. It would be a bipartisan vote to eliminate that.
  I have spoken to many of my colleagues in the House and in the Senate 
about the particulars of the language. I know their concerns. I know 
their hopes. I know their fears. I know their confusion about this 
language.
  This is a very, very sweeping and comprehensive piece of legislation. 
I can understand every single reason for every bit of it because of the 
frustration and anguish of the political arena that gave rise to it in 
the House. That deserves a full airing so that the American people can 
understand what some 501(c)(3)'s really do with their money and how 
they get thoroughly involved in political activity. You can believe 
they do. We will deal with that. It will be a very important part of 
lobbying reform.
  In the context of the continuing resolution, not 100 percent of it 
will come through, not 90 percent of it will come through, not 80 
percent of it will come through. It is my intent to offer an amendment 
to strike out almost the entirety of it, leaving only a few components. 
The amendment would strike out all of the House language and leave 
simply the following:
  It would leave the Craig-Simpson or Simpson-Craig ban for grant money 
for the largest 501(c)(4) lobbying organizations. This provision passed 
the Senate unanimously by voice vote. I would not think it would be 
controversial.
  There would be a provision simply requiring that Federal grantees 
report their expenses on lobbying activity and that this report be 
publicly available. Simple, short, and I think uncontroversial.
  Finally, a provision mandating that the current law, 501(h), limits 
on lobbying activities expenses apply to the Federal grantee 
organizations. Right now, under current law, the formula applies only 
to certain 501(c)(3) organizations. It would here apply to all of the 
grantee organizations, except that there would be no global cap of $1 
million, even though current law has such a cap. And we will detail how 
that will be expanded. A cap is controversial so we would remove it as 
far as grantees would be affected.
  That is it. That is it. That is the measure as it would be dealt 
with. If it were then to go back to the House, it would not go back 
into conference. There would be no further conference activity with 
this measure as it would leave the Senate. It would not come up on 
another bill. It would not come up on Treasury-Postal. It can come up 
later, but it would not come up under the Treasury-Postal bill, which 
is the other pending material floating in these last hours and days 
before we reach our statutory limit.
  So I simply believe we regretfully have to strike all of the 
provisions of this legislation which are controversial in the eyes of 
the Senate. I could detail them all, but I think all of us know what 
they are. Some have been magnificently distorted by groups that have 
learned to love Federal largess as they do their lobbying work.
  Those things will be debated at length here in private and in public. 
We will not settle those issues today. The Senate will not come to 
agreement on what kinds of reforms to make in this area today. They 
will not be settled in the context of the CR. This is reality. It is 
not the invention of Senator Simpson. It is not the invention of 
Senator Larry Craig.
  I hope my colleagues will look at the text of our amendment closely 
and will give their full support. There are no tricks, nothing up the 
sleeve as to getting it before you. It is extended as an effort to try 
to resolve a very vexatious issue and try to recognize clearly the fine 
work of three able Congresspersons in the U.S. House of 
Representatives.


                           Amendment No. 3046

  Mr. SIMPSON. I send to the desk an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3046 to amendment No. 3045.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')


                Amendment No. 3047 to Amendment No. 3046

                         (Purpose: Perfecting)

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send an amendment in the second degree to 
the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3047 to amendment No. 3046.

  Mr. CRAIG. 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 end of the amendment add the following:
       (e) Nothing in this title shall be construed to affect the 
     application of the internal laws of the United States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                Amendment No. 3048 to Amendment No. 3045

                         (Purpose: Perfecting)

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I submit an additional amendment to the 
desk and ask it be read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3048 to language proposed to be stricken 
     by amendment No. 3045.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.


                Amendment No. 3049 to Amendment No. 3048

                  (Purpose: Second-degree perfecting)

  Mr. CRAIG. I send an additional amendment to the Simpson amendment to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3049 to amendment No. 3048.

  Mr. CRAIG. 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:

       In the pending amendment:
       Page 2, lines 1-2, strike all between ``Code'' and ``, 
     unless'', and insert: ``of 1986, except that, if exempt 
     purpose expenditures are over $17,000,000 then the 
     organization shall also be subject to a limitation on 
     lobbying of 1 percent of the excess of the exempt purpose 
     expenditures over $17,000,000''.

  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I listened to the Senator from Wyoming very 


[[Page S 16863]]
carefully about all the reasons why the so-called Istook amendment 
should not be before us on the continuing resolution. The problem is, 
it is before us on the continuing resolution and it is a big problem. 
We ought to dispose of this amendment by striking it. I very much 
support the amendment of Senator Campbell.
  The Istook language is the most intrusive intervention of Government 
into the free speech rights of private organizations that I have ever 
seen in my 17 years in the U.S. Senate.
  We have talked a lot recently about trying to reduce the Federal 
Government intervention in the lives of private people and private 
organizations. This amendment, this Istook language, represents a 
massive intervention into rights, under the first amendment, of private 
organizations to use private money--I emphasize private money, not 
Government money--for political expression.
  It has been characterized as being aimed at welfare for lobbying. It 
has nothing to do with lobbying reform. I know about lobby reform. I 
was a sponsor, along with a number of others in this body, of lobbying 
reform legislation. The Istook language is not anything to do with 
lobbying reform. It has everything to do with placing restrictions on 
rights of citizens of this country to use their own funds to express 
their own political views, not just to this Congress and not just to 
the Federal Government, but to the State and local governments as well.
  This is an unprecedented intrusion, for reasons I will get into in a 
moment. What the Istook language does is place a limit on what 
percentage of funds can be used by a private entity, if that entity is 
either the recipient of a Federal grant or, indeed, may be a recipient 
in the future of a Federal grant--because there is a throwback of 5 
years. Anybody applying for a Federal grant cannot have used more than 
a fixed percentage of its own private funds for political advocacy in 
the previous 5 years.
  So, even though you do not have a Federal grant, if you think maybe 
in the next 5 years you might want to apply for a Federal grant, you 
have to watch how much of your own privately raised funds are going to 
express your own political opinion during that 5-year period.
  Then there is this percentage cap that is placed on grantees. Mind 
you, it is not placed on people who are seeking to sell the Government 
B-2 bombers. They can spend all of their own funds, otherwise raised, 
on lobbying, that they want. The restriction here is on nonprofits.
  So, if the Cancer Society or the Alzheimer's Society or the Mothers 
Against Drunk Driving or any of the other nonprofits apply for a grant 
or are the recipients of a grant, they are restricted even though they 
are not using grant funds for lobbying. They cannot come to the 
Congress and lobby us for legislation to try to reduce the number of 
drunk drivers on the road or the purity of our drug supply, or of our 
blood supply. They cannot come and do that, even with their own funds.
  But there is no restriction on contractors receiving public funds. If 
you want to come and sell B-2 bombers to the U.S. Government there is 
no restriction on you. But if you were providing a service to the U.S. 
Government such as getting a grant to deliver lunches to seniors or 
getting a grant in order to provide a reduction in the number of drunk 
drivers that we face out on the road, or a whole host of other things 
that we obtained through our grants--then the restrictions apply to 
you. That is a distinction which does not make any sense to begin with.
  And it goes way beyond that. Because, not only are you restricted in 
the percentage of your expenditures that you can spend on political 
advocacy, not only does this go back 5 years before you ever got a 
grant, but what is also counted in this is if you purchase something 
from another entity which spends more than 15 percent of its funds on 
political advocacy. Let us just think through the massive intrusion in 
that one. You have the American Cancer Society. It obviously cares 
about health care reform. It cares about research dollars for cancer. 
But it is told it cannot use its non-Federal funds beyond a certain 
limit for that. And what counts against that limit is not only the 
funds that it spends on advocacy, what counts against that limit is the 
money in excess of 15 percent that any people it purchases anything 
from spend on political advocacy.
  Now the American Cancer Society wants to buy a new computer. They are 
thinking maybe they will buy an IBM computer, let us say. They have to 
check with that vendor under this language to find out if that vendor, 
IBM, has spent in the preceding year more than 15 percent of its 
expenditures on political advocacy. Nobody can comply with this kind of 
monstrous paperwork requirement. And nobody in their right mind can 
ever apply for a Federal grant under this requirement because they have 
to certify to the U.S. Government that not only have they not in the 
last 5 years spent more than 5 percent, but they would have to check 
what moneys were spent by everybody it bought anything from in the last 
year to make sure that its suppliers--people that it bought its 
hardware from, its office supplies from, and its electricity from, I 
assume too--to make sure that they did not go over the 15-percent 
level.
  I cannot think of anything this intrusive which has been seriously 
proposed to this Congress during the 17 years that I have been here. I 
have gone back. I have looked to see if anything comes close to do 
this, and it does not.
  Why do I refer to the 15-percent rule? Because under the definition 
of political advocacy, it says that ``political advocacy includes 
disbursing any monetary support to any organization whose expenditures 
for political advocacy for the previous Federal fiscal year exceeded 15 
percent of its total expenditures.'' That is what it says. If you spend 
money, and provide money to any organization that is for the purchase 
of supplies, you have to check out that organization's contributions to 
political advocacy.
  The person or the entity that has a Federal grant--or that is 
applying for a Federal grant--not only has to certify that these limits 
have not been exceeded, but it has to do so by clear and convincing 
evidence. Preponderance of the evidence here is not enough, folks. This 
is clear and convincing evidence. That is subsection 301(b)(1)(c)--
clear and convincing evidence. That is the certification. And any 
taxpayer can take you to court, too, not just the Government, under 
this legislation as proposed. Under the Istook language, any taxpayer 
can stand to take any grantee to court who has made such a 
certification.
  That is the kind of extreme measure that is before us in this 
language.
  Does it have any place in the continuing resolution? No. It does not. 
Does it have any place in any other legislation? No. It does not. It 
does not have any place in a country which relishes its first amendment 
and its free speech right. It does not have any place in a democracy.
  We should not place this kind of restriction on people who are using 
their own funds to lobby their own Government. I want to emphasize this 
point. We have a law already which prohibits the use of Federal grant 
funds to lobby, and we should. We should not be using taxpayers' funds 
to lobby. People though should not be limited in the way they are in 
this language as to how they are going to use their own privately 
raised funds in terms of their own political expression.
  We have received a lot of letters, as I am sure everybody else has, 
on this issue. I would like to read some excerpts from just a few of 
these letters.
  The first one is dated November 2, and goes to Speaker Gingrich and 
Majority Leader Dole. This letter comes from the Adventists, from the 
American Jewish Conference, from the Church World Service, from 
Catholic Charities, from the National Council of Churches of Christ in 
the United States, National Council of Jewish Women, the Archdiocese of 
Philadelphia, the Council of Jewish Federations, the Lutheran World 
Relief Network, the Presbyterian Church, and World Vision. This is what 
they say about the Istook language:

       We strongly believe that advocacy on behalf of justice and 
     the common good are an important part of our calling in the 
     world, and an important part of this Nation's democratic 
     tradition. Do not allow this Congress to establish a 
     dangerous precedent by restricting both our imperative to 
     service and our Nation's traditional respect for a variety of 
     viewpoints. Do not allow Congress to tie our hands or stifle 
     our voices.


[[Page S 16864]]

  The American Baptist Churches wrote the following:

       By expanding the Federal funds restriction to include 
     private funds and broadening the definition of advocacy, the 
     Istook amendment would severely limit the extent to which 
     nonprofits can speak on public policy issues. The amendment 
     would require the Federal Government to monitor political 
     activity and would threaten the freedom of expression 
     protected by the first amendment.

  So, Mr. President, I hope that we are going to strike the Istook 
language. Again, it has no place on this continuing resolution. It is 
inappropriate on this continuing resolution. I believe it should not be 
passed on any vehicle, and should not be passed standing on its own 
because it represents such a massive intrusion on the rights of 
citizens of this country using their own privately raised funds to 
express themselves.
  Last year, a question was raised on the lobby reform bill which was a 
lobby reform bill. It had to do with paid professional lobbyists, and 
making certain that those who are professional lobbyists register and 
disclose how much money they are being paid by whom to lobby Congress 
and the executive branch. There was language in that bill which some 
argued might have a chilling effect on grassroots lobbying. That 
language was stricken, although many of us felt it did not have that 
effect at all. Nonetheless, it was stricken from the bill which we have 
recently passed. That language pales by comparison to this language. On 
a scale of 1 to 100, in terms of the chilling effect on first amendment 
rights and political advocacy, that language was a 1. This language is 
100.
  I doubt very much that this language could possibly pass 
constitutional muster, if it were tested in a court, because of its 
restrictions on the rights of private entities relative to the use of 
their own funds. But whether it ever got that far is what we are going 
to decide today. In the first instance, what we are going to do is 
decide whether or not we want this restriction, this kind of a massive 
intrusion on the rights, this kind of a monstrous bureaucratic 
paperwork requirement, or whether we want this to go any further. That 
is our job. This should never get to a court because this should never 
get past the Senate of the United States which has shown on a 
bipartisan basis over the years tremendous respect for the first 
amendment to the Constitution.
  This is not a partisan issue. The amendment that has been offered by 
the Senator from Colorado is a bipartisan amendment to strike this 
language. There is going to be strong support to strike the Istook 
language on both sides of this aisle. And what that reflects is the 
historic reality of this Senate, that this Senate is, has been, and I 
hope always will be a strong bastion in the defense of the rights of 
free speech and political expression.
  Mr. President, I hope we adopt the Campbell amendment, and I yield 
the floor.
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I hope that everyone hears that. That was magnificent 
work by my friend from Michigan, and he is addressing the language that 
I am striking. Everything the Senator from Michigan has said is what I 
have taken out. He has debated the Istook amendment, and we have 
stripped that. This is startling to me, because there is not anyone 
more adroit in this body than my old friend from Michigan, who came 
here when I did. Every single bit of the debate in these last minutes 
by the Senator from Michigan has addressed the Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich 
amendment, and I and Senator Craig have struck it.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if my friend from Wyoming will yield for a 
question.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Indeed.
  Mr. LEVIN. Has the language yet been stricken?
  Mr. SIMPSON. There is a motion to strike. The motion to strike is 
amended by the series of amendments to fill the tree, as the Senator 
knows, of the Senator from Idaho and myself, to strike completely the 
Istook amendment and leave only behind something that passed here 
unanimously by voice vote, passed the Senate unanimously. It was called 
a restriction on 501(c)(4), and it had to do with a 501(c)(4) receiving 
Federal grants. And if they received Federal grants, they could not do 
unlimited lobbying. That passed here unanimously.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will my dear friend from Wyoming answer another question?
  I gather the answer to the first question is that the language is 
still in the bill before us and has not yet been stricken, but that 
under both the Campbell amendment and under the Simpson amendment the 
Istook language would be stricken?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Under the Simpson amendment, which would come to the 
attention of the Senate first, the Istook language would be stricken, 
if it passes the Senate.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if my friend will yield for another question.
  Does the language being offered by the Senator from Wyoming go beyond 
the language previously adopted by the Senate or is it precisely the 
same as the previous language?
  Mr. SIMPSON. It has this additional matter. It retains fully the 
Simpson-Craig, or Craig-Simpson ban on grants to large 501(c)(4)'s. The 
definitions section has no expansion whatsoever, but it defines 
lobbying activities as passed by the Senate, in the lobbying reform 
bill of which the Senator from Michigan was very instrumental, and, of 
course, adds the definition of ``grant'' in that section. And then 
there is a reporting requirement.
  These are the only things added, so I want the Senator from Michigan 
to know--a bare-bones reporting requirement, which is that grantees 
must simply say whether they spent less than $25,000 on lobbying 
activities or estimate the amount if they spent more, and finally it 
also applies the 501(h) formula for lobbying to Federal grantees, not 
just 501(c)(3)'s, and that is it.
  It also says that if you will--I know the Senator from Michigan well. 
We want to remember that these groups, some of them, are huge. One of 
them is a $5.5 billion operation. They filed their returns, and they 
are not public. And we are saying that those returns will be public--
501(c)(4)'s only. That is what this amendment does. That is all that it 
does.
  Mr. LEVIN. If my friend again will yield, and I thank him for the 
answer, these are significant differences between what the Senator is 
offering today and what the Senate has previously considered and for no 
other reason than the language being offered today by my good friend 
from Wyoming covers all Federal grantees whereas the previous language 
did not.
  Without getting into the complexities or the details of it --and this 
is a 17-page amendment that the Senator has filed--I do not think that 
the continuing resolution is a place for the Senate to be moving into 
significant new ground relative to a very important area, which is the 
free speech, first amendment rights of organizations. This comes as 
additional new matter, different from what has previously been adopted 
by the Senate in the ways that my friend from Wyoming has just 
described, but those are significant differences because this would 
apply to all Federal grantees, this language, whereas the language 
previously adopted by the Senate did not.
  So I do not think this is the place to be debating and considering 
and deliberating on an amendment which has this kind of major 
differences from previously adopted language.
  I thank my friend.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, it is very important to hear this. Most 
of the 17 pages of definitions the Senator speaks of are the Senator's 
creation. These are definitions taken from Senator Levin's lobbying 
reform bill and maybe two or three paragraphs of the substance--nothing 
dramatic.
  We are not talking about the first amendment, I submit to my friend. 
We are not talking about the chilling effect. We are talking about 
responsibility, and what is the responsibility of the Federal 
Government in handing out grants to groups that then use the money to 
lobby the Federal Government for more money--using Federal money for 
that purpose, and that we ought not to have public moneys administered 
by political organizations in some cases, and that is exactly what this 
is about. It is not about the first amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield on that?
  Is the Senator suggesting that these organizations have used Federal 
grant 

[[Page S 16865]]
money to lobby the Federal Government despite the fact that the law 
prohibits the use of Federal grant money for that purpose?
  Mr. SIMPSON. If I might direct my comments through the Chair, I say 
to the Senator, it must be evident to many that these groups get 
Federal money, and then they lobby us for more Federal money, for 
Medicare, Medicaid--you name it--Social Security. That is what they do. 
And as 501(c)(4)'s, they have unlimited ability to lobby and unlimited 
amounts of money to spend in that process.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield, is he suggesting that those 
organizations are using Federal grant money for that purpose in 
violation of existing law which prohibits the use of Federal grant 
money?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Under current law, the groups can count Federal money 
toward allowed expenses for lobbying.
  Mr. LEVIN. My question to my good friend is, is the Senator from 
Wyoming suggesting that Federal grant money, which is given to an 
organization, for instance, to provide a cleaner blood supply or to 
provide lunches in a neighborhood or whatever the grant is for, is my 
friend from Wyoming suggesting that that Federal grant money is being 
used for lobbying purposes despite the current law that prohibits 
Federal grant money from being used in that way?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I would say to my friend from Michigan, a 501(c)(3)--and 
that is what most of these are, that do good works out in the land--can 
spend more on lobbying if they get grant money. So we are not talking 
about those that serve the commonweal. We are talking about groups that 
come in before us in our offices and say we want to see more money for 
this program or that program or that program or that program. If they 
get Federal money, it frees up, it frees up--it is fungible, and they 
can go out and use more to do their lobbying after they offset 
that. Some have said, ``Well, if you take away the Federal money, we'll 
be able to do less for people.''

  Mr. LEVIN. My final question, if my friend would yield for an 
additional question, is, one of the key changes that is being proposed 
here that has not been adopted by the Senate, as I understand it, is 
that for the first time restrictions would be applied to any 
organization--or these additional restrictions would be applied to 
Federal grantees who are receiving, in the aggregate, grants of more 
than $125,000. That is an additional group that would be covered here 
that was not previously covered. Is that correct? That is the section 
301(a) on page 1. That is new language?
  Mr. SIMPSON. That is the language that has to be identified from your 
previous legislation and the language of the two or three paragraphs of 
substantive legislation. Under that section we are applying to Federal 
grantees what is currently applied to 501(c)(3).
  Mr. LEVIN. That is new language, not previously in the Senator's----
  Mr. SIMPSON. That is described in that way, yes. As I say, we are 
going to apply to all Federal grantees what is currently applied to 
501(c)(3).
  I would now yield to my friend from Idaho, who has been absolutely 
superb in assistance with this matter, and I commend him greatly.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I hope that our colleagues here in the 
Senate are listening to the debate and the colloquies that are going on 
at this moment on this very, very important issue. For if one is to 
assume that after we deal with the amendments offered by my colleague 
from Wyoming and my second-degree amendment and a third or a fourth, or 
filling up the tree, we are debating the whole McIntosh issue, that 
would be an inaccurate assumption.
  We are returning to the language that the Senate has already voted on 
unanimously. And, as the Senator from Michigan has appropriately 
pointed out, there are some slight adjustments in it. But those slight 
adjustments are something that are not first amendment issues, not in 
any sense of the word. When it comes to spending Federal dollars, that 
is not a first amendment issue, never has been, most assuredly never 
will be.
  Thomas Jefferson made that very clear to us in many of his writings 
when he said that, ``No man should be lobbied with his own tax 
dollar.'' What we are saying here is very clear. We are simply taking 
the Internal Revenue Code rules, the lobbying of nonprofit charitables, 
the 501(c)(3) groups, and make that formula a little more generous and 
apply it to all organizations that do both lobbying and receive grants.
  The Senator from Michigan is absolutely right, the threshold is 
$125,000. But then what we say is there is a formula of a sliding scale 
that is simple and very easy to understand until you arrive at a 
certain level, and beyond that you can take that first million that you 
can lobby with, and if you are above the $17 million, then you apply 1 
percent, and if you stay within those categories, you report.
  I believe the taxpayers of this country have a right to know how 
their money is being spent. And it is not, nor was it ever, the intent 
of the Senator from Wyoming or the Senator from Idaho, who joined with 
him in the original Simpson-Craig amendments on the floor that all of 
us unanimously supported, that we would stifle anybody's right to speak 
or to express their concern.
  But we also said something very clearly. What are you going to be? 
Are you going to be a lobbying organization or are you going to be an 
organization that takes grants and applies them for the meaningful 
purpose for which they are given? You cannot be dominantly both, nor 
should you be under the law, because you are given a very special tax-
exempt status to do certain things.
  If you are taking grants, for whatever purpose they are allowed, you 
are given that opportunity. But if you have decided to lobby with it to 
generate more money, to do exactly what the Senator from Michigan knows 
can be done--and the term is called fungibility--then you can get 
increasingly larger and larger and larger to lobby a specific point of 
view.
  I will not suggest that our colleagues in the House went too far in 
one form or another. But I will agree that some of those organizations 
that the Senator from Michigan mentions--or I might agree--ought not to 
play by these rules--they clearly are the charitables of our country 
that have served this country and its interested parties well--ought 
not have these kinds of restrictions. That is what this Senate 
recognized. That is why we have come back to change the language in 
this continuing resolution to deal with it as we had originally 
attempted to deal with it here in the Senate, because I think all of us 
recognize that it is time that we do a course correction, and that is, 
frankly, all that these amendments are, is a course correction from 
those very large multihundred million dollar organizations that have 
become very powerful in their skillful use of Federal grant dollars for 
their specific and very directed interests.
  All we are saying to them is that there is going to be a criteria 
from now on, and we are going to apply the 501(c)(3) formula with a 
greater generosity to the 501(c)(4)'s. They have been misled, I think, 
stampeded by Washington special interests into suggesting that we are 
doing something tragic, different.
  You have to remember, those who are lobbying against this have a 
special interest. Their special interest is access through the grant 
process to the Federal Treasury. And we are saying to them, ``You can 
still have access because many of you do very worthwhile things. But 
what you cannot have is a free and open rein to lobby unless you meet 
certain criteria.'' We think that is important.
  Why should we use tax dollars to lobby to get more tax dollars to 
lobby to get more tax dollars to get larger and larger and more 
powerful and powerful for political purposes, in some instances, 
instead of to meet the needs of the grants as we originally saw them? 
And as the activities of Government suggested, these agencies in a 
quasi-private manner could better administer them. That is what we 
wanted. And that is what has been our intent all along.
  But what the Congress has failed to do over the last decade is take a 
serious look at how some organizations have recognized the unique 
ability to 

[[Page S 16866]]
misuse the IRS Code for their particular advantage. And, frankly, we 
think that is just wrong. We want to adhere to the simple approach to 
deal with the larger organizations that we felt it was necessary to 
deal with.
  Those who do not lobby do not have a problem. Their first amendment 
rights in the use of their own dollars are not questioned. Those who do 
lobby and take $125,000 or more of grant dollars have to adhere to a 
reporting process and a percentage of limitation. And they can choose 
to do that. Many organizations already have because they did not want 
to violate the rules or they did not want to misuse the congressional 
intent of that particular area of the IRS Code.
  That is why the legislation was before us. That is why Senator 
Simpson and I have come back to amend the language in this CR because 
we understand what the Senator said. We can count votes. And we thought 
it was important that we deal at least with this segment of the code 
and the particular organizations that identify with that segment of the 
code.
  I think most groups----
  Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if the Senator would yield for a question?
  Mr. CRAIG. I will be happy to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, my question is this: Apparently there 
seems to be agreement--I certainly concur in that--that the language 
that came over from the House is not acceptable. Now, it seems to me we 
ought to leave well enough alone, take it out, strike it. It has to go 
back to the House, and then we go on with our business when it comes 
back from the House. Hopefully, it would be without that language. And 
then we could proceed with the passage of the continuing resolution.
  What the distinguished Senator from Idaho and the distinguished 
Senator from Wyoming are proposing is that in lieu of the language that 
was objectionable in the House, that we insert other language. Now, it 
is my understanding, having listened to the debate, that this language 
is not exactly the same as the so-called Simpson language that was 
adopted unanimously by voice vote.
  There are variations to it. What they are, I am not sure. But my 
question to the Senator from Idaho is as follows: Why are we doing 
this? Why get involved at this point, when we are trying to pass a 
continuing resolution, with an extraneous bill that the Senators 
indicate is extremely popular and, if so, it ought to be able to pass 
on its own.
  Why bog down this legislation with that and tie us up in something as 
we are, as I understand it, near unanimity that we do not want the 
language that came out from the House?
  So let us strike it and go on with a clean CR. Frankly, I am in favor 
of a clean continuing resolution. All of us can think of nice things 
that ought to be added on it. Why, we can do something about Social 
Security for the senior citizens being able to earn more money----
  Mr. CRAIG. May I respond to the Senator's question? I reclaim my time 
for the purpose of responding to the question. The Senator makes a good 
point, and I am not going to try to dispute him on his logic. He and I 
may disagree on clean CR's and the use of vehicles like CR's to move 
legislation, but the fact is, the House did act, and they acted by 
putting in the McIntosh-Istook language.
  If we strike it, will they agree to that? I do not know. What I do 
believe they might agree to is the fact that we have changed their 
language to conform to the language that the Senate voted on by a 
unanimous vote with some very slight changes that we have already 
expressed to the Senators that are not changes in the intent. They 
clearly are clarifying provisions, the kind Senator Chafee and others 
spoke of with some concern in the earlier legislation.
  I think we stand a greater chance of moving the CR and the House 
accepting it as we send it back to them with the amendments provided by 
the Senator from Wyoming and myself to clarify this issue, for we at 
least address it. The House has addressed it. They spoke to it last 
night, and I am not at all convinced that if we send back a clean CR 
with this stricken from it that we can deal with it in that manner. 
That is why we came with this approach. We think it is important, and 
it does conform with the Senate's wishes earlier expressed.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, my own view----
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I hold the time, thank you very much. I 
will simply yield the floor at this point. I made my points. I know the 
Senator wishes to speak. At the moment, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, my own view on this is, if after long, 
continuous debate--and I do not know when it will be we finally get to 
vote, whether the Simpson language is included or not, I do not know--
but my own belief is, if it is included and goes back over there, it 
will be a slice of salami. Then they will come back with some 
variations to it, and back and forth we go with the House in deciding 
just how far we want to go.
  They have staked out a big measure. Instead of us saying ``No, we 
don't want any part of it, we will take that up at another time,'' it 
is very popular here, we can do our version any time we want, we will 
do that within the next several weeks, we send this back with the 
variations, as the distinguished Senator from Idaho and the 
distinguished Senator from Wyoming have proposed, then back it comes 
with a small alteration, and on and on it goes. I think it is a 
mistake, Mr. President.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, let us be very clear here, that will not 
happen. The House leadership told us, and I hold it not in any sense a 
directive or anything else, but the House leadership has told us 
whatever comes out of here in the form of the Craig-Simpson amendment 
will be acceptable to the House. There will be no slicing of salami. 
There will be no slicing of anything.
  In addition, that measure will not come up on Treasury-Postal. That 
is a critical thing. We cannot continue to delay the program because 
certain people have certain things they want. But there are certain 
things that are critical, not in the eyes of three Members of the 
House, but by the entire House, or at least a majority of the House. So 
that is why we have altered--altered?--we have slashed the measure to 
shreds and leave now the basic element of what we did in the Senate 
unanimously and the issue of the 501(h), which is a minimal, 
tremendously minimal requirement.
  This is not going to go back into the grinder. It is not going to 
come forward. But if you are looking for clarity and simplicity and 
speed, I can tell you, it will not come with a motion to strike, 
because the motion to strike will create a most horrendous reaction in 
the House which, again, is destructive of the process.
  So we are trying to get a crumb when we cannot get a loaf, and all of 
us who legislate know that. This is not any dramatic thing. The 
principal substance of it passed here on a voice vote, so it cannot be 
that bad.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield on that point, on that issue for a 
question?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Both the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from Idaho 
said there is a slight difference. There are significant differences. 
To put the question in the form of a question: Can the Senator from 
Wyoming tell us what percentage of current Federal grantees, 
approximately, would be covered by the new language where there is at 
least three significant changes from the old Simpson language? What 
percentage of Federal grantees would be covered by the new language in 
certification requirements and reporting requirements that were not 
covered by the original Simpson language?
  For instance, would this double the number of grantees that are 
covered by certification and paperwork requirements? Would it triple 
it? Quadruple it? What are called slight differences here I think, 
indeed, are major differences. Can the Senator give us approximately 
what multiple of Federal grantees would be brought into this net for 
the first time?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I am presented with figures, and 
remember, 

[[Page S 16867]]
too, that not a single 501(c)(3) is, by our figures, spending more than 
$1 million on lobbying. Not one. Not one single 501(c)(3) is spending, 
according to our records, more than $1 million on lobbying, and that is 
most of the grantees. So I think----
  Mr. KERREY. Will the Senator yield for a follow-on to that?
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if we can get the answer to that question, 
because I included reporting requirements, paperwork requirements. If 
the Senator can tell us what percentage, what multiple of Federal 
grantees would be covered by the paperwork and certification and 
reporting requirements that were covered under the original Simpson 
language, is it twice as many, three times as many? About what 
percentage more?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I have no ability to discern that. The 
paperwork requirement, however, if we can get this in perspective, is 
about less than an I-9 form that you would furnish with Immigration. It 
requires ID, name and amount spent on lobbying.
  So it is not something they are going to have to hire a battalion of 
accountants to do or management officials. It is name, amount spent.
  I can only tell you, I hope some of you will begin to look at some of 
the forms that the nonprofits file. Some of them are huge. Often the 
bigger the nonprofit in the (c)(4) area, the more they are done in 
handwriting. They are not typed, because if you do it in handwriting, 
it makes you look like one of the little guys. So you do it in 
handwriting, and you can almost miss the commas.
  I cite on that one, on the 501(c)(4), the AARP. Their huge report, 
where they report $314 million in the bank in T-bills, where they get 
$106 million a year from Prudential life insurance, getting 3 percent 
of every premium, where they have $26 million in yield on their 
investments, where they get money from New York Life, Scudder-Stevens, 
RV Insurance, and all the rest, and get $86 million from the Federal 
Government. I think any group that can do that and can lease their 
downtown headquarters for $17 million a year on a 20-year lease, while 
they are raising bucks from the little people for $8 a pop, do not need 
Federal funding to do unlimited lobbying.

  These are the (c)(4)'s. That is who I was after when I started. And 
their report is done by, I think, ``Edna the Enforcer,'' down in some 
basement in California. It is written in commas--you cannot tell. You 
are not to disclose that to anyone. I had to search out that form. And 
this is a nonprofit organization. I had to search that out. When I 
received it--and I kept my promise--they said, ``We do not want anyone 
to have access to this, or the public, to see this report.'' Got that? 
This does say that, from then on, this will be presented to the public. 
That is a change in this procedure, in the reporting requirement. They 
do not have to talk about where they spent it or who gave it to them--
just a total amount spent; the total amount expended, which they are 
already entrusted, I think, to keep track of. We are not giving them a 
new item to keep track of. We are using current law definitions for 
lobbying expenses. I hope that might answer the question. At least that 
is the intent.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield, under what law are all Federal 
grantees required to keep track of all their expenditures so they can 
determine how much spending on lobbying there is. This covers all 
grantees. You are not limiting this the way it was before. I wonder 
whether the law requires all grantees to keep track, as the Senator 
just said, of how much money they are spending and what percentage of 
dollars is spent on lobbying, of their own funds. We are talking about 
their own funds.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Currently, I simply say, Mr. President, all grantees do 
not, and we think they should.
  Mr. LEVIN. There is a new requirement?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I explained that fully when we started, that there would 
be a reporting requirement. I said that when I began the debate.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator from Wyoming yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to my friend from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator for yielding. I 
would like to address the question the Senator from Michigan just spoke 
to.
  All organizations keep books. All organizations have to report to the 
IRS. We are not asking that they do anything differently. We say that 
if you meet certain criteria, you have to make a certain amount of 
decisions.
  Mr. President, $39 billion worth of tax money goes out in grants 
every year. You mean you are saying that you do not want the taxpayers 
of this country to have a right to have accountability for that money? 
Absolutely, we do. And we do. The 501(c)(3)'s are accountable, and they 
report. That is a very large chunk of the money. So, right now, the 
Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Idaho are saying that it is 
OK under the law, under the IRS Code, for 98 percent of everybody to 
play by the rules and file the forms. That is what we are saying, is 
that not?
  Now we are talking about a window which several billion dollars 
slides through, in which there is no accountability. Why should those 
who do not account today not be under the same rules as the 98 percent 
who do? You and I both understand that giving the privilege of tax 
exempt in this society is a very large Federal subsidy. That is a 
unique privilege. All we are saying is, to retain that privilege, to do 
the special things that you should be wanting to do under your 
organization, we are saying that these are the requirements, which are 
very limited, and 98 percent play by those rules; why not the other 2 
percent?
  Mr. KERREY. Parliamentary inquiry. Did the Senator from Wyoming yield 
for a question?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yielded to the Senator for a question.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield back to the Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yielded the floor to my friend from Idaho. I am glad 
to yield for a question and have a spirited debate.
  Let me, if I can, read the language as to what is required. It is 
very short. Here is what we are requiring of people who get money from 
the Federal Government. We call them ``taxpayer-subsidized grantees.'' 
It may not be a term of art, but that is what we call them. They get 
money from the Federal Government. They use the money to go out and do 
things with it--lots of times, trying to get more money from the 
Federal Government for things they strongly believe in. Here is what we 
would require of them. It is on page 16 of this amendment. We require--
       . . . a statement that the taxpayer-subsidized grantee 
     spent less than $25,000 on lobbying activity in the grantee's 
     most recent taxable year, or the amount or value of the 
     taxpayer-subsidized grant, including all administrative and 
     overhead costs awarded, a good faith estimate of the 
     grantee's actual expenses on lobbying activities in the most 
     recent taxable year, and a good-faith estimate of the 
     grantee's allowed expenses on lobbying activities under 
     section 301 of this act.

  That is all the reporting there is.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if my friend will yield for a question?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, indeed.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Office of Management and Budget wrote the following:

       We have looked for any evidence regarding violations of 
     prohibitions on use of Federal grant dollars for lobbying. We 
     know of none. We have also contacted inspectors general at 
     DOD, HHS, HUD, and the Department of Labor. They are not 
     aware of any cases of violations.
  I am wondering whether the Senator from Wyoming has evidence of 
violations of the prohibitions on the use of Federal grant dollars for 
lobbying. That is in existing law--prohibiting the use of Federal 
grants. Both the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from Idaho have 
suggested that Federal grant dollars are being used to lobby. They may 
not be so used under current law. For instance, the Senator from Idaho 
suggested that there is a current use of Federal grant money to lobby 
for more grant money, despite the existing prohibition in Federal law 
against doing that.
  So my question is: The Office of Management and Budget does not know 
of any violations of the prohibitions on the use of Federal grant 
dollars for lobbying. Does the Senator from Wyoming have a list of 
violations of those prohibitions?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, we are going to be here a long time, and 
I have eaten well and refreshed myself, and I will be glad to stay here 
for as long as it takes. 

[[Page S 16868]]

  My language does not seek to apply any penalties to anyone. It is not 
to strike at the first amendment. It is not to weave the web of a 
chilling effect. My question was the one I started on many weeks ago 
right here in this Chamber, which must have been somewhat acceptable to 
my colleagues, since the first vote on it was 57-20 or 30, whatever. 
The next time it passed unanimously. The rub is, should this Government 
give money--and I was, at that time, speaking of the AARP, which is a 
501(c)(4) corporation, which has the power of unlimited lobbying 
expenditure--unlimited. I said, ``Why should the taxpayers of the 
United States cough up $86 million a year to the AARP or--listen 
carefully--to the NRA?
  I hope that people are listening to this. I am talking about every 
single 501(c)(4) corporation or the Heritage Foundation or the 
Christian Coalition--you name it; any one organization that gets 
Federal money, when they have the ability of unlimited lobbying 
activity--that is who I am after.
  You can decide what you wish to do with that. You can bring up every 
nuance of question, every shading of meaning.
  I hope--strange, wonderful thing that drives us around here--that you 
realize that 96 percent of all 501(c)(3)'s spend less than $25,000 on 
lobbying; 96 percent of all 501(c)(3)'s spends less than 25,000 bucks 
on lobbying. I can furnish those statistics.
  That may not answer your question. It may be a great diversion. I can 
tell you who we are after. I think I have explained that for the last 
several weeks.
  The Senator from Michigan was on the other side then. He will be on 
the other side tomorrow. He will be on the other side the day after 
tomorrow. So we should at least realize what it is we are addressing. 
We are talking about the big guys.
  That is why we put in the $125,000 provision. That is why we have 
done this, done that. We are after the big guys. We are not after the 
little guy. We are not after the soup kitchen people. We are after 
people who really ought to be addressed--and we will have hearings on 
it--on business activities, untaxed business activity.
  I hope the Senator from Michigan will help me on that, and I think he 
will because there is serious abuse with huge organizations that bring 
in unrelated business income. We will have some hearings on that. That 
is big time, big ticket. That is where we start. Where we will end, 
only the Senate knows.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the most important question for the 
Senators to answer as they prepare to vote for the amendment offered, 
the substitute offered by the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from 
Idaho: Is this body going to get held up every time we do a CR?
  We have three people in the House of Representatives saying, ``We are 
willing to shut the Government of the United States of America down--
whatever the consequences are, we do not care--because we want this 
provision attached to the continuing resolution.''
  To be clear, they did not even have a majority in the appropriations 
subcommittee, Treasury-Postal, and I am a ranking member. They did not 
have a majority on that committee to pass the Istook language.
  Even the Senator from Wyoming, the Senator from Idaho, acknowledge 
that the Istook language would be rejected by the Senate. So what we 
are trying to do is compromise with a minority in the House of 
Representatives which is basically saying, ``We will hold our breath 
until we get our way. We do not care if our face turns blue. We do not 
care if the Government shuts down. We are mad at a few organizations 
that campaigned against us, and we will pay them back.''
  Mr. President, the net is big. The Senator from Wyoming talked about 
his amendment earlier on Treasury-Postal. I would have supported that. 
It would have affected approximately 409 501(c)(4)'s. Even by raising--
we voted at that time on a $10 million threshold. This drops it down to 
$3 million. You will jack it up to some 700 additional 501(c)(4)'s.
  Far more troubling, Mr. President, is the language. This is not a 
change to the earlier proposal of the Senator from Wyoming. This is an 
attempt to compromise with a group of people in the House who are 
saying, ``We will shut the Government down--not for a balanced budget, 
not to do something to strengthen the U.S. economy, not for the future. 
None of that. We think a couple 501(c) (3)'s or (4)'s were negative in 
our campaigns, and we want to get them.''
  That is what is driving this whole thing. This is revenge, the motive 
of a handful of people who are now saying, ``We will shut the 
Government of the United States of America down if we do not get 
revenge.''
  I believe this body needs to say to those folks ``No, that is not how 
we are going to operate a CR.''
  Last week, the distinguished Senator from Wyoming--and I supported 
him strongly--made a motion to put back into committee an amendment 
that the distinguished Senator from Arizona offered that would have 
raised the earnings test on people who get Social Security. We sent 
that to committee, this body did. We sent that issue to committee.
  We said to one of our colleagues, a Member of this body, ``No, this 
needs to go to committee. We need to evaluate this a little bit.''
  Now, I have folks--and one was on the floor earlier; I thought he 
would grab a microphone and try to get recognized--they are saying to 
us, ``Unless we get our way on welfare, we will shut the Government 
down.'' We need to say to them, ``No.'' We need to say to that little 
small group of people, ``No.''
  It is not in the Contract With America. It has not been heard. We 
have not had an opportunity to evaluate this.
  Colleagues say I will go along with Senator Simpson--normally I go 
along with Senator Simpson, the distinguished Senator from Wyoming. 
This is 17 pages of changes, Mr. President, that Members ought to 
understand could have a heck of an impact.
  It might be fine for Mr. Istook or Mr. McIntosh, but all of us 
understand we will be held accountable for this vote. I think the most 
important, perhaps the only question, rather than getting into the 
details of what this will do: Will it make life better? Will it make 
life worse?
  This does not belong on a continuing resolution. This body ought to 
stand unified against a relatively small group of people who say this 
year it is going after 501(c)(4)'s and trying to get some reform for 
the purpose of getting revenge.
  What will it be next year, Mr. President? What will it be next time 
we try to get a continuing resolution so we can do the work of the 
Appropriations Committee? Who knows what it will be?
  This is an act essentially of political terrorism where they are 
saying, ``We will hold you hostage unless you give us what we want.'' 
They will hold us hostage. Give us what we want. Give us an airplane, 
give us this, give us that, and we will go along.
  We ought to say, ``No, don't negotiate with terrorists, Mr. 
President. Do not negotiate with a relatively small handful of people 
that are involved in this process.''
  It is difficult enough to get a continuing resolution with all the 
problems in the budget and all the disagreements and the various 
problems that we have in the budget, to be held up here on this 
continuing resolution, get held up and require us to come down on the 
floor and argue a piece of legislation.
  I understand the Senator from Wyoming has made a good-faith effort to 
try to reach agreement. We ought to say no to a person, to these folks, 
and say, ``You do not have a majority even in the Treasury-Postal 
Subcommittee in Appropriations. You lost the battle. We are not going 
to allow you to hold us, we will not allow you to hold the people of 
the United States of America hostage to your desire for revenge.''
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Nebraska. I hear 
him clearly. I was kind of reviewing the continuing resolution and who 
did what to who--a good thing to do in political combat from time to 
time. I remember how those on the other side of the aisle would hang 
their laundry on the continuing resolutions in days of yore.
  I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S 16869]]


                            Whip Memorandum

     To: TL.
     From: Alison Carroll.
     Subject: History of Riders on Continuing Resolutions.
     Date: November 3, 1995.
       This memo lists the most notable riders (substantial 
     legislative items outside the jurisdictions of the 
     Appropriations Committees) on Continuing Resolutions since 
     1984. Continuing Resolutions are attractive vehicles for such 
     provisions because they are considered must-pass legislation 
     over which the President and Congress eventually must reach 
     agreement.
       Vetoes of Continuing Resolutions have been extremely rare--
     only five Continuing Resolutions have been vetoed since World 
     War II. All vetoes occurred between 1974 and 1990, and none 
     were overridden. The vetoes of FY82 and FY91 measures led to 
     brief shutdowns of some federal agencies.


                       FY84 Continuing Resolution

       International Security and Development Assistance 
     Authorization Act
       Establishment of National Board for Food Distribution and 
     Emergency Shelter
       Penalty for Forging Endorsements on Treasury Checks or 
     Bonds
       Taxes on Reimbursements for Travel Transportation, and 
     Relocation Expenses of Employee


                       FY85 Continuing Resolution

       Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 (over 200 pages 
     long)
       President's Emergency Food Assistance Act
       Child Abuse Prevention


                       fy86 continuing resolution

       Export-Import Bank
       Denial of MFN Status to the Products of Afghanistan
       Federal Salary Act Amendments
       Child Care Services for Federal Employees
       Ethics in Government Act Amendments


                       fy87 continuing resolution

       Contained all 13 appropriations bills
       Defense Acquisition Improvement Act
       Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act
       Human Rights in Romania
       School Lunch and Child Nutrition Amendments
       Aviation Safety Commission Act
       Metropolitan Washington Airports


                       fy88 continuing resolution

       Contained all 13 appropriations bills (3 of 10 had not been 
     considered previously by the Senate)
       Cancellation of FY88 Sequester Order
       Special House and Senate procedures for considering funding 
     requests for the Nicaraguan Resistance (Contra Aid)
       Agriculture Aid and Trade Missions Act


                       fy91 continuing resolution

       Extension of Certain Medicare Hospital Payment Provisions
       Acceptance of Contributions for Department of Defense
       Extension of Temporary Increase in the Public Debt


                       fy92 continuing resolution

       Extension of Sections 8012 and 8013 of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1990

  Mr. SIMPSON. In fiscal year 1985, we had hung on the CR the 
Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, emergency food assistance, 
child abuse prevention. In 1986, we had hung on the CR Export-Import 
Bank, denial of MFN status to products in Afghanistan--that was a 
ripper; that kept us up for a couple of days--Federal Salary Act 
amendments, child care services for Federal employees, Ethics in 
Government Act--that was a riotous occasion.
  In 1987, the CR--and we were not in power here--we had all 13 
appropriations bills tacked in there: Defense Acquisition Improvement 
Act, Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act, human rights in Romania, 
school lunch and child nutrition amendments, Aviation Safety Commission 
Act, Metropolitan Washington airports--all of it hung on the CR by 
those of the other faith.
  So I just wanted to touch upon that lightly, and as far as I know 
what is being hung on this CR is one amendment, and we are debating it. 
And we should.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for all the reasons given by the Senator 
from Nebraska and a lot of other Senators, both on the floor and from 
remarks in other places, this CR is not the place to make major changes 
in terms of the restrictions that are placed on the use of non-Federal 
funds by private organizations. It is a complicated area, and the 
changes that have been made by the Senator from Wyoming from his 
previous language are significant changes. We believe they will include 
a multiple--not just a small percentage more of the organizations and 
entities out there--but a large percentage not covered by the previous 
language which would be covered by the new proposed Simpson language.
  But, I must say, when I am trying to understand the Senator's 
language, I wonder if I could ask for the Senator from Wyoming to help 
me understand his language here. I would like to work through it with 
him because it seems to me it is not only the wrong place to do this 
legislating, but this is a complicated issue and it is very unclear as 
to what he is trying to do. So, if the Senator from Wyoming might help 
me through this, on page 1 of his amendment on line 11, at the last 
line it says that any grantee receiving more than $125,000----
  Mr. SIMPSON. What page, Mr. President?
  Mr. LEVIN. One. Any grantee receiving more than $125,000 should be 
subject to the limitations on lobbying activity expenditures under 
section 4911(c)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code.
  When I look at 4911(c)(2)(B) of the Code, what I see are restrictions 
in the amount of lobbying activity for an organization to retain 
eligibility under their 501(c)(3) status. And it looks as though you 
spend--for instance, if your exempt purposes expenditures are between 
$500 and $1,000 but not over $1 million, that you are allowed lobbying 
nontaxable expenditures of $100,000.
  Just to give one example, so, under 4911, a 501(c)(3) that has exempt 
purposes expenditures between half a million and a million dollars can 
retain that 501(c)(3) status and still spend $100,000 on lobbying--plus 
a certain percentage of the excess, but at least $100,000.
  But, then, when I look at the Senator's language on page 16 of his 
amendment, line 6, here--although previously we were told that a 
501(c)(3) can spend as much on lobbying as is allowed under 4911, 
suddenly we are told on line 6 that the chief executive officer of this 
entity must certify that the grantee spent less than $25,000 on 
lobbying activities in the grantee's most recent taxable year.
  So, on page 1 we are told follow the 4911 rules, which permit up to 
$225,000, in some cases, plus 5 percent of the excess. It is 
complicated but it is obviously more than $25,000. We are told on page 
1 of this complicated amendment that the 501(c)(3) which is being 
covered here now, the other grantees which are being covered here now, 
are permitted to spend the amounts permitted under 4911. And then, lo 
and behold, a few pages later we are told the chief executive officer 
has to certify that the grantee spent less than $25,000 on lobbying 
activity.
  My question of my friend from Wyoming is, which is it? Is it the 4911 
limit or is it the $25,000 limit?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan and I know each 
other too well. I enjoy the spirited energy that he conveys.
  I want to say that what the Senator is speaking of here and bringing 
up is what I am intending to do. There is no mystery. You cannot 
misread two sections. If they spend less than $25,000 they do not have 
to report. That is what this says. The word ``or'' is there on that 
line, ``or,'' line 8. They have options.
  Page 16 just gives the exemption. Page 16 just gives the exemption. 
It says ``or,'' and then it goes on to say if you spend more, you will 
estimate it. That is what it says.
  So, to go back--I can go back into the code. We can do that, as I 
say, into the night. I am perfectly prepared. I might have to run off 
and get some light snack or something, but I am ready to do that.
  The section of the Internal Revenue Code on that section, at the 
bottom of section 4911(c) page 630(C) of the 1986 Code, subtitle (d), 
chapter 40 is quite clear. It talks about the exemptions and lobbying 
expenditures and what they are. Expenditures for the purpose of 
influencing legislation: The nontaxable amount, the net purpose, the 
exempt purpose. All of those things are there.
  It says, simply, in this bill, in sum, if you spent less than $25,000 
you just have to say so. If you spent more than that, you have to 
estimate it. That is sole purpose of the amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator for that clarification. I take it that 
the records, of course, would have to be kept so that certification 
could be made. But I think at least that clarification helps on that 
one point.
  I am wondering, both the Senator from Wyoming and Idaho said, at 
least 

[[Page S 16870]]
I believe that both have said, there is no question being raised about 
the limit on private funds which will be spent for lobbying. Is that 
correct? Or is this in fact not restricting the limit of non-Federal 
funds that can be spent for lobbying?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, the Senator mentioned an individual? Was 
that not your words?
  Mr. LEVIN. Entity. No, the entity.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Because individuals are not covered in any way.
  Mr. LEVIN. No, I am talking about the entity.
  Mr. SIMPSON. There are no restrictions--no new restrictions of any 
nature. We are simply describing grantees. We are including the phrase 
``grantees.'' That is a word of, I think, some substance. A grantee, 
that is somebody receiving taxpayers' money. And there are no new 
restrictions, only--the only difference is that Federal grantees, those 
receiving taxpayers' money, would be subject to the formula governing 
501(c)(3).
  Mr. LEVIN. To clarify this further, we are adding a new class of 
people covered by a restriction on the use of private funds for 
lobbying, and the unanswered question, so far that is, is how many 
additional people--or entities to be more precise--how many additional 
entities would be covered by the restrictions than were previously 
covered?
  On that I gather we do not have an estimate, in terms of a percentage 
such as 50 percent more or 100 percent more or 2 times as many or 
whatever; is that a fair conclusion? That we do not have an estimate as 
to the multiple or percentage increase in the number of entities 
covered by the restrictions that previously were in the Simpson 
language?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I would have no estimation of that. When 
we started our work months ago, I recall that it took us quite a while 
to find out how many 501(c)(4)'s there were, and how many of them 
really got into this lobbying game, and how many did not. But, we have 
not said, here, in this amendment, that only non-Federal funds are 
counted. We leave the formula to apply to Federal and non-Federal funds 
received, as is the current law.
  (Ms. SNOWE assumed the chair.)
  Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, indeed.
  Mr. THOMPSON. As I listen to the debate, it appears that there are 
large organizations with millions of dollars of assets that make 
millions of dollars a year and they are receiving substantial amounts 
of money from the Federal Government, and you are seeking to place some 
requirements on them with regard to their lobbying activities. As I 
listen to this, there is a question that perhaps has been answered or 
addressed before, which I would think anybody listening to this would 
raise, and that is, Why is the Federal Government subsidizing these 
large organizations to start with?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I am very pleased that question has 
been asked. That is the nub. Why? Why should an organization that 
receives tremendous amounts of money in dues, tremendous amounts of 
money in unrelated business activities, a tremendous benefit by mailing 
through the Federal postal authority--and I asked for only one when I 
started. But this amendment and my work pertains to every single one of 
these, whether from the Christian right to the evil left. I hope people 
are hearing this exactly because that is exactly what we are talking 
about. And the Senator from Tennessee is absolutely correct.
  What is the purpose of allowing that to occur when they receive money 
from the Federal Government, when in a sense they are awash in money 
and have an awesome power, which is called the unlimited lobbying 
expense? They can raise as much as they want and they can spend as much 
as they want without any limitation whatsoever, and then take the 
Federal grant money and make it fungible, which gives them more ability 
to try to get more money out of the Federal Government.
  I have a question that I might ask of the Senator from Michigan, 
since it is question time. Does the Senator from Michigan, Madam 
President, believe that the existing limits on lobbying by 501(c)(3) 
corporations are improperly restrictions of use of private funds?
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, in those cases, the people who contribute 
to those organizations get a tax deduction. So there is a true tax 
subsidy. But what the Senator from Wyoming is doing is then saying that 
every organization that gets a grant should be treated the same way, 
that every organization that is doing our work--where we give them a 
grant to deliver a meal, or to reduce the amount of drunk driving, or 
to clear up our blood supply, or to do the hundreds of other things 
that we want people to do for us--should be treated in the same way.
  These are people that are performing services that we want private 
entities to perform. I thought we were trying to get away from having 
Federal employees perform all these services. So we make grants to 
entities to perform these services for us. Those are grantees. They are 
not spending that grant money to lobby. That is a violation of existing 
law. And the OMB has said they cannot find one violation; not one.
  The problem with this proposal is that now we are treating those 
entities in the same manner as we previously treated entities for whom 
a tax contribution was tax deductible where there really is at least 
arguably a tax subsidy. So there is a very big difference.
  But, if I may say to my friend from Wyoming, whether or not the 
Senator agrees with me, there surely is a major change in this 
legislation from the legislation previously adopted by the Senate. To 
now include all grantees is a significant substantive change. This is 
not a slight change, and it has no place on the CR.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I still would ask the question. It has 
not yet been answered. Does the Senator from Michigan believe that the 
presently existing limits on lobbying by 501(3)(c)'s are improper 
restrictions of use of private funds? That is the question I am 
asking--not about children or vaccinations or things that I believe in, 
too. That is what I am asking.
  Mr. LEVIN. For the funds which those organizations have spent with 
tax deductible funds, people who contributed those funds received a tax 
deduction. That is a very significant difference and, it seems to me, 
represents a very different situation in terms of the restriction on 
lobbying because there was a true tax subsidy.
  But, by definition, the Federal grantees that we are talking about 
are using private funds for lobbying purposes, and that is a very 
different kind of an animal. I think the arguments that apply to it are 
very different. But, again, whether or not this Senator is right in his 
conclusion, whether or not the Senator from Wyoming is right, or the 
Senator from Michigan is right, surely this represents a significant 
change in policy. And that is to be argued, it seems to me, properly in 
a legislative arena on a legislative bill and not on a continuing 
resolution.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I will not go further. The Senator and 
I will visit together and break bread and resolve this one. But there 
are existing limits on lobbying, on 501(c)(3) corporations, and 
everyone should hear that. And there have not then been improper 
restrictions of the use of private funds. No one is alleging 
violations. What is objectionable to me about the spending limits under 
501(h) is why should they not cover those who are administering public 
money? I am interested in people who are administering public money. 
That is what I am interested in. And these people that give to the 
501(3)(c)'s are called taxpayers. And in the case of Federal grantees, 
the taxpayer is contributing to them. They have no choice. Should they 
then be forced to support the various activities of those organizations 
that they do not concur with?
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.


                    Amendment No. 3049, As Modified

  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I send a modification of my amendment No. 
3049 to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to modify the 
amendment. The amendment is so modified.
  So, the amendment (No. 3049), as modified, is as follows:

       In lieu of the language in amendment 3048, insert the 
     following:

[[Page S 16871]]


                                  III


 PROHIBITION ON SUBSIDIZING POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS WITH TAXPAYER FUNDS

       Sec. 301. (a) Limitations.--(1) Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, any organization receiving Federal grants 
     in an amount that, in the aggregate, is greater than $125,000 
     in the most recent Federal fiscal year, shall be subject to 
     the limitations on lobbying activity expenditures under 
     section 4911(c)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Codes of 1986, 
     except that, if exempt purpose expenditures are over 
     $17,000,000 then the organization shall also be subject to a 
     limitation on lobbying of 1 percent of the excess of the 
     exempt purpose expenditures over $17,000,000 unless otherwise 
     subject to section 4911(c)(2)(A) based on an election made 
     under section 501(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (2) An organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that engaged in lobbying 
     activities during the organization's previous taxable year 
     shall not be eligible to receive Federal funds constituting a 
     taxpayer subsidized grant. This paragraph shall not apply to 
     organizations described in section 501(c)(4) with gross 
     annual revenues of less than $3,000,000 in such previous 
     taxable year, including Federal funds received as a taxpayer 
     subsidized grant.
       (b) Definitions.--For the purposes of this title:
       (1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Client.--The term ``client'' means any person or entity 
     that employs or retains another person for financial or other 
     compensation to conduct lobbying activities on behalf of that 
     person or entity. A person or entity whose employees act as 
     lobbyists on its own behalf is both a client and an employer 
     of such employees. In the case of a coalition or association 
     that employs or retains other persons to conduct lobbying 
     activities, the client is the coalition or association and 
     not its individual members.
       (3) Covered executive branch official.--The term ``covered 
     executive branch official'' means--
       (A) the President;
       (B) the Vice President;
       (C) any officer or employee, or any other individual 
     functioning in the capacity of such an officer or employee, 
     in the Executive Office of the President;
       (D) any officer or employee serving in a position in level 
     I, II, III, IV, or V of the Executive Schedule, as designated 
     by statute or Executive order;
       (E) any member of the uniformed services whose pay grade is 
     at or above O-7 under section 201 of title 37, United States 
     Code; and
       (F) any officer or employee serving in a position of a 
     confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-
     advocating character described in section 7511(b)(2) of title 
     5, United States Code.
       (4) Covered legislative branch official.--The term 
     ``covered legislative branch official'' means--
       (A) a Member of Congress;
       (B) an elected officer of either House of Congress;
       (C) any employee of, or any other individual functioning in 
     the capacity of an employee of--
       (i) a Member of Congress;
       (ii) a committee of either House of Congress;
       (iii) the leadership staff of the House of Representatives 
     or the leadership staff of the Senate;
       (iv) a joint committee of Congress; and
       (v) a working group or caucus organized to provide 
     legislative services or other assistance to Members of 
     Congress; and
       (D) any other legislative branch employee serving in a 
     position described under section 109(13) of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.).
       (5) Employee.--The term ``employee'' means any individual 
     who is an officer, employee, partner, director, or proprietor 
     of a person or entity, but does not include--
       (A) independent contractors; or
       (B) volunteers who receive no financial or other 
     compensation from the person or entity for their services.
       (6) Foreign entity.--The term ``foreign entity'' means a 
     foreign principal (as defined in section 1(b) of the Foreign 
     Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C. 611(b)).
       (7) Grant.--The term ``grant'' means the provision of any 
     Federal funds, appropriated under this or any other Act, to 
     carry out a public purpose of the United States, except--
       (A) the provision of funds for acquisition (by purchase, 
     lease, or barter) of property or services for the direct 
     benefit or use of the United States;
       (B) the payments of loans, debts, or entitlements;
       (C) the provision of funds to, or distribution of funds by, 
     a Federal court established under Article I or III of the 
     Constitution of the United States;
       (D) nonmonetary assistance provided by the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs to organizations approved or recognized 
     under section 5902 of title 38, United States Code; and
       (E) the provision of grant and scholarship funds to 
     students for educational purposes.
       (8) Lobbying activities.--The term ``lobbying activities'' 
     means lobbying contacts and efforts in support of such 
     contacts, including preparation and planning activities, 
     research and other background work that is intended, at the 
     time it is performed, for use in contacts, and coordination 
     with the lobbying activities of others.
       (9) Lobbying contact.--
       (A) Definition.--The term ``lobbying contact'' means any 
     oral or written communication (including an electronic 
     communication) to a covered executive branch official or a 
     covered legislative branch official that is made on behalf of 
     a client with regard to--
       (i) the formulation, modification, or adoption of Federal 
     legislation (including legislative proposals);
       (ii) the formulation, modification, or adoption of a 
     Federal rule, regulation, Executive order, or any other 
     program, policy, or position of the United States Government;
       (iii) the administration or execution of a Federal program 
     or policy (including the negotiation, award, or 
     administration of a Federal contract, grant, loan, permit, or 
     license); or
       (iv) the nomination or confirmation of a person for a 
     position subject to confirmation by the Senate.
       (B) Exceptions.--The term ``lobbying contact'' does not 
     include a communication that is--
       (i) made by a public official acting in the public 
     official's official capacity;
       (ii) made by a representative of a media organization if 
     the purpose of the communication is gathering and 
     disseminating news and information to the public;
       (iii) made in a speech, article, publication or other 
     material that is distributed and made available to the 
     public, or through radio, television, cable television, or 
     other medium of mass communication;
       (iv) made on behalf of a government of a foreign country or 
     a foreign political party and disclosed under the Foreign 
     Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C. 611 et seq.);
       (v) a request for a meeting, a request for the status of an 
     action, or any other similar administrative request, if the 
     request does not include an attempt to influence a covered 
     executive branch official or a covered legislative branch 
     official;
       (vi) made in the course of participation in an advisory 
     committee subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act;
       (vii) testimony given before a committee, subcommittee, or 
     task force of the Congress, or submitted for inclusion in the 
     public record of a hearing conducted by such committee, 
     subcommittee, or task force;
       (viii) information provided in writing in response to an 
     oral or written request by a covered executive branch 
     official or a covered legislative branch official for 
     specific information;
       (ix) required by subpoena, civil investigative demand, or 
     otherwise compelled by statute, regulation, or other action 
     of the Congress or an agency;
       (x) made in response to a notice in the Federal Register, 
     Commerce Business Daily, or other similar publication 
     soliciting communications from the public and directed to the 
     agency official specifically designated in the notice to 
     receive such communications;
       (xi) not possible to report without disclosing information, 
     the unauthorized disclosure of which is prohibited by law;
       (xii) made to an official in an agency with regard to--

       (I) a judicial proceeding or a criminal or civil law 
     enforcement inquiry, investigation, or proceeding; or
       (II) a filing or proceeding that the Government is 
     specifically required by statute or regulation to maintain or 
     conduct on a confidential basis,

     if that agency is charged with responsibility for such 
     proceeding, inquiry, investigation, or filing;
       (xiii) made in compliance with written agency procedures 
     regarding an adjudication conducted by the agency under 
     section 554 of title 5, United States Code, or substantially 
     similar provisions;
       (xiv) a written comment filed in the course of a public 
     proceeding or any other communication that is made on the 
     record in a public proceeding;
       (xv) a petition for agency action made in writing and 
     required to be a matter of public record pursuant to 
     established agency procedures;
       (xvi) made on behalf of an individual with regard to that 
     individual's benefits, employment, or other personal matters 
     involving only that individual, except that this clause does 
     not apply to any communication with--

       (I) a covered executive branch official, or
       (II) a covered legislative branch official (other than the 
     individual's elected Members of Congress or employees who 
     work under such Members' direct supervision),

     with respect to the formulation, modification, or adoption of 
     private legislation for the relief of that individual;
       (xvii) a disclosure by an individual that is protected 
     under the amendments made by the Whistleblower Protection Act 
     of 1989, under the Inspector General Act of 1978, or under 
     another provision of law;
       (xviii) made by--

       (I) a church, its integrated auxiliary, or a convention or 
     association of churches that is exempt from filing a Federal 
     income tax return under paragraph 2(A)(i) of section 6033(a) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or
       (II) a religious order that is exempt from filing a Federal 
     income tax return under paragraph (2)(A)(iii) of such section 
     6033(a); and

       (xix) between--

[[Page S 16872]]


       (I) officials of a self-regulatory organization (as defined 
     in section 3(a)(26) of the Securities Exchange Act) that is 
     registered with or established by the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission as required by that Act or a similar organization 
     that is designated by or registered with the Commodities 
     Future Trading Commission as provided under the Commodity 
     Exchange Act; and
       (II) the Securities and Exchange Commission or the 
     Commodities Future Trading Commission, respectively;

     relating to the regulatory responsibilities of such 
     organization under that Act.
       (10) Lobbying firm.--The term ``lobbying firm'' means a 
     person or entity that has 1 or more employees who are 
     lobbyists on behalf of a client other than that person or 
     entity. The term also includes a self-employed individual who 
     is a lobbyist.
       (11) Lobbyist.--The term ``lobbyist'' means any individual 
     who is employed or retained by a client for financial or 
     other compensation for services that include more than one 
     lobbying contact, other than an individual whose lobbying 
     activities constitute less than 20 percent of the time 
     engaged in the services provided by such individual to that 
     client over a six month period.
       (12) Media organization.--The term ``media organization'' 
     means a person or entity engaged in disseminating information 
     to the general public through a newspaper, magazine, other 
     publication, radio, television, cable television, or other 
     medium of mass communication.
       (13) Member of congress.--The term ``Member of Congress'' 
     means a Senator or a Representative in, or Delegate or 
     Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.
       (14) Organization.--The term ``organization'' means a 
     person or entity other than an individual.
       (15) Person or entity.--The term ``person or entity'' means 
     any individual, corporation, company, foundation, 
     association, labor organization, firm, partnership, society, 
     joint stock company, group of organizations, or State or 
     local government.
       (16) Public official.--The term ``public official'' means 
     any elected official, appointed official, or employee of--
       (A) a Federal, State, or local unit of government in the 
     United States other than--
       (i) a college or university;
       (ii) a government-sponsored enterprise (as defined in 
     section 3(8) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
     Control Act of 1974);
       (iii) a public utility that provides gas, electricity, 
     water, or communications;
       (iv) a guaranty agency (as defined in section 435(j) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1085(j))), including 
     any affiliate of such an agency; or
       (v) an agency of any State functioning as a student loan 
     secondary market pursuant to section 435(d)(1)(F) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1085(d)(1)(F));
       (B) a Government corporation (as defined in section 9101 of 
     title 31, United States Code);
       (C) an organization of State or local elected or appointed 
     officials other than officials of an entity described in 
     clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of subparagraph (A);
       (D) an Indian tribe (as defined in section 4(e) of the 
     Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 
     U.S.C. 450b(e));
       (E) a national or State political party or any 
     organizational unit thereof; or
       (F) a national, regional, or local unit of any foreign 
     government.
       (17) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, 
     territory, or possession of the United States.


                        disclosure requirements

       Sec. 302. (a) In General.--Not later than December 31 of 
     each year, each taxpayer subsidized grantee, except an 
     individual person, shall provide (via either electronic or 
     paper medium) to each Federal entity that awarded or 
     administered its taxpayer subsidized grant an annual report 
     for the previous Federal fiscal year, certified by the 
     taxpayer subsidized grantee's chief executive officer or 
     equivalent person of authority, setting forth--
       (1) the taxpayer subsidized grantee's name and grantee 
     identification number;
       (2) a statement that the taxpayer subsidized grantee agrees 
     that it is, and shall continue to be, contractually bound by 
     the terms of this title as a condition of the continued 
     receipt and use of Federal funds; and
       (3)(A) a statement that the taxpayer subsidized grantee 
     spent less than $25,000 on lobbying activities in the 
     grantee's most recent taxable year; or
       (B)(i) the amount or value of the taxpayer subsidized grant 
     (including all administrative and overhead costs awarded);
       (ii) a good faith estimate of the grantee's actual expenses 
     on lobbying activities in the most recent taxable year; and
       (iii) a good faith estimate of the grantee's allowed 
     expenses on lobbying activities under section 301 of this 
     Act.


                         public accountability

       Sec. 303. (a) Public Availability of Lobbying Disclosure 
     Forms.--Any Federal entity awarding a taxpayer subsidized 
     grant shall make publicly available any taxpayer subsidized 
     grant application, and the annual report of a taxpayer 
     subsidized grantee provided under section 302 of this Act.
       (b) Accessibility to Public.--The public's access to the 
     documents identified in subsection (a) shall be facilitated 
     by placement of such documents in the Federal entity's public 
     document reading room and also by expediting any requests 
     under section 552 of title 5, United States Code, the Freedom 
     of Information Act as amended, ahead of any requests for 
     other information pending at such Federal entity.
       (c) Withholding Prohibited.--Records described in 
     subsection (a) shall not be subject to withholding, except 
     under the exemption set forth in subsection (b)(7)(A) of 
     section 552 of title 5, United States Code.
       (d) Fees Prohibited.--No fees for searching for or copying 
     such documents shall be charged to the public.
       (e) The amendments made by this title shall become 
     effective January 4, 1996.

  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I think the colloquy that has gone on 
this afternoon between our colleagues from Wyoming and Michigan has 
been extremely valuable. It has established very clearly that 501(c)(3) 
organizations in this country that receive a very large share, the 
lion's share, of the Federal grant dollars comply with the Federal law, 
and the IRS, too. In fact, the Senator from Michigan said that OMB has 
reported no violations.
  Madam President, the reason there are not any violations is because 
there is a reporting requirement, and if they spend more than $25,000 
worth of lobbying, they are in trouble. So they do not. They are 
limited by law, and there is a reporting process. There is a mechanism 
to hold them accountable. In that accountability, they perform those 
kinds of activities that they choose to under the privilege that the 
Congress of the United States and the taxpayers have granted them--tax-
exemption. That is very simple. That is very clear. That has been 
established here today. That is the law.
  They are required to keep books, but any organization that handles 
money is required to keep books by either their board or by the IRS, 
and in all instances the IRS. And so that is nothing new.
  There are no new accounting requirements. They have to keep their 
books. But now there is a requirement, and that is the requirement of 
accountability, on another group--the same requirement we put on 90-
plus percent of those who accept the Federal grants. It is not 
prohibitive to the clean blood supply, to the vaccinations, to the 
feeding. What is prohibitive is that if that group chooses to lobby, 
they have limits. They must decide whether they are going to be tax 
exempt and carry out the mandate of their grants and the goal of their 
organization or whether they are going to aggressively get involved in 
lobbying. It is a matter of either/or, of choice. It is not prohibitive 
in that sense. It is a matter of choice, decisionmaking. If they want 
to lobby and they have an interest to lobby, they ought to go create 
another organization with separate books so that the money does not 
cross spend, it is not fungible, so that the taxpayers do not find 
themselves subsidizing.
  That is what the debate is about. We are taking the law that 
currently governs 90-plus percent of these organizations and putting it 
to the others with the same requirements and then a formula. In fact, 
we are even more liberal. We say that if you get above a certain 
amount, you can spend a certain amount. And until that time there is a 
very simple sliding formula that says here is the limitation--nothing 
more and nothing less. It is a mirror in which to look at themselves 
and to decide if they need to decide that they may be doing something 
wrong and would want to change. Or if they want to be all grant and no 
lobby or no advocacy, then that is what they ought to be.
  I suggest that those who are providing feeding, who are interested in 
a clean blood supply and do that work in the private sector that the 
Senator from Michigan talks about that we have decided can be done 
better there, they are going to choose to do their job and not to 
lobby. But if there is a need for them to express an advocacy role, 
they can form a 501(c)(3) to get it done. That is a separate 
bookkeeping system, and that is called accountability because we have 
extended them a very special form of treatment under the law--tax-
exempt status. That means they are by definition subsidized by the 
taxpayers of this country. Therefore, the taxpayers of this country 
have the right to ask for accountability under the law, and that is 
what we ask for.
  I yield back the remainder of my time. 

[[Page S 16873]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. FORD. Madam 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. WELLSTONE. 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. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  We are on the Simpson amendment; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, let me speak briefly on this 
amendment.
  Let me make three central points, not as an expert on all of the 
technical detail but I think I speak for the State of Minnesota, or a 
vast majority of people in my State when I say, first of all, this 
amendment really is an obvious effort to gag nonprofit organizations. I 
do not think it makes any sense. Day after day, we have been hearing 
from a majority in the House and some of my other colleagues about the 
importance of voluntarism and the value of the private sector in our 
society.
  We talk about James Madison, and we talk about Thomas Jefferson, and 
I can think of the Alex de Tocqueville classic about America, the 
importance of mediating institutions. That is what these nonprofits are 
all about. They are the key to an effective civil society. They are 
ones who get people to participate in a democracy. They are ones who 
represent the interests of the middle class, of workers and poor 
people.
  By the way, all too often they are the only voices for the voiceless.
  So it does seem to me that this provision--and I have not seen 
exactly all that is in this modification--would make it very difficult 
for these groups to fully participate in the democratic purposes of 
this society. And to the extent that is true, I think it is a loss.
  Moreover, I think it is a bit deplorable that those who are talking 
about these kinds of restrictions and are talking about the nonprofit 
sector, when it comes to others who feed the most from the public 
trough, the defense contractors and the big businesses, if we want to 
talk about people who are receiving hundreds of billions of dollars a 
year, do not gag them at all.
  I would not be in favor of that anyway, because I think it is a 
violation of the first amendment to the Constitution, but it does seem 
to me that there is a sleight of the hand here that we ought to 
understand.
  On the one hand, we go after these nonprofits that are all too often, 
as I said, the only voice for the voiceless, organizations that do 
wonderful work, that contribute greatly to the civil society, that do a 
lot of effective social service work and charity work and all of the 
rest. On the other hand, when it comes to big military contractors, big 
companies that receive all sorts of benefits, contracts, money from the 
Federal Government, when it comes to all sorts of large corporations 
which receive all of these various tax breaks, we do not have any such 
restrictions on them.
  It seems to me that this is a double code. It is the same double 
code--those big contractors, they have the big bucks; they are the 
heavy hitters; they have the lobbyists. This is not lobbying reform. I 
have been involved in lobbying reform and the gift ban. This is nothing 
more than an effort to gag nonprofit organizations.
  I must say to my colleagues that I find this even more troubling. I 
was at a press conference today. The Office of Management and Budget 
released a study--Dr. Rivlin deserves a lot of credit for her 
intellectual honesty--that what we passed that we called welfare reform 
will, in fact, on the House side, lead to over 2 million more children 
being impoverished in America; on the Senate side, a little over 1 
million children will be impoverished as a result of legislation that 
we passed that we called ``welfare reform.''
  At the time that we do that we now want to gag these nonprofit 
organizations which are quite often the only voice for those citizens, 
including the children. It is a bit outrageous.
  Finally, Madam President--and I will be relatively brief because I 
imagine we have a vote coming up soon--I think the definition of 
political advocacy is such a broad definition, and we are not talking 
about lobbying, which is restricted. We are not talking about narrow 
partisan activity. We are saying that if an organization, a nonprofit 
organization wants to testify before the legislature, somebody wants to 
write an op-ed piece, somebody wants to do an educational forum, you 
name it, they may not be able to do that.
  I think it is transparent what this is all about. I think it has 
already had a chilling effect in this country. And this is an amendment 
that ought to be voted down.
  In any case, even if I was for it--and I am not--it is a gag order. 
It is an absolutely outrageous double code, with no such effort focused 
toward military contractors, big corporations. Such an effort should 
not be focused on them anyway; I would not be in favor of that because 
of basic first amendment guarantees, but, in addition, it should not be 
on this continuing resolution.
  We are talking about whether or not the Government is going to 
continue to function, for God's sake. We are talking about whether or 
not we can govern here in Washington. I think people are sick and tired 
of these games and these amendments that get put on this kind of 
legislation.
  Let me conclude by talking about another issue, since I think I have 
a little bit more time, about which I am deeply troubled.
  And that has to do with my concern about the low-income energy 
assistance program which, Madam President, I know is very important to 
a State like Maine.
  This program, the low-income energy assistance program--and I was 
tempted to do an amendment on this continuing resolution; I will not at 
this time because I think this is very, very serious business--but this 
is a 6-month heating season program, it is not really a 1-year program. 
And it is extremely important that the cold weather States get this 
funding and get this funding out to people.
  It is true that some LIHEAP funds are used for cooling in places like 
nursing homes, but in the vast majority of the cases it is cold-weather 
States. And this money is used to help low-income people pay for 
furnace repairs and replacements, for fuel and propane tanks being 
filled, and for emergency assistance to avoid utility shutoff.
  Madam President, I will tell you what we are doing right now. By not 
getting the money out to these communities, by having it essentially 30 
percent of what it should be, we are basically forcing people to freeze 
on an installment plan.
  Madam President, as I said before, this is a stopgap budget bill. If 
we continue to allocate these dollars, small in amount, for emergency 
heating assistance for elderly people, people with disabilities, people 
with children in this fashion, we are going to have some citizens who 
are going to freeze to death in this country. And then we will be 
ashamed. Then we will take the action.
  But, my God, Madam President, I do not want to wait until that point 
in time. I want to make it clear to my colleagues that we cannot 
continue to fund programs like the low-income energy assistance program 
on an ad hoc, partial basis without doing serious harm to millions of 
families, some of the most vulnerable citizens in this country, who 
depend upon this program for their very survival during the winter.
  Madam President, I was considering an amendment to this bill to 
provide additional LIHEAP funding for the States. But I am not going to 
do it because we are on the brink of a Government shutdown. I think 
that would be irresponsible. But I am not going to continue to let this 
go on month after month, allowing people to freeze on the installment 
plan. Is that what we want? Do we want to have vulnerable elderly 
people freeze, some perhaps even freeze to death, before we act to 
provide adequate low-income energy assistance funding? I do not think 
so. And I do not think that is what people voted for last year.
  I do not think we can let this happen. I think we are going to have 
to do something soon. And if we do not do something soon, that is 
exactly what is going to happen. It could happen in 

[[Page S 16874]]
North Dakota, it could happen in Alaska, it could happen in Maine, it 
could happen in Michigan, it could happen in Minnesota, it could happen 
in any number of the cold weather States in this country.
  Madam President, this Low-Income Energy Assistance Program has been 
cut already by 25 percent this past year, and the House of 
Representatives urged its elimination altogether. The total cost of 
low-income energy assistance for citizens across this country does not 
equal one B-2 bomber, and in the House of Representatives they want to 
eliminate the program.
  This program right now is down $1.2 billion from 10 years ago, and 
the need is growing. I have just said to my colleagues that I am 
extremely worried about what is going to happen. What I am hearing in 
my State is the funds are going to be depleted in the coming weeks.
  What is going to happen during the rest of the winter in Maine or in 
Minnesota or in West Virginia, you name it? What happens in February? 
What happens in March or later if a cold snap occurs and people are 
held up without fuel oil or propane or electricity to run their 
thermostats? What then are we going to do?
  Madam President, the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program in my State 
of Minnesota serves about 110,000 households, over 300,000 people. 
These are poor people. These are elderly people, people with 
disabilities, families with children. This year we are expecting to 
provide a supplement of an average of only $200 for the whole winter. 
The average fuel bill in Minnesota for the vulnerable elderly is 
between $1,800 and $2,000 a year. So people are carrying most of these 
costs.
  The continuing resolution which the House passed last night and upon 
which we are going to act today provides that only a small percentage 
of the funds requested by the States in the first quarter, the funds 
that they need to run the program, are going to be there.
  Madam President, I just simply have to say one more time that I am 
concerned. We have this only at about 30 percent of the normal rate. 
Minnesota is planning cuts of about 50 percent in benefit levels and 
will be unable to provide assistance to all eligible applicants under 
the current circumstances. In addition, many programs had to turn away 
recipients from the crisis program because of this erratic Federal 
funding. As a result, there are 900,000 households who have empty fuel 
tanks or who need electric utility connections who have not been served 
under LIHEAP, and the number is growing.
  Madam President, one final point. There have been criticisms of this 
program, many of them coming from warm weather States. But let me just 
say to my colleagues, this is an effective, highly targeted program 
that serves 6 million low-income families and helps them pay their 
energy bills. More than two-thirds of these LIHEAP households have 
annual incomes of less than $8,000 a year, and one-half of these 
households have annual incomes below $6,000 a year.
  I just simply ask my colleagues this question, because I have seen 
this happen before: Are we going to continue to not provide the 
funding? Are we going to continue to do this on this ad hoc, sporadic 
basis? What is going to happen?
  I already know what is going to happen. Congress diddles, a few sad 
stories of vulnerable elderly people without heat appear, and then a 
few more, constituents contact their Members of Congress as the cold 
worsens, and then a couple of people are found dead in their apartments 
in the upper Midwest, or in New England, because they were knocked off 
LIHEAP or were otherwise unable to get their electricity or fuel bills 
paid and got shut off, or because they were too ashamed, too weak, or 
unable to bring themselves to ask their families to pay for the bills.
  And then Congress acts. That is the scenario. That is what is going 
to happen. We are not providing what is not an income supplement, but a 
survival supplement. People are not going to be able to afford to pay 
their heating bills, and people are going to go without. And they are 
going to be too ashamed to ask or they are going to be too ashamed to 
turn to their families if their families can provide them with the 
support, and then they are going to freeze to death. That is not how 
this process should work. Americans deserve better.
  That is not what we are about, letting the vulnerable elderly freeze 
to death on an isolated farmstead or in an urban high rise. We can do 
much better. And we should start now. We should not continue to provide 
pitifully inadequate LIHEAP funding to bleed the program for months 
while Congress struggles to get its work done, to allow people to 
freeze to death on the installment plan. We can do better. Americans 
insist on it.
  I do not think I should do this amendment today, but if this goes on 
to December--and I know what this is going to mean to people in my 
State and a whole lot of other States--I am going to bring this 
amendment to the floor, and I am going to insist that we provide this 
funding for this program because I will be darned if on my watch as a 
U.S. Senator from Minnesota, people are going to freeze to death in the 
United States of America.
  What are we about? Where is our compassion? Where are our priorities? 
Where are our values? When are we going to get real again? Madam 
President, that is where we are heading right now in this Nation, and 
we have got to do better, and the sooner the better. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, have the yeas and nays been called for on 
the pending issue?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. I call for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. I believe it is important to explain the important 
principles underlying this effort.
  I am pleased to have been working with my colleague--and my good 
friend--the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson], to try and craft a 
consensus proposal in this area. This is one of the most important 
efforts going on in the 104th Congress. This is a truly critical issue. 
This effort already is known by various names: ``Ending Welfare to 
Lobbyist,'' ``Advocacy and Lobbyist Reform,'' ``Defunding Political 
Advocacy,'' ``Prohibiting Grants for Political Activity,'' and a 
``Taxpayers Declaration of Independence from the Special Interests,'' 
among others.
  It's been joked that the hype used in describing any given issue is 
inversely proportional to its true importance. That is not the case 
with today's topic. In terms of forcing the Government to focus on its 
true and proper constitutional purposes, this effort may be second only 
in importance to passage of the balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution. Both of those efforts remain work-in-progress at this 
point.


                        jeffersonian principles

  Earlier this year, the Senate, by a single vote, put on hold the most 
important legislation to come before it in decades, the balanced budget 
amendment. Speaking to that very idea 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson 
said, if ``it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our 
constitution * * * '' he wanted that to be an article ``taking from the 
federal government the power of borrowing.''
  As timely as today's newspaper, Jefferson anticipated the Simpson-
Craig and Istook-Ehrlich-McIntosh amendments when he said:

       To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of 
     ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

  I want to make a distinction here: Sometimes, the Government uses tax 
dollars for actions that someone may disagree with. That's the nature 
of majority rule and the nature of decisionmaking in a republic. But 
it's a totally different thing to confiscate tax dollars from one 
person and use them to subsidize the lobbying and political advocacy on 
behalf of someone else's private-interest views.
  I am not alone in believing that this practice flies in the face of 
the first amendment. The Supreme Court in its Beck decision said as 
much when it prohibited unions from using agency fees from nonmembers 
to pay for political activities.

[[Page S 16875]]



                           general principles

  Both the Simpson-Craig and the Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich initiatives 
are efforts to enact a badly-needed taxpayers declaration of 
independence from the special interests. They both serve the same set 
of general principles:
  Public money should be spent on the public interest, and not on the 
political agendas of special interests.
  The Government should not give special interests money to pay for 
lobbying for more money.
  Taxpayers should not be compelled to fund special interest lobbying 
that is against their own interests. To force them to do so really does 
amount to a violation of their first amendment rights.
  Our efforts are about ensuring Government integrity and responsible 
stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
  This is not an issue of left-versus-right: It's about rules that 
should apply across the board.
  Left, right, and center, service or social organizations, they'd 
simply have to decide: Take the taxpayers money or lobby the taxpayers 
representatives--but you can't do both. To do both is a conflict of 
interest.
  Our goal simply is to erect a solid wall between lobbying and 
advocacy activities, on the one hand, and other activities funded in 
whole or in part by the taxpayers, on the other hand.


                           legislative status

  Very briefly, here's what the action on this issue has been in recent 
weeks, and where it's headed:
  Senate Action: On July 24, the Senate adopted, 59-37, the Simpson-
Craig amendment to the lobbying reform bill, S. 1060. That amendment 
would prohibit Federal funds going to nonprofit groups covered by 
Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(4) that engage in lobbying 
activities.
  On August 5, the Senate adopted, by voice vote, the Simpson-Craig 
amendment to Treasury-Postal appropriations H.R. 2020, which was 
modified: Instead of all Federal funds, the prohibition extended only 
to awards, grants, loans; the effective date was set at January 1, 
1997; and groups with gross annual revenues less than $10 million were 
exempted.
  While watered down, the August 5 amendment put the Senate on record 
on a second vehicle in favor of the principle that fungible Government 
funds should not be used directly or indirectly to subsidize interest 
group lobbying, and prompted consideration of this issue in the 
Treasury-Postal appropriations conference committee, an appropriate 
venue because of its coverage of general Government activities.
  Frankly, I would not have supported these modifications to our 
amendment if I thought this were the final product. I saw it, and I 
believe Alan Simpson saw it, as our way to raise the issue on one of 
the legislative vehicles most likely to become law this year.
  House Action: On August 3, the House rejected, 187-232, an amendment 
to strike the Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich language in the Labor-HHS-
Education appropriations bill, H.R. 2127. The reform language prohibits 
Federal grants to any groups including both nonprofit and for-profits, 
that engage in lobbying or political advocacy; pass-through funding to 
related groups is also covered; groups are exempt if they spend less 
than 5 percent of their first $20 million of non-Federal revenues and 1 
percent of additional revenues on lobbying or advocacy.


                             current status

  House conferees sought to incorporate the Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich 
amendment into the Treasury-Postal conference report. Alan Simpson and 
I have been working with the House principals to try and forge the 
strongest possible combination of the best of both of the Senate and 
House provisions.
  Sixty Republicans House Members sent a letter to the Speaker saying 
they will oppose the Treasury-Postal conference report unless the 
Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich amendment is included.
  In the Senate we sent a letter, with 25 cosignors, to urge the 
Treasury-Postal conferees to consider the full range of issues 
addressed by both versions and to blend the Simpson-Craig and Istook-
McIntosh-Ehrlich amendments into the strongest possible combination.
  Twenty-five Senators last month wrote the Senate conferees on the 
Treasury-Postal appropriation bill urging they support the strongest 
possible language that reflects the best of both the Simpson-Craig and 
the Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich amendments.
  Unfortunately, that conference deadlocked. That's one reason we are 
here today, debating this amendment. Another reason is that both the 
Senate and House have voted for these principles twice, by significant 
majorities. We are just trying to work out the details of the precise 
language.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, October 24, 1995.
     Hon. Richard Shelby,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and 
         General Government, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Three times in recent months, the Senate has voted for the 
     principle that federal grants should not be used, directly or 
     indirectly, to subsidize lobbying and political activity by 
     special interest groups. Versions of the Simpson-Craig 
     Amendment were added to the Lobbying Reform bill and the 
     Treasury-Postal Service-General Government Appropriations 
     bill. The House took a different approach to the same 
     problem, passing the Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich Amendment. The 
     two bodies passed their respective amendments by solid, 
     bipartisan majorities.
       We are writing to urge the conferees on the Treasury-Postal 
     Appropriations bill to consider the full range of concerns 
     addressed by both the House and Senate proposals. We urge you 
     to adopt in conference the strongest possible language that 
     reflects the best of both the Simpson-Craig and the Istook-
     McIntosh-Ehrlich amendments. The Treasury-Postal bill, which 
     covers ``general government'' functions, is a most 
     appropriate vehicle to carry this reform.
       The Senate approach applied a stronger funding ban to a 
     narrower range of recipients. It also reflected Senate 
     recognition that some groups exist for the purpose of 
     charitable pursuits and some groups are really veiled 
     lobbying and advocacy organizations. The House approach 
     applied to all organizations, non-profits and for-profits, 
     with a flexible approach that still allows federal grantees 
     to engage in significant lobbying and advocacy activities 
     with their non-federal funds. It also recognized that 
     regulating some types of organizations to the exclusion of 
     others may result in ``shell game'' reorganizations. Both 
     approaches recognized the problem of the fungibility of 
     federal dollars.
       Like you, we have promised our constituents that we would 
     work to balance the budget and change the way Washington does 
     business. Continuing to subsidize lobbying and advocacy by 
     large, special interest organizations runs counter to this 
     purpose. It also runs counter to First Amendment principles 
     by forcing taxpayers to subsidize political activities with 
     which they disagree.
       Therefore, we urge the conferees to combine the best of 
     both proposals into a strong, effective, workable reform that 
     would rein in public financing of lobbying and political 
     advocacy. Thank you in advance for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
         Larry E. Craig, Alan K. Simpson, Jesse Helms, Mitch 
           McConnell, Strom Thurmond, Slade Gorton, Trent Lott, 
           Kay Bailey Hutchison, Orrin G. Hatch, Spencer Abraham, 
           Bob Smith, Conrad Burns, Craig Thomas, Larry Pressler, 
           Don Nickles, Lauch Faircloth, Bill Frist, Paul D. 
           Coverdell, Dirk Kempthorne, James M. Inhofe, Frank H. 
           Murkowski, Rick Santorum, Phil Gramm, John McCain, Rod 
           Grams.

  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, many groups who claim to speak for 
grassroots members or large groups of Americans actually use Federal 
dollars inappropriately to amplify the voices of a few.
  Organizations which receive funding, in spite of major lobbying 
activities, include:
  The American Association of Retired Persons, who received more than 
$73 million in a 1-year period;
  The Environmental Defense Fund, which has benefited from more than 
$500,000 in taxpayer funding;
  The World Wildlife Fund, which received $2.6 million in Federal 
funding between July 1993 and June 1994;
  The National Council of Senior Citizens, which receives 96 percent of 
its funding from the Federal Government, to the tune of $71 million in 
1 year;
  Families USA, which received $250,000 from the taxpayers between July 
1993 and June 1994, and tried to mobilize last-ditch support for 
President Clinton's health care plan last year through a nationwide bus 
tour;
  The Child Welfare League of America, which received more than 
$250,000 in Federal funds and launched an ad campaign opposing the 
Contract With 

[[Page S 16876]]
America's welfare reform bill, saying, ``More children will be killed. 
More children will be raped.''
  Our reforms would prevent Federal subsidies of lobbying by 
conservative groups, too. It would apply to groups like the National 
Rifle Association and the Christian Coalition, too, if Congress and the 
bureaucrats ever were tempted to fund them.


                          dollars are fungible

  It is already supposed to be illegal to spend Federal funds directly 
on lobbying the Federal Government.
  However, organizations still can draw on a combined pool of vast 
amounts of private and public money.
  Having many pipelines into one pool still allows a group to use the 
entire pool in such a way that it maximizes its lobbying muscle.
  Federal money can supplant other funding to other activities that 
still support lobbying, such as overhead and travel.
  This means the Federal Government is indirectly subsidizing millions 
of dollars of lobbying by special interest groups each year. All the 
groups need to accomplish this is creative accounting.
  Our amendments simply would not allow both activities to continue 
within the same organization.
  We need to prevent Federal funding from indirectly subsidizing 
lobbying activities by being used to free up other funds, and, as 
recognized in the Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich amendment, prevent one 
organization, like a 501(c)(3), from being able to pass through, 
essentially to launder, the money through to another organization, like 
a 501(c)(4).
  Our amendments would not prohibit an organization from conducting 
educational or charitable operations under 501(c)(3) status and 
conducting lobbying through a related, but completely separate, 
independently financed, 501(c)(4) organization.
  The key here is to ensure the total separation of funds, with an 
impenetrable wall between taxpayers' dollars and dollars for private-
interest lobbying and political advocacy.


                          real lobbying reform

  In July, the Senate recognized that this kind of amendment is about--
real lobbying reform, integrity in the grant, loan, and award process, 
and clean government, and good government.
  Congress and the public have been correctly focused on lobbyist and 
gifts to legislators.
  We also need to do something about Government's gifts to lobbyists.
  There has been a growing phenomenon of more and more Federal tax 
dollars going to advocacy groups, which then allows them to use these 
taxpayer dollars to argue their maybe very narrow point of view.
  Federal grants to private grantees now totals an estimated $39 
billion, with no effective accountability. This contrasts with the way 
that Congress has enacted a complex set of controls to make sure 
contractors can not use contract proceeds for improper purposes.
  This practice of sending billions of fungible dollars into the 
coffers of lobbying groups undermines the people's confidence in their 
government.


                          Balancing the Budget

  This reform is a good place to look for help in balancing the budget.
  With nearly a $5 trillion debt, a $200 billion deficit, and the very 
real concern that this year for the first time this Congress is going 
to establish increasingly narrow and tighter public priorities as to 
where taxpayer dollars get spent, it is high time we do the same in 
this area.


                              Free Speech

  I opened with a discussion of Thomas Jefferson and the Constitution. 
Opponents of our reforms have tried to use the first amendment against 
us. Their arguments simply don't hold up.
  We should never restrict the right of the citizen, or the group, or 
the organization to be an advocate before their Government.
  At the same time, the Government is under no obligation to promote, 
and should not be subsidizing, directly or indirectly, their activity 
as an advocacy group.
  There is a difference between free speech and sponsorship. The 
American people have a clear, intuitive understanding of that 
difference. Unfortunately, too many Members of Congress, bureaucrats, 
lobbyists, and special interest groups have lost that understanding. 
These proposals seek to restore that distinction. As a matter of 
fundamental rights and constitutional law, we want to protect free 
speech. Lobbying and political advocacy are speech. But we are under no 
obligation at all to subsidize anyone's lobbying or political agenda.
  No one reveres the personal liberties of the Bill of Rights more than 
the two Senators standing before you today. One of the most impressive 
accomplishments of the Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich team is that they had 
their proposal thoroughly reviewed by constitutional scholars. We are 
comfortable that our reforms not only are consistent with the first 
amendment--they would promote first amendment principles.


                               Conclusion

  I am optimistic that we will make progress, and ultimately enact 
legislation, in this area. The time is right, the supporters are 
dedicated, and, most importantly of all, critical principles of good 
government are at stake.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record some research information that shows that over 70 percent of the 
American people agree with us on the Simpson-Craig amendment.
  There being no objection, the information was ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows:

    What the American People Have To Say About Welfare for Lobbyists

       On September 26-30, 1995, the Luntz Research Companies 
     conducted a national study of 1,000 adults on a number of 
     important national issues, including public funding of 
     special interest groups that lobby the government. The 
     results were:
       Tax dollars should not be provided to non-profit 
     organizations which, directly or indirectly, use these funds 
     to lobby federal state or local officials for their special 
     interest agenda.
       Agree:  70 percent.
       Disagree:  26 percent.
       Don't Know:  4 percent.
       Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for your 
     Member of Congress if he or she did not support a law to stop 
     federal funding of non-profit organizations which, directly 
     or indirectly, use these funds to lobby government officials 
     for their special interests.
       More Likely:  31 percent.
       Less Likely:  56 percent.

  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record a copy of a legal opinion obtained by our assistant 
majority leader and the majority leader of the other body, from a 
constitutional expert.
  This explains why the House-passed Istook-Ehrlich-McIntosh amendment 
is constitutional.
  Since the Simpson-Craig amendment is more lenient in its treatment of 
grantees who lobby, it is even more obviously constitutional.
  There being no objection, the information was ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows:

                                    Timothy E. Flanigan, Esq.,

                                 Washington, DC, November 1, 1995.
     Re Recent Changes to Proposed Limits on Political Advocacy by 
         Recipients of Federal Grants.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Majority Whip, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard K. Armey,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lott and Representative Armey: You have asked 
     that I supplement a letter dated July 19, 1995, in which I 
     addressed the constitutionality of proposed legislation, 
     sponsored by Representatives Istook, McIntosh, and Ehrlich, 
     that would impose limitations on political advocacy by 
     recipients of federal grants. (A similar proposal has been 
     advanced in the Senate by Senators Simpson and Craig.) In 
     particular, you have asked whether any of the various changes 
     made to the proposed legislation since my initial letter 
     would affect my conclusion that the legislation is 
     constitutional. These changes, which are currently reflected 
     in a proposed revision to H.R. 2020 (the ``bill''), include 
     clarifying the ability of affiliates of federal grantees to 
     engage in political activity, loosening the restrictions on 
     political activity by federal grant recipients within certain 
     dollar limits, and clarifying that the bill places no 
     restrictions on an individual's use of non-federal funds. The 
     changes merely reinforce the view expressed in my previous 
     letter that the proposal is constitutional.
       Opponents of the proposal have leveled only three 
     constitutional arguments against the proposal: (1) that it 
     establishes unconstitutional conditions on the receipt of 
     federal grants; (2) that it violates the equal protection 
     component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause by 
     discriminating against federal grantees vis-a-vis federal 
     contractors; and (3) that its disclosure provisions 
     violate a purported constitutional 

[[Page S 16877]]
     right to engage in anonymous speech. Each of the arguments rests on a 
     selective and inaccurate reading of Supreme Court 
     decisions which, when fairly read, provide clear support 
     for the proposal.
       First, as discussed in more detail in my letter of July 19, 
     the bill does not establish an unconstitutional condition 
     because it expressly permits political activity by affiliated 
     organizations that receive no federal funds. Indeed, the 
     current bill goes even further than the previous version to 
     make clear that affiliate organizations that do not receive 
     federal grants are not affected by the limitations on 
     political advocacy.
       The Supreme Court has expressly upheld such a mechanism as 
     a method to avoid constitutional difficulties. In FCC v. 
     League of Women Voters, 68 U.S. 364 (1984) (Brennan J., 
     writing for the Court), the Court observed--and indeed 
     appeared to recommend to Congress--that Congress could 
     prohibit public broadcasting stations that received as little 
     as 1% of their funds from the federal government from 
     engaging in any editorializing so long as the statute allowed 
     those entities to create affiliates who were not barred. See 
     id. at 400.\1\ By expressly affording federal grantees that 
     option, therefore, the bill is valid under the Court's 
     unconstitutional conditions analysis.
     \1\Footnotes follow at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Opponents of the bill have sought to avoid the effect of 
     League of Women Voters by taking out of context a single 
     sentence from the Court's opinion in Rust v. Sullivan, 111 
     S.Ct. 1759 (1991). That sentence draws a general distinction 
     between restrictions directed against ``entities'' rather 
     than simply ``programs.'' Their references, however, derived 
     not from the Constitution but from the regulations challenged 
     in that case, which applied only to Title X programs. Thus 
     the Rust Court had no occasion to revisit its analysis of 
     prohibitions on ``entities'' in League of Women Voters. 
     Moreover, this narrow reading of Rust collapses completely 
     when the sentence is read together with the remainder of the 
     paragraph in which it appears. Barely four sentences later, 
     the Court specifically reaffirmed its conclusion in League of 
     Women Voters that a flat prohibition on certain speech 
     activities by recipients of federal funds ``would plainly be 
     valid'' if Congress permitted the recipients to establish 
     affiliates to engage in that activity with non-federal funds. 
     See Rust 111 S.Ct. at 1774 (quoting League of Women Voters, 
     468 U.S. at 400).
       Rust also made clear that the Constitution by no means bars 
     restrictions on the use of non-federal funds. The Court 
     specifically rejected the argument that the application of 
     the Title X regulations to non-federal funds used in Title X 
     programs was unconstitutional because they penalized 
     privately funded speech. See Rust, 111 S.Ct. at 1775, n. 5. 
     The Court moved that a party wishing to engage in the 
     prohibited speech could ``simply decline the subsidy.''
       The ``equal protection'' argument against the bill also 
     fails. The gravamen of this argument is that Congress may not 
     treat grantees differently from federal contractors without a 
     compelling reason for doing so. This argument, however, is 
     not supported by the relevant case law. Congress is simply 
     not constitutionally prohibited from controlling grants and 
     contracts through different regulatory schemes.\2\
       The Constitution does not forbid Congress from making a 
     rationally based, content-neutral distinction between 
     contractors and grantees. Strict scrutiny would not, as some 
     opponents have claimed, apply to the distinction between 
     contractors and grantees. It is ``not at all like 
     distinctions based on race or national origin'' that are 
     subject to strict scrutiny under an equal protection 
     analysis. Regan v. Taxation With Representation, 461 U.S. 
     540, 548 (1983) (rejecting equal protection challenge to 
     limitations on political activities by organizations exempt 
     under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code). 
     Moreover, strict scrutiny does not apply merely because 
     the restrictions on recipients of federal grants might 
     affect the exercise of their First Amendment rights: ``[A] 
     legislature's decision not to subsidize the exercise of a 
     fundamental right does not infringe the right, and thus is 
     not subject to strict scrutiny.'' Id. at 549. Rather, the 
     distinction between contractors and grantees must only 
     rest on a rational basis. There is no reason that Congress 
     could not rationally determine that the nature of a 
     contract, involving a bargained-for exchange and 
     judicially enforceable rights, presents a less serious 
     risk of misuse of federal funds than a federal grant.
       The third argument--that the bill's disclosure requirements 
     violate a generalized right to engage in anonymous political 
     activity--fails because no such right exists. The Court has 
     never articulated such a right and the case law relied on by 
     the bill's opponents merely serves to underscore the 
     constitutionality of the bill's modest disclosure 
     requirements.
       The bill's disclosure provisions are significantly less 
     burdensome than others on lobbying and campaign activities 
     that have been upheld by the Supreme Court. For example, 
     Congress has for many years imposed extensive disclosure 
     requirements on those who lobby it. The Federal Regulation of 
     Lobbying Act, for example, requires of any person or 
     organization who solicits or accepts money to lobby Congress 
     to submit a detailed quarterly disclosure of the name and 
     address of any contributor of more than $500 and the name and 
     address of the recipient of every expenditure greater than 
     $10. See 2 U.S.C. Sec. 264. The Supreme Court held that that 
     statute did not violate the First Amendment, stating, in an 
     opinion by Chief Justice Warren, that Congress ``is not 
     constitutionally forbidden to require the disclosure of 
     lobbying activities,'' United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 
     612, 623 (1954).
       The present bill is far less restrictive. It requires a 
     ``brief description of the taxpayer subsidized grantee's 
     political advocacy,'' together with good faith estimates of 
     the grantee's expenditures on political advocacy and 
     political advocacy threshold. See Sec. 702(a)(3)(B)(vi) and 
     (vii). Indeed, the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act, which 
     the Court has upheld against First Amendment challenge, goes 
     well beyond the bill by applying to anyone who lobbies 
     Congress, regardless of whether they receive any public funds 
     at all.
       The Supreme Court only last term reaffirmed that such 
     disclosure requirements do not violate the First Amendment. 
     In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm., 115 S.Ct. 1511 (1995), 
     the Court struck down a state law which prohibited anonymous 
     political pamphleteering. In reaching that conclusion, 
     however, the Court specifically distinguished and reaffirmed 
     its earlier holding (in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)) 
     that upheld disclosure requirements for ``independent 
     expenditures,'' i.e., the use of private funds. McIntyre, 115 
     S.Ct. at 1523. The Court emphasized that ``[d]isclosure of an 
     expenditure and its use, without more, reveals far less 
     information'' than the requirement before the Court in 
     McIntyre that political leaflets identify their author. See 
     McIntyre, 115 S.Ct. at 1523. While noting that the 
     information required to be disclosed in Buckley ``may be 
     information that the person prefers to keep secret, and 
     undoubtedly often gives away something about the spender's 
     political views,'' the Court reaffirmed that such disclosure 
     requirements are not barred by the First Amendment. Id.
       For these reasons, I believe that the bill's limitation on 
     federal grantees' political advocacy and its accompanying 
     disclosure requirements would likely withstand constitutional 
     scrutiny.
           Very truly yours,
                                              Timothy E. Flanigan.


                               footnotes

     \1\ The Court stated:
     ``Of course, if Congress were to adopt a revised version of 
     [the statute] that permitted noncommercial educational 
     broadcasting stations to establish `affiliate' organizations 
     which could then use the station's facilities to editorialize 
     with nonfederal funds, such a statutory mechanism would 
     plainly be valid under the reasoning of [Regan v. Taxation 
     With Representation, 461 U.S. 540 (1983)]. Under such a 
     statute, public broadcasting stations would be free, in the 
     same way that the charitable organization in Taxation With 
     Representation was free, to make known its views on matters 
     of public importance through its nonfederally funded, 
     editorializing affiliate without losing federal grants for 
     its noneditorializing broadcast activities.''
     League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. at 400 (emphasis supplied). 
     The bill expressly adopts the same structure approved by the 
     Court in League of Women Voters. Organizations receiving 
     federal funds could create lobbying affiliates to engage 
     freely in political advocacy, but without federal funds.
     \2\ It is important to note that the bill applies to all 
     grantees, corporate or non-profit. To the extent that 
     corporations receive grants, they would be subject to the 
     same restrictions as any ``public interest'' organization 
     receiving grants. Moreover, although the bill applies only to 
     federal grantees, federal contractors are already subject to 
     regulatory regimes restricting their lobbying activities. 
     See, e.g., Federal Acquisition Regulation, 48 C.F.R. 
     Sec. 3.803 (requiring disclosure of lobbying activities), 
     Sec. 31.205-22 (restricting lobbying costs allocable to 
     federal contracts).

  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, a few moments ago a Senator speaking said 
we are trying to gag the nonprofits.
  How clearly can I make myself to say no, no, no, it ain't true. This 
is the for-profits, too. These are the organizations that both lobby 
and receive grants and are for profit. They are included now. This is a 
matter of reporting. This is a matter of choice. This is a matter of 
establishing your priorities of what you are. This is not about 
gagging.
  Are we gagging the 501(c)(3)'s? They do not believe so, because they 
are doing what they are supposed to do under the law. That is all we 
are establishing here is a priority and a criteria that we have already 
established in a variety of areas in the IRS Code of our country. There 
is absolutely nothing wrong with that approach.
  If there is an organization that feels they are being gagged, I might 
suggest that that organization is misusing the current law and find 
themselves embarrassed because they got caught misusing the Federal 
dollar.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, imagine the 4-H Club being banned from 
receiving any Federal grants because it spent too much money letting 
people in the hard-to-reach areas of rural America know about changes 
to agricultural laws. Imagine Planned Parenthood being forced to spend 
millions of dollars defending itself against suits filed by anyone 
ideologically opposed to their mission. 

[[Page S 16878]]

  Well, if House Republicans have their way, you have to imagine much 
longer--you will be able to see it for yourself.
  The authors of the so-called Contract With America would have you 
believe that they want to get government out of people's lives. 
Apparently that commitment does not extend to people who disagree with 
them. The Istook language is a thinly veiled attempt to gag non-profit 
organizations, to bind them up in bureaucratic red tape and prevent 
them from letting Congress or the public know about the impacts of 
Federal legislation.
  It is no wonder that the American people hold such a low opinion of 
Congress. Today, more than 5 weeks into the fiscal year, only 2 of the 
13 appropriation bills needed to run the Government have been signed 
into law. But instead of making a serious attempt to pass a continuing 
resolution that will keep Federal workers at their desks, House 
Republicans have chosen to send to the Senate a resolution sprinkled 
with items from their ideological wish list.
  There are 800,000 Federal employees who have bills to pay and 
families to support, who will not be paid starting Tuesday if a 
continuing resolution is not passed. The Istook amendment has no place 
in the continuing resolution, it has no place in law. I urge my 
colleagues to strike the Istook language and send the President a 
continuing resolution that he can sign.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I join in support of the motion to 
strike the so-called Istook amendment from the continuing resolution. I 
will not speak long because, as a Congress, we have spent far too much 
time on this already and there is so much more we need to accomplish.
  The Istook amendment is in my view nothing more than a solution in 
search of a problem.
  Who could argue with this solution's ostensible justification--
prohibiting Federal grantees from using tax dollars to lobby the 
Government. No one, I suspect. My evidence: this practice is already 
illegal, and has been for a long time.
  If charities or other nonprofits are violating that law and all the 
regulations that govern how they account for and spend Federal grants 
they may receive--and I have not heard persuasive evidence that they 
are--no new law and its accompanying regulatory burdens and bureaucracy 
should be adopted before examining whether better enforcement of the 
existing laws and regulations wouldn't address the problem. I though 
that we had evolved as a Congress where our first response to a problem 
or a perceived problem was not slapping yet another layer of laws and 
bureaucracy on top of an already complicated regulatory structure. 
Using Government funds to lobby is already illegal and charities are 
already limited in what they can spend overall on lobbying and still 
retain their charitable tax status.
  In my view, this proposal has a curious old government feel to it--
despite the revolutionary credentials of this amendment's proponents.
  Similarly, the Istook provision has a Federal bias that I thought was 
no longer fashionable. It extends the Federal Government's regulatory 
reach into the affairs of local, private organizations, even affecting 
the way they may spend their own, privately raised dollars. For 
example, it defines political advocacy so broadly that local charities 
will have to measure and document the time and resources they spend 
trying to influence the decisions of local administrative bodies 
because they may be affiliated with national charities. Under the 
Istook provision, national charities and nonprofits must include the 
political advocacy expenses of any of its local affiliates in 
calculating whether it has exceeded its threshold limit.
  At year's end, will the Hartford, CT, chapter of the Boys & Girls 
Clubs have to calculate whether the time and resources it would like to 
spend seeking permission from the local zoning board to expand its 
building tip the national Boys & Girls Club operations over the Istook 
threshold edge and put all Boys & Girls Clubs grants at risk?
  I have to assume that the supporters of this amendment did not intend 
that effect. But they have cobbled together such a complicated, layered 
regulatory scheme regulating so-called political advocacy at all levels 
of government, that absurd consequences are inevitable.
  For example, the amendment limits the ability of Federal grantees to 
purchase or secure any goods or services from any other organization 
whose expenditures for political advocacy for the previous Federal 
fiscal year exceeded the greater of $25,000 or 15 percent of the other 
organization's total expenditures. So not only will the charities and 
nonprofits that are subject to this provision have to keep detailed 
records concerning how much they spend on their own broadly defined 
political advocacy, but they will have to make sure that the local 
stationery or computer stores from which they are buying their supplies 
are documenting their expenditures for political advocacy.
  In most cases, of course, those businesses won't likely be spending 
anywhere near 15-percent of their revenues on traditional lobbying, but 
it is not inconceivable that in a particular year, a small business 
might spend that much in a combination of litigation challenging a 
State or Federal law or seeking a zoning variance or pursuing other 
local or State administrative challenges. Under Istook, all those 
activities are considered political advocacy and would have to be 
included in the calculus of whether that small business has reached the 
15-percent threshold.
  And, regardless of whether that 15-percent threshold is reached, the 
small businesses and others will still have to keep records if they 
want to sell computers, furniture, or other products and services to 
Federal grantees like the A.S.P.C.A., the American Foundation for the 
Blind, CARE, World Vision or the American Lung Association, and MADD.
  In summary, this solution will only succeed in wasting the time, 
resources, and energy of everyone that must comply with it and every 
government agency that must implement it. It will enrich the lawyers 
and accountants who inevitably will be hired to decipher its byzantine 
regulatory structure. And, it will do all this, while not incidentally, 
impinging upon the constitutional rights of millions of citizens across 
the country to make their views known to their Federal, State, and 
local officials.
  To quote from the executive director of the Litchfield, CT chapter of 
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which has received small NHTSA grants to 
conduct lifesaving highway safety programs, MADD has spent the last 15 
years trying to make drinking and driving socially unacceptable by the 
American public and this outcry from the public has resulted in more 
effective laws, stronger enforcement and lives saved. I cannot believe 
that the Senate would want to silence the voices of these drunk driving 
crash victims and concerned citizens whose sole purpose is to save 
lives just because the organization they support with their donations 
receives a small grant from the Federal Government to do good work.
  Don't we have enough real problems to deal with without manufacturing 
artificial ones? Do we really want to adopt a convoluted new law on a 
continuing resolution that will do little other than get in the way of 
the people who, on a day-to-day basis, are doing some of the most 
important work in our society--the Red Cross, the American Cancer 
Society, the Boy Scouts of America, Catholic Charities. I urge my 
colleagues to support the motion to strike.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I am pleased to see that Senator Simpson 
has proposed to remove the so-called Istook amendment from this bill.
  This is a bad idea. It is unconstitutional, and raises a host of 
important questions for which we have heard no adequate answers. It is 
clear to me right now that it must be stripped from this continuing 
resolution.
  I fully agree with my friend and colleague from the Judiciary 
Committee, the distinguished Senator from Wyoming, that there is no way 
this proposal will pass the Senate, and there is no reason for this 
proposal to be under debate here today.
  We have not had a single hearing in the Senate on the impact of this 
radical rewriting of the laws covering the speech and freedom of 
association of 

[[Page S 16879]]
thousands of charitable, non-profit organizations--not to mention the 
millions of other organizations that would be caught in its net.
  It adds new, unexamined restrictions on the activities of this 
country's most valuable and honored local and national charitable 
organizations.
  From my own State of Delaware, I have heard from the YMCA, from the 
Boys' and Girls' Clubs, from the Delaware Nature Society, from Delaware 
Easter Seals, the Delaware Chapter of the Multiple Sclerosis Society, 
from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, from virtually all of the non-
profit organizations that serve my State.
  Madam President, all of them have told me that this proposal would 
strike at the heart of their most critical functions--to administer, at 
the local level, grants to keep our kids off drugs, or to educate the 
public about life-threatening diseases.
  The Istook provision threatens these groups with legal action if they 
run afoul of an Orwellian web of restrictions, spending rules, 
reporting requirements--limits on whom they can associate with, and 
what they can say.
  Madam President, this proposal would create a thought police of 
private citizens--who, for a 25 percent share of the treble damages 
levied against, say, the Mothers Against Drunk Driving, would have the 
incentive to drag them into court to prove that they did not purchase--
with their own funds--office supplies from a business that spent 16, 
instead of 15, percent of its own funds for political advocacy the 
previous year.
  This proposal extends the long arm of Federal Government restrictions 
to the very local charitable organizations we are told should really be 
doing the jobs now done by Federal bureaucrats.
  What hypocrisy, Madam President! On the one hand, we are told that 
decentralized, local, community-based groups should take up the burden 
of supporting those hit hardest by cuts in Federal assistance programs.
  But on the other hand, it is those very groups that this proposal 
would threaten if they trip over any number of arcane reporting 
requirements or ambiguous limits on ``political advocacy.''
  And let us not kid our selves, Madam President--this is intended to 
trip them up. That is why they removed Veterans from the coverage of 
the bill--because enough of us complained about it.
  That is a clear admission that the bill will hurt non-profits. The 
problem is that they have only protected one group--not all of the 
others equally deserving of protection, instead of the vindictive 
harassment of this proposal.
  The groups still affected by this proposal are those who have been 
chosen to fulfill public policy goals through grants to engage in 
outreach, education, and other activities.
  Those grants purchase a service--from the Boys' and Girls' Clubs, 
from the YMCA, from the Easter Seal Society--to promote public policy 
goals. Those goals include healthier, drug free kids, cleaner air--
goals that are indeed well-served by local, decentralized groups.
  Take one example of how this could work. Imagine a local non-profit 
group in Dover, DE, like the Big Brothers and Big Sisters--a group that 
receives Federal grant funds and engages in the activities restricted 
under this proposal--advocating and encouraging others to advocate for 
policies that help children.
  Anyone looking for a 25 percent share of the treble damages--three 
times the amount of the grant--would have the incentive to find some 
shortcoming in the reporting, some illegal association, some proscribed 
expression on an issue of public policy, that would expose the group to 
litigation.
  The burden of proof would be on them to prove that they were in 
compliance.
  Imagine what well-funded corporate interests could do with a few 
well-placed lawsuits that kept those pesky non-profits tied up in court 
and in legal costs instead of engaging in government-restricted 
``political advocacy.''
  Today's Wall Street Journal chronicles the fight between Beer 
Wholesalers and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, focusing on the impact 
of the Istook proposal on non-profit groups. I am sure we can imagine 
many other ways this provision could be used to chill the advocacy work 
of groups that some people might find inconvenient.
  Madam President, the American people certainly want reform in the way 
we do business around here. But this is not what they want--a tool in 
the hands of powerful special interests to silence non-profit 
charities.
  This is a nightmare, a page out of the play book of every petty, 
small-minded despot who tried to stamp out inconvenient opinions.
  It puts every organization of any kind--every business that receives 
anything of value from the Federal Government--on notice that they not 
only are under restrictions on their own political activities, but must 
monitor the activities of those they do business with.
  It recruits a thought police with a financial incentive to seek out 
every misstep by every local chapter of every national charity.
  Madam President, this proposal has no business on this bill. It has 
no business on the floor of the Senate today or any other day.
  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Madam President, again, colleagues are trying to figure 
out how to vote on this thing. This is significant change in law. It is 
significantly more than what was passed, and I supported the Senator 
from Wyoming when he had an amendment earlier. This is 17 pages long. 
This is not a little modification. This is 17 pages long. It is not 
clear to me at all what the impact of this is going to be. I know it 
expands considerably from what this body voted on before.
  But what I object to most of all is that we are being told that a 
continuing resolution to allow the appropriations process to go forward 
is not going to pass in the House of Representatives unless the Senate 
agrees to this provision. That is what we are being told.
  Last week, the distinguished Senator from Wyoming--and I supported 
him--raised a point of order against an attempt to lift the earnings 
cap on Social Security income and reference it to a committee. That 
should be referenced to a committee. In this particular case, we are 
saying no, this is so important, we have to attach it to the continuing 
resolution.
  We are being held up, Madam President, by a small group of people, 
and I urge colleagues, I know there will be a lot of them coming down 
here and saying, ``Well, I guess I have to vote for the Simpson 
amendment, it probably is all right.'' It probably is not all right. 
There are 17 pages in there.
  I know there are more 501(c)(4)'s because we lowered the floor from 
$10 to $3 million, and the language in here looks to me to be pretty 
ambiguous in a couple of areas. What we are basically doing is changing 
the Internal Revenue Service Code. This is a change in the law as 
relates to the Internal Revenue Service Code, and all these 
organizations are going to have to ask themselves the question: How am 
I going to make sure I am in compliance?
  In order to demonstrate they are in compliance, they are going to 
have to do things they currently do not do. The Senator from Wyoming 
came down and targeted a few 501(c)(4)'s that are a problem. Using 
public money to lobby is illegal now, so if there is a problem, if I 
have a 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) that is lobbying in an illegal fashion, 
let us file a charge against them, for gosh sakes. That is typically 
the conservative approach.
  For gosh sakes, let us not just change the law to apply to everybody 
if I have a few bad apples out there. Let us target it and make sure we 
make those organizations that are receiving public money, if they are 
using the public money to lobby, let us file a criminal or civil charge 
against them.
  No, that is not what we do. We have a couple of people over in the 
House of Representatives who were opposed by some 501(c)(3) or 
501(c)(4) and they are on a vendetta, and they say, ``I don't care if I 
shut the Government down.'' That is their position. They said it 
publicly. Mr. Istook said: I do not care if the Government shuts down. 
I do not care what happens to the country. I want to get my revenge. I 
want to get my little pound of flesh here.
  The next thing I want to say is this is a substantive thing. All of 
us are out there at the community level and trying to figure out what 
do I do about 

[[Page S 16880]]
child support problems; what do I do out there with programs dealing 
with domestic violence; what do I do with child care, and so forth?
  Guess what? We hold a meeting out there and who do we meet with? We 
meet with 501(c)(3)'s and 501(c)(4)'s. We are asking them to take on 
more responsibility as we cut back and try to balance our budget. That 
is what we are doing.
  The very moment that occurs, we are passing legislation that--as I 
said, I do not know what the impact is going to be, but I know from the 
IRS evaluation that they are going to request a lot more information 
than they are currently requesting from hundreds--I am not going to say 
it is every 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4), but it is dramatically more than 
what this body voted on in the Treasury-Postal appropriations.
  Make no mistake, the reason we are taking it up here is the group 
that supported it over in the House could not even get a majority in 
the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. They are willing to shut it 
down. They are willing to say, ``I know I don't have a majority. I know 
I don't have the votes to get this thing done. I don't care. But I'm 
going to threaten and I am going to use the threat, if possible, to try 
to get this thing done,'' even though, as I said, most of us have not 
even had the chance to evaluate what this is going to do.
  I supported the effort of the Senator from Wyoming to put 
restrictions on 501(c)(4)'s, a $10 million limitation. This drops that 
down to $3 million. It has some language in there.
  I am not saying every 501(c)(3) is going to be affected, but it 
certainly appears to me that a number of them, if not a large number of 
them, are. The IRS is going to at least have to ask the question, if 
that is the case.
  I believe that we should vote no on this amendment. The Senator from 
Wyoming and the Senator from Idaho have made a good-faith effort to try 
to produce something that would be a compromise with this minority in 
the House, 70 of whom have written a letter saying, ``We're not going 
to vote for a continuing resolution unless we get this done.''
  One more thing. The American people want us to reform our lobbying 
laws and campaign finance reform laws. Madam President, this is very 
significant. I know some disagree. Some on my side said this really is 
not lobbying reform. I see it as at least tangentially lobbying reform. 
The House has not passed lobbying reform. These very Members that are 
offering this language, why do they not force their leadership to pass 
lobbying reform? This body passed lobbying reform. This body passed 
legislation.
  I ask them, you are out there talking about lobbyists interfering 
with the process, you are out there talking about the special interests 
doing this or that and the other thing, why do you not enact the Senate 
legislation, let us conference that and change the law having to do 
with lobbying?
  Let us do the same thing with campaign finance reform. I endorsed the 
proposal of Senator McCain, Senator Thompson, and Senator Simpson last 
week. We have to change the law so people feel more power and greater 
opportunity to participate in democracy. Far too many people believe 
that the special interests control the process around here, but very 
few of us honestly would say, we understand special interests around 
here, but who are the dominant special interests?
  Come to mind the dominant special interests, the YMCA? Come to mind, 
when you are trying to think of the dominant special interest hanging 
out in the rotunda out here that have the greatest money influence, the 
Red Cross? Did they spend a lot of money on the telecom bill? I do not 
think so. I do not see any full-page ads from the Red Cross saying, 
``Support disaster relief appropriations.'' They have a relatively 
small amount of impact.
  If you really want to clean this process up, pass lobbying reform 
along the lines of what the Senate did. Pass campaign finance reform in 
a bipartisan way. It is long overdue that this body does it. For far 
too long, we have acted as if we are more concerned about covering our 
rear ends and keeping our jobs than we are in seeing that democracy 
functions in a fashion and the taxpaying citizens feels they have an 
opportunity to influence what we do.
  This amendment should be rejected and we should, furthermore, as we 
reject it say to the House of Representatives, ``When it is time to do 
a continuing resolution, we are going to do a continuing resolution. We 
are going to keep the Government going, and we are not going to kowtow 
to a relatively small number of people who want to change our laws.''
  Moreover, for those who look at the detail of the legislation, once 
you get beyond that, we have to say this just goes too far. It goes too 
far. It goes too far. Where have I heard that before? I hear it almost 
every time I go home.
  This is not in the Contract With America. This was not asked for when 
the so-called mandate was given last November. I hope that my 
colleagues, for a whole range of reasons, will reject this amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I intend to vote against this amendment. 
The Senator from Nebraska, I think, makes a persuasive and compelling 
case. I want to stand up and discuss a little bit the process that has 
brought us to this point.
  How many deadlines have been missed? How many dates have been 
ignored? How many circumstances that are required of us in law have 
been essentially disregarded with respect to the budget process, the 
reconciliation process?
  We now have a continuing resolution on the floor of the Senate. Why 
do we have that? It is because the Congress has not done its business. 
The fact is, we did not meet budget deadlines; we did not meet the 
reconciliation deadline; we did not meet appropriations bills 
deadlines.
  Now, the Republicans control the Congress. They won the last 
election. They have an agenda called the Contract With America. Some of 
it has made some sense. I voted for some of it. Some of it is totally 
goofy, totally off the wall, and is never going to get passed and never 
should be passed. But because they have a lot of new people who brag 
about the little experience they have in legislating, and because we 
now find ourselves with a contract that includes proposals that make no 
sense--you know, to go sell our lakes so that we can get some short-
term money in to reduce the deficit.
  I do not understand some of this thinking. Sell the dams and lakes so 
we can jack up electric power rates and sell them to the private 
utility companies. Sell the fishing lakes. This makes no sense at all. 
There are a whole series of proposals that make no sense. But because 
that is the agenda, and we have those folks bragging about how little 
experience they have legislating, we now find ourselves with this 
record.
  One party controls all of Congress and presumably has the votes to do 
what it wants to do. Well, on April 1, the Senate Budget Committee is 
required, by law, to report a budget resolution to the Senate. That was 
45 days late. It did not get here on April 1. Nobody was stopping them 
from doing their work. It just did not get here. So 45 days later it 
got to the Senate.
  On April 15, the law says that the Congress should complete action on 
its budget resolution. Well, 75 days later that happened. It did not 
happen on April 15; it happened on June 29.
  The House Appropriations Committee is to report its bills out by June 
10. Well, that did not happen on June 10; it happened on October 26--
138 days later.
  The law says that on June 15, the Congress should complete action on 
the budget reconciliation. Well, that is 5 months and still counting. 
We have not completed action on that. That is why we are here today on 
the floor of the Senate on a Thursday talking about a continuing 
resolution, which has now been amended by some people who want to talk 
about lobbying reform on a CR that is necessary because the majority 
party has not been able to do its work for 5 months to get a 
reconciliation bill, as required by law, on the floor by June 15.
  I do not understand this notion of efficiency or effectiveness from a 
party that is supposed to do something by June 15, and now, as a result 
of not doing it, requires us to debate a CR, and then they bring to us 
some last-minute 15- or 20-page amendment on lobbying reform--a 
position they say is required because the new people in the 

[[Page S 16881]]
House will not accept anything less, despite the fact that the House 
has not passed lobbying reform.
  Forgive me, my school was a small one--a high school class of nine--
and I thought I graduated near the top, but I just do not understand 
what we are talking about here. Congress is to pass all appropriations 
bills by September 30.
  The fact is, in times past, when the Democrats controlled the 
Congress, we did not always get all these bills passed by September 30. 
But you cannot find a much worse record than you will find this year. 
You cannot find a record that is much worse than what happened this 
year on appropriations bills. Virtually none of them have gotten 
through this process.
  First of all, we are talking about 5 months--we missed, by 5 months, 
the requirements in law for the reconciliation process. And because of 
that, we have to do a continuing resolution and also a debt extension.
  Now we find ourselves here, on the eve of all of this, doing a tap 
dance with a bunch of folks who brag that they can shut the Government 
down, they can cause a default. They might want to brag about that, but 
I do not know who they would want to brag to. It is not much of an 
accomplishment in my book.
  The American people ought to expect us to decide to do what we should 
do by law--pass these bills, meet and do the compromises that are 
necessary. You can think of, over a couple of hundred years, some 
pretty difficult circumstances that created wide divisions between 
people in this Chamber and in the House of Representatives, wide 
divisions between the parties, and the requirements of a democracy, 
even though it is not very efficient, is that somehow, in some way, at 
some appropriate point you come together and compromise and reach a 
conclusion. Presumably, you do it with the best interest of the country 
in mind.
  We have a circumstance now where we are told that, well, we cannot 
reach a conclusion. We have a Contract With America, they say, and this 
contract with America says the center pole of our tent is a big tax 
cut. It is true, we are in debt up to our neck. It is also true that 
every dollar of the tax cut will be borrowed during the next 7 years. 
It is also true that we will add hundreds and hundreds of billions of 
dollars to the Federal debt. But we need a tax cut. If we do not get 
this tax cut, half of which will go to families earning over $100,000 a 
year or more, then we are prepared to shut the Government down. We are 
prepared to decide that we will not meet our debt obligations. The 
American Government will default on its debts. That is what they say.

  I hope that Members of the House and the Senate, on both sides of the 
political aisle, will decide that this is not the time to offer 
amendments. Let us pass the continuing resolution. Let us do what we 
are required to do--provide a bridge by which we then seriously 
negotiate away the differences in the reconciliation package, pass the 
reconciliation bill, tell the American people that we understand what 
concerns them. We are spending more than we are taking in, and we are 
charging the bill to the kids in the future, and we have to stop that. 
So they have not thoughtfully tried to compromise our way through this 
process. And we are reducing the budget deficit, we are going to 
balance the budget, and we are going to do it the right way.
  But it ought not be a source of pride for anyone to decide that they 
can, by themselves--or a group of like-minded people--decide to shut 
this Government down in the coming day or two.
  I guess my hope is that we can decide in the next few hours here, in 
the next couple of days as well, that this kind of amendment does not 
belong on this. The Senator from Idaho knows this does not belong on 
this CR. He knows that. Everybody on that side of the aisle knows that. 
This is not a place to stick these amendments.
  The Senator from Minnesota stood here and spoke about people freezing 
in the winter. I can think of 100 people who would like to offer an 
amendment to a CR because they have something that just gnaws at them, 
which they know is wrong and they want to fix. You know that a 
President would have to sign a CR at some point to keep the Government 
open. So everybody in this Chamber could stand up and insist that, ``On 
my watch, I intend to do this, and I can care less whether it is 
inefficient or dilatory.'' Everybody has that right.
  The fact is, that is not the right way to do it. This amendment does 
not belong here. This is a continuing resolution, a short-term 
continuing resolution, a bridge to get from here to there, a bridge 
that creates a time during which, hopefully, both parties can come 
together and resolve these differences.
  I do not think there ought to be a tax cut. Further, I do not happen 
to think we ought to add $7 billion to military spending or to build 
star wars, and I do not think we ought to buy 20 new B-2 bombers at $32 
billion each. I do not think we ought to kick 55,000 kids off of Head 
Start, or that we ought to take disabled veterans and say, ``We do not 
think you should have health care.''
  I think what we ought to do is decide where we disagree and see if we 
can think through this clearly and patiently, over a period of days, 
and reach a solution. I know there is a lot of politics involved--
probably on all of our parts here--when we talk about these things. But 
in the final analysis, a default is not about politics; it is about the 
failure of all of us to do what we ought to do. A shutdown of 
Government services is not about politics. That is about failure.
  Shame on everyone in this Chamber and in the House Chamber if this 
Government defaults. Shame on everybody in politics if there is a 
default on the debt obligations, or if there is a shutdown of 
Government. It ought not happen, it should not happen, and every single 
person serving in Congress ought to work to prevent it from happening.
  We can, through some basic level of cooperation, decide to start at 
this moment, especially on a continuing resolution--yes, even on a 
short-term bridge with respect to the debt--get from here to there so 
we can negotiate away these differences and reach an acceptable 
compromise that is good for this country. That is what the American 
people require of us. That is what the American people expect of us.

  Now, I am sure the Senator from Idaho and the Senator from Wyoming, 
both of whom I have great respect for, they are both good legislators, 
I am sure they feel they are offering this amendment because there is 
leverage on another side, and this is the right public policy anyway so 
we should respond to it.
  The fact is, I can think of, as I said, 100 different people who want 
to offer something that they think will advance their interests or the 
interests of the country on this very legislation, but it ought not be 
advanced on this legislation.
  We ought to pass this short-term CR and we ought to pass a short-term 
debt extension. We ought to get the leaders of both political parties 
in the House and the Senate together, pronto, to sit down and address 
these questions in a thoughtful way and come to a conclusion that the 
American people expect.
  Madam President, I will have more to say on the CR later. I wanted to 
make the point that I made when I started. We have been subject to a 
lot of criticism--we Democrats. I understand that. Part of it, 
incidentally, is well deserved.
  I understand we were in charge for some long while. There were times 
when we did not do the right things. We overspent, we were too 
programmatic; every national ache we put a quarter in the vending 
machine, and go on to address another problem before we determine if 
that program worked.
  I understand it is our fault and I accept that. But we have made life 
a lot better for a lot of Americans.
  I say to those who are now running the Congress and who are now 
responsible for meeting these deadlines, this is not much of a record. 
We find ourselves toward the end of the year and we have a circumstance 
where a reconciliation bill that was supposed to have been passed over 
5 months ago is nowhere near being passed--not even out of conference; 
a CR that is necessary to get us over the hump is now on the floor of 
the Senate and being tortured with amendments.
  That is no way to run a railroad and no way to run a Senate. I hope 
we can meet deadlines and meet our responsibilities, solve problems and 
advance 

[[Page S 16882]]
the interests of this country, and I hope we can start doing that in 
the next couple of days. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I will be brief. I think the Senator from 
Ohio wants to speak.
  I have been listening to my colleague, and what I am hearing, does 
that meet the straight-face test? Well, it did not. I tried it on and 
it did not work because continuing resolutions under some other party's 
control--let me talk about 1986, after the Senate had been regained.
  Continuing resolution: Export-Import Bank, denial of MFN status for 
products to Afghanistan, Federal Salary Act amendments, child care 
services, Federal employees, Ethics in Government Act, all on a 
continuing resolution.
  I know the Senator from North Dakota and I prefer a clean continuing 
resolution but it has not happened very often in the Congress of the 
United States. So it really does not mean a great deal to come to the 
floor and argue that when in 1987 we brought a continuing resolution 
over it contained all 13 appropriations bills. That is reality. That is 
real.
  It contained a Defense Acquisition Improvement Act, it contained 
Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act, human rights for Romania, 
school lunch and child nutrition amendments, Aviation Safety Commission 
Act, metropolitan Washington airport--all things, very important, that 
got stuck on a continuing resolution.
  In 1988--as I think back, I think his party was in control of the 
Senate; he might well have been here at that time--contained all 13 
appropriations bills once again. Cancellation of fiscal year 1987 
sequestration order. Special House and Senate procedures for 
considering funding requests, and so on and so forth. In 1991, 
extension of certain Medicare hospital payments provisions.
  The point is made, Madam President, the point is made that continuing 
resolutions have been and remain vehicles to move legislation on in 
this Congress.
  What is important for our colleagues tonight as I think we are very 
close to voting on these amendments, Madam President, is to remember if 
you want to strike the Istook amendment you vote for the Simpson-Craig 
amendment. Several of our colleagues have said that is what they want 
to do. But they want to retain the essence of the language that they 
voted for some weeks ago. That is exactly what the amendments of the 
Senator from Wyoming and my amendments do.
  If you want to pass Istook and fail to pass our amendments, what will 
the House do to the CR? I am not sure. I do not understand what might 
happen. I do understand what could happen.
  That is, if we take the simple amendments that bring us back to where 
we were, the majority of the Senators, a unanimous vote of the Senators 
with some modifications now, placed us some weeks ago with a 
substantial assurance if we do that we will pass the CR as we have it 
before us, that is how we ought to vote. That vote means that you vote 
for the Simpson-Craig amendments.
  Madam President, we are well behind on the work of the Congress. 
Again, I think of the straight-face test on those arguments. The 
Senator from North Dakota knows about 60 votes. He knows it well. He 
knows what has happened here, on the floor and in committee, and the 
very clear obstructionist tactics that have occurred on occasion on 
this floor that put us where we are today--needing to use a continuing 
resolution.
  The majority leader and the Speaker of the House for 25 hours were 
with the President of the United States just the last week and the 
President never once wanted to discuss the very critical nature of the 
budget, the debt limit, and the continuing resolution in that unique 
opportunity.
  Now, I wish the President would come to the table, but he stays in 
the White House and all he talks about is veto, veto, veto.
  Well, the Senator from North Dakota talks about the urgency of this 
CR. How urgent is it if the President is now saying, ``I will veto 
it''? It does not seem to be very urgent. It appears this President 
wishes to play the political game. He, too, has a responsibility for 
running the Government of this country.
  I say, Mr. President, come out of the White House, get away from your 
veto game, come to the table. We are trying to move substantive 
legislation to deal with the priorities of this Congress and the 
responsibilities of managing this Government.
  I hope we could pass the CR. I hope we could pass it with the 
Simpson-Craig amendments. Mr. President, I hope you sign it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I will yield in a moment to the Senator 
from North Dakota, but I ask my distinguished colleagues who made the 
remarks about the trip and the President not being willing to discuss 
things, it is my understanding when that chart was made from people 
that were there, sitting with Senator Dole and Speaker Gingrich, that 
the President was back half a dozen times or so, had lengthy 
discussions with him about things and was told that they still did not 
have their side together on some of these issues and did not want to 
discuss them.
  I was told that by a person who was present, right there, at the 
time. I think as far as the President not coming out of the White 
House, that is not true.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator allow me to respond very briefly?
  Mr. GLENN. Yes.
  Mr. CRAIG. I can only state what the majority leader told me as it 
relates to him having been there. That is not secondhand. That is 
firsthand.
  Mr. GLENN. The firsthand was a person sitting beside him at the same 
time.
  I yield to the Senator without losing my time.
  Mr. DORGAN. I heard this and read it in the newspaper and I have 
talked to someone who was there with the President.
  I do not know that we need to discuss it at great length, but the 
fact is the story the Senator from Idaho recounts is not true. The 
Senator from Idaho was not there, but we have heard from people who 
were and I do not know that we need to discuss that much further.
  I can only charitably describe the Senator from Idaho's argument that 
because something was done in 1986 to the CR, ``I am justified in 
offering amendments now,'' I can only characterize that argument as 
pursuing business as usual. It is the same response I got on the issue 
of Social Security, the trust fund and so on. Business as usual is not 
what the American people expect.
  I already admitted that we did not always move this agenda the way we 
should have. You look a long while before you find us 5 months late on 
a reconciliation bill, and it is a little specious to suggest that the 
reason the reconciliation bill is not on the floor of the Senate is 
because Democrats offered 30 amendments. Everybody knows that is not 
the case. Everybody knows that is not the case. The reason the 
reconciliation bill did not get here is because the majority party 
could not get its work done.

  It is one thing to want to drive the train. It is another thing to 
drive it on time. The circumstance we find ourselves in now is a 
reconciliation bill that was supposed to be here and done by June 15, 
was not done, was not here, and it was not our fault. It was the people 
who were running this place who could not get agreement among their own 
troops.
  I guess the point I want to make is, I think the defense I heard is, 
``We are for business as usual.'' That is what the Senator from Idaho 
is saying. Business as usual is not good enough, not good enough for 
the American people and not good enough for us. And I hope business as 
usual, one of these days, is dead and buried, and reform and change is 
the notion of the day. That would include, in my judgment, all of us 
deciding to pass a clean CR, create a bridge during which, in the next 
several days, we can resolve these issues on behalf of the American 
people and move forward.
  I appreciate the indulgence of the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. I believe Senator Jeffords wished to give his statement. I 
yield to him without losing my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

[[Page S 16883]]

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator 
Campbell's motion to strike from the continuing resolution the language 
restricting political advocacy with private funds. I am opposed to the 
inclusion of this language in the continuing resolution, and in any 
bill. This provision is nothing more than a political slogan in search 
of a problem.
  There is probably not a Member of Congress that has not been on the 
receiving end of criticism from a group or groups that receive Federal 
funds. It is irritating at times, but it is hardly cause for closing 
down the Government.
  Nor is it sufficient justification for forcing organizations to 
choose between seeking grants to do work on behalf of the Federal 
Government and saying how they think that Government, or any government 
for that matter, can be improved.
  It seems to me that we should invite such criticism rather than 
discourage it. Instead, this provision is designed to dampen debate 
from some of the parties that are in the best position to add to it.
  Apart from being questionable public policy, I think this provision 
is of questionable legality. Everybody has a lawyer's opinion to 
buttress his or her position, but it seems strange to me how this 
provision can withstand judicial scrutiny. It must have seemed strange 
to its proponents as well, because they felt constrained to include 
section 306, which states that ``Nothing in this title shall be deemed 
to abridge any rights guaranteed under the First Amendment.''
  I doubt this is a novel approach, but I cannot off the top of my head 
think of a similar situation where we have attempted to anticipate and 
decide a near certain legal challenge. I have my doubts how much 
deference the courts will give this provision.
  The Supreme Court has long held that it is an important first 
amendment right for individuals to be able to freely talk to their 
elected representatives. While the Federal Government is allowed to 
place restrictions on the use of the Federal money it grants, the 
Supreme Court has expressed concerns in the past with the Federal 
Government placing restrictions on the use of purely private money to 
talk to their elected representatives.
  The provision before us would change dramatically how private funds 
could be used by Federal grantees. Under current law, tax exempt groups 
do face limits on the amount of lobbying they may conduct. But those 
limits would undergo a wholesale transformation. Not just lobbying of 
Congress would be restricted, but so, too, would be lobbying of city 
councils, State agencies, and State legislatures. As a result, if your 
State chamber of commerce has an employee or two that lobbies in the 
State house, the executive branch or enters into judicial or agency 
proceedings, it might well be barred from seeking Federal funds to 
promote economic development or tourism.
  Further, the imposition of these restrictions will create a whole new 
practice for lawyers. This language provides incentives for lawyers to 
sue organizations by rewarding them with a substantial share of 
recovered dollars. Organizations could be sued for up to 10 years, 
further clogging up the American courts. In a time when the Congress is 
trying to reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits, creating this new 
boon for lawyers is counter productive.
  There are many small organizations in my State of Vermont that 
receive Federal funds that would be unable to effectively communicate 
with their local officials because of the limits that these 
restrictions will place on them. These restrictions will keep my 
constituents from discussing such local issues as the school board, 
property taxes, and paving roads with their local or State 
representatives. I would like to include for the Record a brief 
description of some programs in my State of Vermont that will be 
affected by these restrictions if they are enacted.
  Mr. President, let me again reiterate my strong opposition to the 
inclusion of this language in the continuing resolution, and strongly 
urge my colleagues to support Senator Campbell's motion to strike.
  I ask unanimous consent a brief description of the programs be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Vermont

       Addison County Parent Child Center uses a part of their 
     federal grant money to maintain a program for young fathers 
     who have been disenfranchised from the education system and 
     from business. Many of these young men have had problems in 
     the judicial system as well. This program teaches them not 
     only parenting skills, but includes a job training component. 
     The Center serves over 150 families in Addison County.
       The Center also helps these families learn to have a voice 
     in their local and state governments. As a part of their 
     family empowerment program, they take these low income young 
     families with them to the state legislature to teach them 
     about their government and how their voices can be heard.
       Vermont Development Disabilities Council is funded by a 
     federal grant authorized under the Developmental Disabilities 
     Act (P.L. 103-230). A significant portion of the grant 
     dollars are used to teach parents how to protect their rights 
     and improve the availability of services. Federal money is 
     also used to fund the publication of a newspaper. The 
     Independent, which reports on issues of concern to the 
     disabled and the elderly.
       The Council has also worked to change Vermont building 
     access standards to comply with those of the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act. Currently, the state of Vermont uses 
     antiquated building access codes that provide less than 
     adequate access for the disabled and the elderly.
       The Vermont Public Transportation Association receives 
     federal money in part through Medicaid and the Federal 
     Highway State Fund, a large portion of which they use to 
     provide public transportation for people to and from doctors' 
     offices and hospitals. Many of these people are elderly and 
     disabled. The Association has 1,300 volunteer drivers who 
     make over 420,000 one way trips a year transporting people to 
     hospitals which, in some cases, are as far as 50 miles away.
       The Association advocates on behalf of the elderly and 
     disabled in these rural communities on a variety of 
     transportation issues.
       The American Heart Association in Willston, Vermont 
     receives federal money through the State Department of 
     Health, some of which they use to form community based anti-
     smoking coalitions for youth. Their federal dollars are used 
     to teach children not to smoke. They also advocate on behalf 
     of these children in order to pass legislation that would 
     keep cigarettes out of the hands of minors.

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I want to add my voice to those in 
opposition to the Istook amendment which the House has added to this 
continuing resolution.
  Advocates, if I can use that term, of this provision have clothed it 
in rather attractive language. It has been presented as ending 
``Welfare for Lobbyists,'' as they call it. If this were truly the 
case, in fact, if this were a commercial product, I reckon that the FTC 
would be investigating it for false claims. It is a real misnomer.
  For one truly expert in this area, turn to the distinguished senior 
Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin]. He and I spent many years on 
legislation to achieve real lobbying reform, which we finally passed 
this summer. That measure truly brings sunshine and accountability into 
the netherworld of lobbying by special interest groups. The public 
finally will be able to know who is paying what to whom to lobby 
Congress and the administration on which issue. Whether it is a dubious 
project or a special tax loophole.
  That is real and substantive lobbying reform. I find it curious that 
many of the proponents of the Istook amendment--and their outside 
allies--have been so strangely silent--almost invisible--about pushing 
this bill on the House side. If they had spent half as much time on 
true lobbying reform legislation as this assault on nonprofit and 
charitable organizations, dare I say this reform would have already 
been signed into law by the President. So while I do not doubt their 
sincerity, I do question their motives.
  One Member whose motives and sincerity I do not question is the 
senior Senator from Wyoming. I know that he has attempted to explore 
some of these issues through the committee hearing process, as it 
should be done. I also know that he has worked hard in trying to 
negotiate an acceptable compromise.
  The amendment offered by Mr. Istook will have a profound and chilling 
effect on the ability of nonprofit and charitable organizations to 
continue advocating on the behalf of people and issues. It will have a 
devastating effect on the whole nonprofit sector, particularly small 
community-based organizations.

[[Page S 16884]]

  It will impose severe burdens and mounds of paperwork on nonprofit 
groups. This, at a time when we are asking them to provide more public 
services while we provide less money. ``Try to privatize things,'' so 
we are told here, yet we are making it more difficult to do exactly 
that. Again, I find it very ironic that many of the ardent proponents 
in this ill-conceived endeavor have been leaders in the effort to cut 
out regulatory red tape and reduce the costs of paperwork on businesses 
and industry. But for these nonprofits we will be creating more rules, 
more bureaucracy, and more court litigation. We will just drown them in 
a sea of paperwork and audits.

  This legislation is also unnecessary. It restricts the amount of 
privately raised funds a Federal grantee can use to do advocacy and 
lobbying. But current law already metes out harsh penalties if such 
Federal funds are used by nonprofits and charitable groups to pay for 
such lobbying activities. And my understanding is that there is no 
orchestrated pattern of such organizations misusing Federal funds to 
lobby.
  So if we peel away this veneer, it is not quite what you do with the 
money, it is what you say. And just maybe, who you say it to, which, in 
turn, raises a constitutional issue. For the Supreme Court has ruled it 
violates the first amendment to condition the receipt of Federal funds 
on relinquishing protected rights of speech. This amendment will have a 
chilling effect on the right of citizens--individuals and associations 
alike--to petition their Government.
  I also have concerns with the definition used for ``political 
advocacy.''
  It is so broad that almost any public role assumed by a nonprofit or 
charitable group on an issue or matter before Federal, State, or local 
governments would be covered. Moreover, individuals receiving some form 
of public assistance--such as WIC, disaster relief funds, NIH research 
grants, LIHEAP grants, you name it--could also be regulated.
  Now if a Federal grantee spends more than the specified threshold on 
advocacy, it will be barred from receiving Federal grants. Grantees 
will also be limited in who they associate or do business with. They 
will need certification from all of their vendors that they--the 
suppliers--are within the specified limits on how they use their own 
money for political advocacy.
  Mr. President, it is my understanding that one of the original 
requirements which has since been changed in the amendment as now 
proposed would have sent some of the complaints over to GAO for further 
investigation. That in its original form points out some of the 
weaknesses in some of our budget cutting here today because you talk 
about the potential of sheer frivolous lawsuits, and one of the things 
they were going to do with the original version of this as the main 
enforcement mechanism was going to be through what could be called a 
bounty hunter provision where any citizen could have taken their 
complaints regarding the use of such funds by these organizations 
directly to an agency inspector general, or the General Accounting 
Office.
  While I want to point out in the original version of this we have 
already cut GAO by 25 percent in 2 years, at the same time we are going 
to assign them an additional tax. I know this has now been cut out. I 
wanted to point that out--that this is what we are doing in one piece 
of legislation after another; requiring some of these agencies to do 
more at the same time we cut their budgets.
  We have been dealing in complex, substantive, constitutional, 
philosophical, and policy terms. But where is the impact going to be 
felt the most? The impact will be on real people; people with real 
problems, people who need help, who need society's help the most. These 
are the people most vulnerable in today's world, and who will depend so 
much on the nonprofit groups for essential services as Federal funding 
gets slashed.

  I have received many letters from Ohioans on the Istook amendment. 
These are people helping the homeless, caring for the sick, providing 
shelter to abused women and children, and treating the mentally 
impaired. Listen to their voices. Hear their pleas, at least while 
they're allowed to make them known to us. They are on the front-lines--
we need their input, we need their help.
  Mr. President, their pleas are just heartrending, some of them. They 
are trying their level best to give people help, and this would cut 
back on their ability to do exactly that. Here is what they are saying:

                 Ohioans Speak Out on Istook Amendment

       The Columbus YWCA Interfaith Hospitality Network has a 
     volunteer base of over 7,000 individuals and 100 religious 
     congregations attempting through grassroots efforts to 
     provide comfort and short-term hospitality to homeless 
     families. During 1994 we served over 2000 individuals of 
     which over 1200 were children. We are concerned about our 
     guests and their futures, and want assurance that our voices, 
     and theirs, will always have the opportunity to be heard.--
     YWCA, Columbus.
       Faith Mission is dedicated to providing life saving and 
     live improving services to homeless women, children and men 
     and anyone in need. People come to our door, at times, with 
     nothing but the clothes on their back and are in desperate 
     need of not only basic life support, (food, clothes), but 
     also services to help them regain self-sufficiency and move 
     on to become contributing citizens to their community. If 
     this bill passed, Faith Mission would be restricted from 
     effectively providing these services, like job referral, 
     medical services, mental health care referrals and support 
     groups from chemical dependency and domestic violence.--Faith 
     Mission, Columbus, Ohio.
       Berea Children's Home and Family Services provides healing 
     and nurturing care to over 8,000 children and families who 
     reside in Ohio. These abused and neglected children have no 
     public voice of their own. In addition to the therapy they 
     receive from our residential treatment and in-home therapy 
     programs, they look to us to also be their advocates. We will 
     be unable to adequately serve these victimized children if 
     the Istook Amendment is introduced in a Senate bill and 
     eventually approved by Congress.--Berea Children's Home and 
     Family Services, Berea, Ohio.
       Through the last several decades, an effective partnership 
     has been built between government and private, non-profit 
     organizations to address many of the social problems of the 
     day. One of the major reasons this has worked has been the 
     ability of non-profits to inform legislators about what 
     programs work and advise them about more effective ways to 
     address problems. With the severe budget cuts to social 
     programs currently being considered and passed, churches 
     and non-profit organizations are being asked to do more 
     with less. We have a responsibility to not only serve, but 
     to stand up for the poor and vulnerable. This plan appears 
     to muzzle the concerns of many of your constituents.--
     Catholic Charities, Diocese of Toledo.
       The amendment will restrict Family Services' ability to 
     help community groups become politically active in regard to 
     matters that would improve their neighborhoods and the 
     community at large. We would not be able to discuss with 
     legislators the need for funding of important service 
     programs to pregnant and parenting teenagers, the deaf and 
     battered women.--Family Services, Akron, Ohio.
       If these unprecedented restrictions go through, 
     organizations like ours will be forced to choose between 
     providing services to people in need and providing a voice 
     for the people we represent. Vital community services will be 
     jeopardized and government will be cut off from the insights 
     of the very organizations that are closest people government 
     is trying to serve.--Caracole, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio.
       I fear that publicly funded agencies, which deal with 
     issues of drug abuse, domestic violence, sex abuse, etc., 
     will find themselves in positions where they will have to 
     forfeit their ability to impact on future legislation or 
     public interest litigation, because they received any federal 
     funds, regardless of amount.--Mental Health Services East, 
     Inc., Cincinnati.
       The Achievement Center for Children provides a 
     comprehensive array of services for children with physical 
     disabilities and their families. These children have already 
     been dealt a difficult hand in life through no fault of their 
     own. Their issues and concerns need to be heard and 
     understood.--Achievement Center for Children, Cuyahoga 
     County.
       Vital Community services could be lost because 
     organizations would not be able to share their knowledge of 
     people in need and types of services needed with legislators 
     and others in the position to provide assistance. the Istook 
     Amendment would impose restrictions only on federal grants 
     which go primarily to non-profit organizations. It would not 
     impose restrictions on federal contracts which go primarily 
     to for-profit organizations. These corporations would 
     continue to be able to lobby the government.--Alcohol, Drug 
     Addiction, and Mental Health Service Board, Lima, Ohio.
       Every Woman's House realizes that the commitment by 
     Congress to addressing the issue of domestic violence is 
     meaningless if vital programs, such as those offered by our 
     agency, are not funded. The Istook Gag Order may eliminate 
     any political advocacy on any governmental level and make the 
     acceptance of any federal money subject to stricter reporting 
     requirements, therefore limiting the available funding to 
     domestic 

[[Page S 16885]]
     violence agencies.--Every Woman's House, Wooster, Ohio.
       It is the small independent non-profit organization that 
     does most of the social service work in your district. Almost 
     all of them get some money from the federal government and 
     depend on it to survive. Most are too busy trying to help 
     people have time to communicate with you on a regular basis, 
     but do work closely with local officials as collaboration 
     among agencies and departments create private/public 
     partnerships. These efforts would come to a halt if the 
     Istook Amendment goes into effect.--Ohio Parents for a Drug 
     Free Youth.
       Lobbying with federal dollars is already illegal and 
     penalties for violating the rules are severe. Our 
     organization is well aware of this. Nonprofit groups speak 
     for the public interest and represent large numbers of 
     ordinary citizens and vulnerable populations who lack the 
     skill/resources to assert their basic rights. This type of 
     legislation limits not just lobbying, but free speech as 
     well. Indeed, we view it as an assault on the First Amendment 
     rights we now enjoy.--League of Women Voters of Oxford, Ohio.
       As a parent of a 13 year old mentally retarded son who has 
     no speech, I know how important speech is. Please do not take 
     away my voice. I need to use it for my son's many needs and 
     other children/adults like him.--N.K., Parma, Ohio.
       When Alexis de Tocquerville visited the United States, he 
     marveled at the natural tendency of Americans to 
     form voluntary organizations to carry out the will of the 
     people.
       Our vast non profit system is the result of that tendency. 
     The present Congress, in its mindless rush to take government 
     out of involvement in society, looks to the non profit world 
     to pick up the shattered pieces. And, now, through the Istook 
     Amendment, that same Congress is trying to silence the very 
     groups that society will need to depend upon to survive.''--
     Cleveland Institute of Art.

  To be fair, I have received a few letters from Ohioans. I am always 
glad to have the benefit of their views, too, although in this 
particular case we do disagree.
  But I was struck by the fact that the vast majority of those 
supporting the Istook amendment indicated they were involved in the 
beer wholesale or retail business. Their letters were almost identical 
and so many contained the following phrase:

       Moreover, the Center for Substances abuse Prevention 
     (CSAP), working with their Neo-Prohibitionist allies, 
     regularly promotes political activism, pushes anti-beer 
     wholesaler legislation at the federal, state, and local 
     level, and they pursue these activities with taxpayer 
     dollars.

  Mr. President, the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention is under the 
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of the 
Department of Health and Human Services. Yes, it is federally funded. 
But what does it do? It supports hundreds of nonprofit groups, 
financing after-school and summer activities for youths, counseling for 
pregnant women, drug-free workplace programs, education efforts and 
good-health workshops. It also offers training, manages a clearing 
house for prevention information, and develops anti-drug education and 
promotion campaigns.
  I happen to think this is a worthy goal, and one that most Americans 
heartily support. The ravages of drug and alcohol rip apart our 
families, break up marriages, and destroy lives. Real lives and real 
people.
  Whatever we can do to prevent such abuse and educate people--
particularly our young adults--should be encouraged. The Federal 
Government does have a legitimate role in this area. The key is to make 
sure alcohol products are used responsibly. I don't consider myself a 
prohibitionist and would oppose efforts to do just that. But in this 
particular case, what concerns me is the fact that some in the beer and 
alcohol industry fear that by promoting efforts aimed at moderation and 
responsibility, the Federal Government is a threat to their livelihood. 
Their ultimate fear is that first comes moderation, next comes 
prohibition. So the real interest here is how much they sell, the 
bottom line, and their overall profits. It is not about policy.
  I also have received a letter from the Mothers Against Drunk Driving 
[MADD]. That organization receives a small Federal grant from the 
Department of Transportation to conduct workshops on highway safety and 
impaired driving. They also get a grant from the Department of Justice 
for serves and assistance to victims of drunk drivers.
  Again, I would bet most Americans would applaud their efforts. But 
for some, apparently, the message is too much. They don't want to hear 
it. Why? Because MADD has been involved in State initiatives to curb 
drunken driving and tighten blood alcohol content levels for drivers. 
You would think this would be in the public interest--getting drunk 
drivers off the road and imposing harsh penalties. But MADD has 
attracted the ire of the beer and liquor industry. Let me quote from 
MADD's letter:

       MADD takes pride in the role we have played to combat drunk 
     driving and serve its victims and we resent the suggestion 
     that we have been the recipient of ``welfare for lobbyists''. 
     Most of these so-called lobbyists have paid for the right for 
     their voices to be heard with their blood and tears or the 
     lives of their loved ones.

  Mr. President, I like free and fair debate. Let us make policy 
decisions on the merits and the public's interest. But what galls me 
even further is the fact not only were these industry groups--along 
with the Heritage Foundation and the Christian Coalition--spearheading 
the Istook effort, they were in the back rooms to write it. Talk about 
lobbying reform. According to an article in the November 8, 1995, Wall 
Street Journal, during one negotiating session the able senior Senator 
from Wyoming noticed these parties in the room and told them, 
appropriately, to get out, or at least words to that effect.
  I notice that these groups have worked with some of the primary House 
leaders who have been all too happy to attach individual, specific 
interest riders to appropriations measures. Is this how the game is 
gong to be played? Where is the real reform here? Who is doing whose 
bidding?
  Mr. President, This amendment is ill-conceived, constitutionally 
impaired, and just plain un-American. It will stifle the efforts of 
those on the frontlines who are trying to deal with so many of the 
tragic problems in today's society. We cannot run from those problems, 
we cannot pretend they do not exist, though I suppose there are some 
who who would like that. Let us help those who are helping those most 
in need by defeating this hostile, chilling, and burdensome amendment.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 3049

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment 
numbered 3049? If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of 
the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig]. On this question, the yeas and nays 
have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne] and 
the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] is 
absent because of illness in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 564 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--49

     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Akaka
     Bradley
     Kempthorne
     Lugar
  So, the amendment (No. 3049), as modified, was rejected.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

[[Page S 16886]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Parliamentary inquiry. I make a point of order----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I inform the Senator the Senate is conducting 
a quorum call.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I make a point of order that there is a quorum present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is too late for that. The clerk will 
continue to call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk continued 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.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think we have reached some agreement to 
expedite things. I know many of my colleagues have a lot of things to 
do, and we would like to finish fairly early this evening if we can. I 
ask amendments 3037 and 3047, 3046, and 3045 be laid aside to recur at 
the hour of 6:45.
  I put the question on the motion to reconsider.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to reconsider the vote.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. The vote then on 3049, following the vote on a Medicare 
provision at 6:45; that vote would occur at 6:45.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Immediately following that vote between now and 6:45, the 
debate occur on an amendment to strike the Medicare provision offered 
by the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, and that the votes occur 
back to back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. I say to my colleagues, we hope we can expedite this. That 
would mean we might be able to finish action on the CR by 7 o'clock. By 
that time, hopefully, the debt ceiling will be here. We have to deal 
with that yet tonight, and therefore we can be expected to be in 
session until we finish that.
  It may be there will only be a couple of amendments. In any event, we 
would like to finish that this evening.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Just to clarify one technical point. As I understand it, 
we have an agreement there would be no intervening action on my 
amendment.
  Mr. DOLE. That is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Further, does the Senator understand the time will be 
divided equally?
  Mr. DOLE. Yes.


                           Amendment No. 3050

(Purpose: To strike the provision for the determination of the Medicare 
                        part B premium for 1996)

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

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle], for himself, 
     Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Rockefeller, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3050.

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

       On p. 36:
       Strike section 401.

  Mr. DASCHLE. How much time would either side have in the debate on 
this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). There is 35 minutes until the 
vote is ordered. That will be divided equally--17\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there are a number of problems with this 
continuing resolution. We have been dealing in the last couple of hours 
with one of the more egregious problems having to do with the Istook 
amendment.
  But something more critical and more important and deeply troubling 
to us is the fact that there is a premium hike for Medicare 
beneficiaries incorporated in this continuing resolution.
  I want to take just a couple of minutes to explain what it is we are 
referring to and talk briefly about why it is so important that we deal 
with this problem.
  In 1974, Congress recognized that seniors should not be subjected to 
Medicare premiums whose growth outpaced the growth of Social Security 
income. As a result, back then we voted to limit the percentage 
increase in part B premiums to no more than the percentage increase in 
Social Security benefits.
  Then, in 1982, Congress voted to suspend the COLA limitations and 
instead limit premium increases to 25 percent of Part B program costs. 
Congress voted to continue to limit the premiums to 25 percent of Part 
B costs in 1984 and again in 1987.
  In 1990, Congress intended to cap the part B premium at 25 percent by 
setting in law specific dollar amounts for the premium for each year 
from 1991 through 1995. This was done to protect seniors from 
potentially higher than anticipated rates of health care cost growth. 
However, the projections upon which these dollar amounts were based 
have now been calculated as too high. Thus, the 1995 premium covers 
slightly more than 31 percent of program costs despite congressional 
intent to limit the beneficiary burden to 25 percent.
  Consequently, in the law that we passed in 1993, Congress reset the 
premium at a percentage equal to 25 percent of program costs for 1996 
to 1998.
  That will change if this legislation passes.
  Next year, if nothing happens, part B premiums return to covering 25 
percent of Part B costs. Clearly, the 31.5 percent premium that 
beneficiaries had to absorb this year is due to an unintended glitch in 
the law.
  There was no design to put it at 31 percent. The design was to 
stipulate a dollar amount so that we did not have to stipulate a 
percentage. The Republican majority is now attempting to lock in that 
glitch, by statute, for all perpetuity. The Congressional Budget Office 
says the monthly premiums, which are currently $42.50, will go to 
$53.50 under this continuing resolution. This is an increase of more 
than 25 percent in the dollar amount of the premium.
  Mr. President, I think it is very clear that this is going to be 
extraordinarily difficult for many seniors. Seniors' average income 
today is under $18,000. Forty percent of seniors have incomes under 
$10,000. Seniors now spend more than 20 percent of their income on 
health care. Rural seniors--who are typically older, poorer, and 
sicker--will be disproportionately hurt by this policy. And, because 
the money for these premiums is taken directly out of Social Security 
checks, this premium increase also amounts to a Social Security cut.
  Mr. President, this is not the place, regardless of whether or not 
one would view this to be the right thing to do, to consider such a 
proposal. This is not the time to debate whether or not we are willing 
to increase premiums by $11 a month for every participating senior 
across this country and to lock-in an inadvertent percentage increase. 
Today the questions are: Is this the right vehicle? Is this the right 
time? Should we be doing it outside the context of Medicare reform? 
Outside of a debate on deductibles and other issues that relate to what 
seniors are going to be asked to absorb?
  There is absolutely no reason why this needs to be in a short-term 
continuing resolution. It is unrelated to continued Government 
financing. It has no impact on the hospital insurance trust fund. It 
does not protect and preserve Medicare, as some of our Republican 
colleagues claim they want to do. It has nothing to do with attacking 
fraud and abuse. It does not provide seniors with more choices. It does 
not cut Medicare costs. It simply shifts costs directly from the 
Federal budget onto the backs of seniors. That is wrong. There is no 
reason why seniors should be singled out. It leaves all other parts of 
Medicare untouched.
  Why? To create the pool of resources necessary to fund the Republican 
tax break package for the wealthy, provided the Republican majority has 
their way. This is going to hurt seniors.
  We do not need to do that. This ought not be done in this bill. This 
is the wrong time, the wrong place, the wrong approach, and the wrong 
effort directed entirely at those who can least afford it.
  So, Mr. President, for all those reasons, I urge my colleagues to 
join with us in support of this amendment. I am 

[[Page S 16887]]
pleased that the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and Senator 
from West Virginia have agreed to cosponsor this legislation. They have 
been in the forefront of this legislative effort from the very 
beginning. I applaud them for their cooperation, their help, and their 
dedication to ensuring that seniors are protected from unfair policies.
  With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the minority leader, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes forty seconds.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I will just take 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, this amendment is a no-brainer. We are giving every 
Senator a chance to separate him and herself from a truly dumb idea 
concocted in the other body. Before us is a continuing resolution--the 
legislation that pays the bills for the Federal Government to function 
starting on Tuesday--now being used as a freight train for baggage that 
does not belong on this train. With this amendment, we are saying throw 
the Medicare premium increase over the side before it is too late. With 
this amendment, vote for tossing out the provision to increase the 
monthly premiums that 30 million senior citizens pay to receive 
Medicare's part B coverage, otherwise known as physician care and 
services.
  No matter what you think seniors should pay for the Medicare, the 
continuing resolution is not the bill to hitch onto. If you want 
seniors to pay 100 or 2 percent of the costs of their Medicare, this 
bill is not the time, the place, or the vehicle for setting the price 
tag of Medicare premiums.
  In fact, I am incredulous that anyone would want to increase Medicare 
premiums ahead of doing a single thing to improve, save, or reform 
Medicare.
  The Members on the other side of the aisle told Americans they should 
be in the majority of Congress. They won the elections last November to 
do that.
  But Mr. President, being in charge also means being responsible. 
Being in charge means making sure that on Tuesday, the Federal 
Government can open national parks, enforce law and order, answer the 
phones when veterans are calling about their benefits or try to visit a 
VA hospital, process student loans and passport requests, and perform 
thousands of other responsibilities that Members of Congress are 
supposed to be here watching over. Being in charge does not mean 
throwing the kitchen sink onto the basic piece of legislation to fund 
the Government. And it sure does not mean throwing in a Medicare price 
increase for senior citizens, hoping it just slips through. Can someone 
explain the sudden rush to raise Medicare premiums?
  The cost of seniors' Medicare premiums should be determined when 
Congress decides Medicare's overall future. Vote for this amendment to 
take this issue off of the CR, and put it back where it belongs--in the 
discussion of Medicare's future, what is a fair share of costs for 
seniors to bear, and whether Medicare should be cut to save Medicare or 
cut to pay for tax breaks for the rich. That all still needs to be 
settled, and it is going to take some more work, I assure everyone 
listening.
  Instead, here we are faced with an absolutely critical bill for 
Congress to get enacted in the next 48 hours, with an 11th-hour 
addition designed to make sure senior citizens pay more for their 
Medicare beginning in January 1996. How ridiculous can you get?
  Let me be very clear: Unless you vote to strip this bill of the 
Medicare baggage, you will vote to send senior citizens on Medicare a 
total annual bill for their part B premium of $642--$1,284 a year for 
couples--starting in January 1996. The provision misplaced into this 
bill will charge seniors an extra $11 more a month, an extra $132 more 
a year, in order to keep getting Medicare coverage for physician care. 
This bill is not the place to approve a Medicare price increase for 
seniors.
  We already know why so many Republicans want to increase the cost of 
Medicare premiums for 37 million seniors. In fact, we already know why 
the Republican budget calls for $270 billion in Medicare cuts. It is 
simple. The same Republican budget spends $245 billion on new tax 
breaks for the wealthiest Americans and all kinds of corporations. 
Raiding Medicare is the idea, ignoring the fact that only $89 billion 
is needed to keep the trust fund solvent for 10 years.
  It is that simple and it is that wrong. This is not about preserving 
and protecting Medicare. And the provision in this continuing 
resolution is not about making sure the U.S. Federal Government will 
still function on Tuesday. This provision is a premium hike designed to 
collect more from Medicare beneficiaries in January, money to pay for 
tax breaks for someone else.
  The provision in this bill will put a new burden on seniors who 
already spend more than one-fifth of their income on insurance, 
prescription drugs, long-term care services and other health care needs 
not covered by Medicare. It is wrong to burden seniors with more costs 
so that there will be money to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy.
  This Medicare premium provision does expose a basic truth. Cutting 
Medicare by $270 billion--that is $181 billion more than the Medicare 
trustees call for to protect the Medicare trust fund--is not needed to 
preserve the Medicare program. How do you preserve today's Medicare 
program by insisting that seniors pay higher premiums than would occur 
under current law?
  You do not. This is not about preserving anything, improving 
anything, or protecting anything. This is about targeting seniors as a 
financing source for the Republicans' budget that is going to hurt 
seniors, not help them in the least.
  Increasing costs for Medicare beneficiaries as part of a bill to keep 
the Federal Government up and running does not make any sense at all. 
It is a rifle shot aimed at the millions of seniors who rely on 
Medicare.
  It should be struck from this bill and I ask my colleagues to vote 
for our amendment to get it out of this absolutely vital bill that must 
be passed now, must be clean of debris completely, totally, and 
immediately.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes ten seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. On the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seventeen minutes thirty seconds.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Does the Senator desire some time at this point?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Please.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the bottom line on this particular 
proposal is that it is a $51 billion tax increase on seniors, and 83 
percent of that tax increase will effectively go on people who are 
making $25,000 or less.
  So you are taking $50 billion out of the pockets and the pocketbooks 
of senior citizens. That does not surprise me about the Republican 
proposal. Since we know that the tax increase in the Republican budget 
will hurt those who make less than $30,000 a year--51 percent of all 
Americans--their taxes will be increased. This is going right along 
with it. They will be taking effectively $51 billion out of our 
seniors.
  What does that mean for the average family? It means that they will 
have a reduced Social Security check.
  This chart indicates how these premiums are going to be taken out of 
the Social Security COLA in this next year and the hardship it is going 
to have, particularly on the lowest percentile. Those that make $5,300 
a year will find out that with a $136 Medicare premium increase, they 
will only have $3 of that COLA left to them. And so it goes right down 
through the rest of the middle income.
  This premium increase will reduce the COLA's for those senior 
citizens at the lowest level by 98 percent, by 66 percent for those 
receiving the average benefit and over half for those that are getting 
$10,000 a year. And we have to ask ourselves why? The reason for it, as 
the minority leader and Senator Rockefeller pointed out, is to pay for 
the $245 billion tax break for wealthy individuals.
  If you did not have that tax break, Mr. President, you would not need 
to have this tax increase for those on Social Security. That is the 
bottom line. 

[[Page S 16888]]

  If you are going to have the $245 billion in tax breaks for wealthy 
people, you have to get $51 billion in this particular continuing 
resolution, and the way that you do it is to wipe out the Social 
Security COLA for those at the lowest level. I think it is unjustified. 
Senator Daschle had offered the amendment to ensure the integrity of 
the Medicare trust fund. That was rejected by all the Republicans 
except one. That would have ensured the integrity of Medicare and the 
Social Security System and it would have meant not one dime increase in 
premiums, not one dime increase in deductibles. We ought not permit 
this back-door attempt of the Republicans to add this kind of an 
additional tax on the senior citizens of this country.
  Earlier today I spoke of my intention to join with my colleagues in 
introducing this amendment. The Republican proposal to increase the 
Medicare part B premium included in the continuing resolution is 
unacceptable on any vehicle--and it is particularly unacceptable on a 
continuing resolution designed simply to keep the Government operating.
  This proposal is a part of the broader Republican assault on 
Medicare--a proposal that will devastate senior citizens, working 
families, and children in every community in America. It extends an 
open hand to powerful special interests and gives the back of the hand 
to hard-working Americans. It makes a mockery of the family values the 
Republican majority pretends to represent.
  The Republican assault on Medicare is a frontal attack on the 
Nation's elderly. Medicare is part of Social Security. It is a contract 
between the Government and the people that says, ``Pay into the trust 
fund during your working years, contribute to the growth of your 
country by working hard, supporting your family, and educating your 
children, and we will guarantee good health care in your retirement 
years.''
  It is wrong for Republicans to break that contract. It is wrong for 
Republicans to propose deep cuts in Medicare in excess of anything 
needed to protect the trust fund. And it is doubly wrong for 
Republicans to propose those deep cuts in Medicare in order to pay for 
tax breaks for the wealthy. You don't need a degree in higher 
mathematics to know what is going on. The $270 billion in Medicare 
cuts; $245 billion in new tax breaks disproportionately targeted at the 
wealthiest individuals and companies in America.
  The cuts in Medicare are harsh and they are extreme--$280 billion 
over the next 7 years. Premiums will double. Deductibles will double. 
Senior citizens will be squeezed hard to give up their own doctors and 
join private insurance plans.
  The fundamental unfairness of this proposal is plain. Senior 
citizens' median income is only $17,750. Forty percent of all senior 
citizens have incomes less than $10,000 a year. Because of gaps in 
Medicare, senior citizens already pay to much for the health care they 
need, especially prescription drugs and long-term care. But under the 
Republican budget, elderly Americans will pay $71 billion more out of 
their own pockets over the next 7 years--an average of almost $4,000 
for each elderly couple.
  The Medicare trustees have stated clearly that $89 billion is all 
that's needed to protect the trust fund for the next 10 years--$89 
billion, not $280 billion.
  Our Democratic alternative provides that amount of savings. We don't 
need to raise premiums an additional dime. We don't need to raise 
deductibles a dime. We need to give senior citizens real choices, not 
force them to give up their own doctor.
  The Republican Medicare plan also deserves to be rejected because of 
the lavish giveaways to special interest groups in the House and Senate 
proposals.
  The insurance industry got what it wanted--the chance to get their 
hands on Medicare and make billions of dollars in additional profits.
  The American Medical Association got what it wanted--no reduction in 
fees to doctors, and strict limits on malpractice awards.
  The list goes on and on. The clinical laboratory industry got what it 
wanted--their labs no longer have to meet strict Federal standards to 
guarantee the accuracy of results. The nursing home industry got what 
it wanted--Federal standards to prevent abuse of patients in nursing 
homes will be eliminated. The pharmaceutical industry got what it 
wanted--the right to charge higher prices for their drugs.
  Because of this unjust Republican plan, millions of elderly Americans 
will be forced to go without the health care they need. Millions more 
will have to choose between medical care and food on the table, 
adequate heat in the winter, or paying the rent.
  Senior citizens have earned their Medicare benefits. They've paid for 
them, and they deserve them.
  It is bad enough that the Republicans have proposed this unjust plan. 
It is worse that they have taken the single largest cost increase for 
senior citizens--the increase in the Medicare part B premium--and 
attached it to this continuing resolution.
  Cuts in payments to doctors are not included in the continuing 
resolution. Cuts in payments to hospitals are not included in the 
continuing resolution. The only Medicare cut in this bill is a proposal 
to impose a new tax on the elderly and disabled.
  The Republican strategy is clear. Try to rush through their 
unacceptable proposals--because they know that they cannot stand the 
light of day. Try to force the President to sign them into law--with 
the threat of shutting down the Government if he refuses to go along.
  The part B premium increase is especially objectionable, because it 
breaks the national commitment to senior citizens in Social Security. 
Every American should know about it. Every senior citizen should reject 
it.
  Medicare is part of Social Security. The Medicare premium is deducted 
directly from a senior citizen's Social Security check. Every increase 
in the Medicare premium means a reduction in Social Security benefits.
  The Republican plan proposes an increase in the part B premium and a 
reduction in Social Security which is unprecedented in size. Premiums 
are already scheduled to go up under current law, from $553 a year 
today to $730 by 2002. Under the Republican plan, the premium will go 
up much higher--to $1,068 a year.
  As a result, over the life of the Republican plan, all senior 
citizens will have a minimum of $1,240 more deducted from their Social 
Security checks. Every elderly couple will pay $2,480 more.
  The impact of this program is devastating for moderate- and low-
income seniors. It is instructive to compare the premium increase next 
year--the portion of the Republican plan tucked into the continuing 
resolution--to the Social Security cost-of-living increase that 
maintains the purchasing power of the Social Security check. One-
quarter of all seniors have Social Security benefits of $5,364 a year 
or less. The COLA for a senior at this benefit level will be $139 next 
year.
  The average senior has a Social Security benefit of $7,874. The COLA 
for someone at this benefit level is $205.
  But under the Republican plan the premium next year will be $126 
higher than under current law. Average-income seniors will be robbed of 
almost two-thirds of their COLA. Low-income seniors will be robbed of a 
whopping 90 percent of their COLA.
  Senior citizens have earned their Social Security and Medicare 
through a lifetime of hard work. They built this country and made it 
great. Because of their achievements, America has survived war and 
depression. Tonight is the eve of Veterans Day, when we honor those who 
sacrificed for our country. Many of those veterans depend on Medicare. 
It is wrong to take away their benefits, and it is especially wrong to 
do so to pay for an underserved tax break for the wealthiest 
individuals and corporations in America.
  The Republicans' attack on Medicare will make life harder, sicker, 
and shorter for millions of elderly Americans. They deserve better from 
Congress. This cruel and unjust Republican plan to turn the Medicare 
trust fund into a slush fund for tax breaks for the wealthy deserves to 
be defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island. 

[[Page S 16889]]

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, there are two horses the Democrats like to 
ride. One is Social Security, and the other is Medicare.
  They like to ride both of them at the top of their lungs, as has been 
indicated here this evening.
  Let us talk about Medicare, which is the subject before us. There are 
a lot of deceptive statements being made here this evening in 
connection with Medicare. One is that you are increasing the premiums. 
First, let us make clear what we are talking about. Under Medicare, 
there is part A. There is a trust fund and that pays for the 
hospitalization. Part B is an insurance program. It is a voluntary 
insurance program that senior citizens can take if they so choose, and 
about 99-plus percent choose the part B insurance program.
  What does the part B insurance program do? It covers the cost after 
the deductible for physicians. That is what part B is.
  Let us look at a little bit of history. When part B was set up under 
Medicare in the early 1960's, the thought and, indeed, the plan was 
that the beneficiary, the insured, would pay 50 percent of the premium 
and the Federal Government would pay the other 50 percent of the 
premium.
  However, due to the fact that it was set in dollars and medical 
inflation came along, what started out as a dollar premium that equaled 
50 percent soon slid down, down, down and became less than 25 percent, 
something like 18 percent. So then we changed the law, and we provided 
that it be 25 percent as a minimum. But over the past several years 
that rose, and it currently is at 31.5 percent. That is what it is now. 
And so this idea that by staying at 31.5 percent we are increasing the 
premium is absolute, total nonsense.
  It is important to remember this. The Federal Government is now 
paying, for the total part B premiums, as its share, namely the 69 
percent that it pays, with the insured paying 31.5 percent, $42 billion 
a year, and we believe that the 31.5 percent premium that is currently 
being paid is a fair premium. It is not 50 percent, as the authors of 
the legislation originally provided, and it is not 40 percent, but it 
is 31.5 percent. That is what the Republicans have provided.
  The argument is, well, do not do it on this bill. Do it on something 
else. The problem is that unless we provide on this bill that it be at 
31.5 percent, due to the mechanics of the machinery for Social Security 
and the withholding, and so forth and so on, because this is a premium 
that is deducted from the benefit of the Social Security recipients--in 
other words, when they choose to have the insurance, they provide that 
the premium be deducted from their Social Security income, and in order 
to keep it at this particular figure, 31.5 percent, it is required that 
legislation be enacted. That is why we are here this evening.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. CHAFEE. That is right. Yes.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator indicate what it will revert back to if 
this legislation is not passed?
  Mr. CHAFEE. It will revert to the 25 percent that we have long since 
bypassed. It is now at 31.5 percent. Who set it at 31.5 percent?
  Mr. DASCHLE. But the Senator does confirm it reverts back to 25 
percent.
  Mr. CHAFEE. A Democratic Congress--a Democratic House of 
Representatives, a Democratic Senate--provided that it be at the 31.5 
percent. And to say this is an increase when that is what is being paid 
now is just plain not so.
  Now, Mr. President, you could say, well, it ought to go to 25 
percent. Well, why not have it go to 10 percent or, indeed, more 
attractive and more appealing I suppose is no charge. Have the Federal 
Government pay it all. But we believe that when we look at these 
programs, when we look at the cost of $42 billion, for the beneficiary 
to continue paying at the same percentage he or she is currently paying 
is fair.
  Now, they do not say, well, it is unfair to pay 31.5 percent. Is that 
the viewpoint of the Senator from Massachusetts, I wonder?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will answer in 30 seconds. What is completely unfair 
is to raise $51 billion, according to CBO, from low-income people in 
order to pay for a tax break for the wealthiest individuals. That is 
what is unfair. I wish the Senator had addressed the issue of the tax 
break for the wealthy. The Senator has not even referred to it. This 
provision raises $51 billion, I say to the Senator, here it is, right 
here in the chart. And you are using that $51 billion as part of your 
$245 billion tax break for the wealthy. The Senator has not even talked 
about that in his explanation.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Now, Mr. President----
  Mr. KENNEDY. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I would ask that I have 2 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President that is what you call a syllogism. Does he 
believe that the premium should not be 31.5 percent? Suddenly we get 
talking about tax breaks for the rich. There is no tax break for the 
rich provided in this legislation. What we are saying is----
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will take----
  Mr. CHAFEE. Let me finish.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to answer the question.
  Mr. CHAFEE. We are on my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to answer the question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island has the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island has the floor. 
Does he yield the floor?
  Mr. CHAFEE. I know I am against sturdy competition, particularly in 
the volume level, but I would like to finish.
  We believe that a beneficiary paying 31.5 percent is fair. As you 
know, under the current law, when an individual is unable to pay the 
premium, then Medicaid can step in. That is the current law of the 
land. Medicaid is there to cover the deductibles. Medicare is there to 
pay the part B premium. But we believe that it is fair for the 
beneficiary to pay 31.5 percent with the Federal Government paying 
68.5. That is a pretty good deal.
  So that is what this is all about this evening. It has nothing to do 
with the rich. You can read the language, and there is no tax cut for 
the rich. I do not know where they get that from. It has nothing to do 
with that. It is whether it is fair to say to the beneficiaries you are 
getting a very good deal here.
  And you cannot beat it for paying not the entire premium. Indeed, 
there is no means testing here. There is no suggestion, as we have 
proposed and subsequently presumably it will come along in later days, 
that the more affluent pay more. That is not included here. I would be 
happy if it were. But that is not in this particular program.
  So, because of the mechanics that have to take place, it is important 
that this legislation be approved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Could I have just 30 seconds to respond?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I want to make it clear that I do think the raising to 
31 percent, which this proposal does, is unfair. And I want to tell you 
why. Because it was a guarantee to the seniors, ``Work hard, pay your 
taxes, and you are going to have affordable health care.'' Under the 
Republican proposal, you will be adding some $2,400 to the cost of 
health care to every senior citizen in this country. You are going to 
be denying them access to health care. And you are doing it to have the 
tax breaks for the wealthy.
  And that, I say to the Senator, is unfair. And at the 31 percent, the 
premium will emasculate the cost-of-living adjustment under Social 
Security. The Republicans said, ``We aren't going to touch Social 
Security,'' and yet they are effectively wiping out the COLA for the 
poorest of our elderly people.
  I yield the remainder of the time.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  Mr. ROTH. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me say to the senior citizens of the 
United States, ``The Federal Government is paying for your insurance, 
everything except hospitalization which you paid for in trust from your 
salary. We have decided to pay a premium for your health insurance. And 
we pay it for nobody else in America.'' 

[[Page S 16890]]

  There are families with a husband and wife, and four kids, making 
$22,000 a year, working hard, trying to get ahead. We do not pay any 
health insurance premium for them, but because we want to take care of 
our seniors, we pay for theirs. How much do we pay, and how much does 
the senior pay? At this point in time, the senior citizen pays 31.5 
percent and the taxpayers of America, because we want to take care of 
seniors, pay 68.5 percent.
  That is the fact. All this amendment says is that it is going to stay 
at 31.5 percent. It is not going down to 25 percent or 20 percent or 10 
percent. We say to the seniors, ``Is it not fair that you pay 31.5 
percent''--that is what it has been for awhile--``while the taxpayers 
pay all the rest, while we try to get a balanced budget for the United 
States, so that our children and grandchildren will have a chance at 
making a decent living and increasing their standard of living?''
  By the way, we do not pay the health insurance premium for a husband 
and wife and four children. They may have insurance; they may not. We 
do not pay it from the taxpayers of America. So what we did is say, 
``Let's get a balanced budget on this score. Let's just leave the 
premium at 31.5 percent, with the taxpayers paying all the rest.'' When 
we were finished with all of this, we found we had an economic 
dividend. That dividend said you have a surplus in the budget of the 
United States. All we said to the seniors of the United States is, ``We 
would like to give that money back to the taxpayers.'' Ninety percent 
of that economic dividend is going back to the taxpayers of America who 
earn $100,000 or less a year.
  Everything I have said is fact. Now, you can turn it around however 
you would like, but I do not believe there are going to be very many 
senior citizens who are going to be angry at us when we say, ``We will 
keep on paying 68.5 percent of the cost of your insurance, but we would 
like to give the American people a tax break, with most of it going to 
men and women who have children, by way of a tax credit and a little 
tiny bit so that we can have the economy grow.''
  What is the matter with that? It seems to me that is the best thing 
we can do for seniors and by far the best thing we can do for their 
children and grandchildren. And that is the way it is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware has 7 minutes.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This 
legislation sets the part B monthly premium for 1996 at 31.5 percent of 
part B costs, the exact same percentage of cost beneficiaries cover 
today through their premiums. I might point out that the Senate has 
already approved this change in the budget reconciliation bill.
  Mr. President, if we do not make a change in the part B premium, the 
percentage of part B spending that beneficiaries cover through their 
premiums will drop on January 1. And as I said, beneficiaries now pay 
for 31.5 percent of part B spending through premiums, and as of January 
1 of this next year it would drop to 25 percent. If we do not pass this 
legislation by next week, the Social Security Administration tells us 
it cannot change the premium for another 4 months because of the time 
it needs to reprogram its computers.
  This part B premium change is a downpayment on restoring fiscal 
security to part B. I might point out that part B is strictly voluntary 
on the part of our senior citizens as to whether or not they enroll in 
it. A lot of attention has been focused on the need to restore solvency 
to the part A trust fund. But part B spending is also a major problem.
  The Medicare trustees, trustees appointed by President Clinton, in 
their 1995 report on the part B trust fund, pointed out that part B 
costs have increased 53 percent in the last 5 years and costs grew 19 
percent faster than the economy as a whole. In my view, it simply does 
not make sense to let the part B premium go down when, in fact, part B 
costs are exploding.
  Let us remember where the rest of part B spending comes from. It 
comes from taxes, taxes paid for by the American people. And even under 
the reconciliation bill, the taxpayer subsidy of part B will be almost 
70 percent of part B costs. The public trustees--again, the same 
trustees appointed by President Clinton--of the Medicare program termed 
the part B subsidy a major contributor to the fiscal problems of the 
Nation. In other words, this subsidy is a direct contribution to our 
deficit.
  Some will undoubtedly claim that this premium change will burden 
American seniors. We do not think so. The premium change, as I said, 
simply continues the current level of beneficiary cost-sharing among 36 
other Medicare beneficiaries. We think this is fair. We urge the 
Members of this Chamber to defeat this amendment.
  I yield the floor, reserving the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, would the Senator from Delaware yield for 
a question?
  Mr. ROTH. Not right now. First I want to yield time to the 
distinguished Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 44 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I do not know how much has been covered 
here, but if ever we are going to get anything done with regard to 
these programs, this is it. I do not want anyone to forget in this body 
that when this remarkable program was put together--and, remember, it 
is voluntary--it was never part of any contract. This is voluntary.
  This is an income transfer; 69 percent of the premiums on part B are 
paid by the people who maintain this building and 29 percent are paid 
by the beneficiaries regardless of their net worth or their income. 
This is absurd.
  If we cannot even means test part B premiums, which are simply 
voluntary, we will never get anything done, period. But here is the 
key. Remember when this program started, I say to my colleagues--do not 
miss this--under the 1965 law, this was to be a split of 50-50. 
Everyone in this body knows it, 50 percent was to be paid by the 
Government, the taxpayers, and 50 percent by the beneficiary. Everybody 
who is in this debate knows that.
  How did it then get to 25 percent? It got to 25 percent by people who 
knew they could get reelected by simply coming to the floor and saying, 
``Oh, you shouldn't have to pay 50 percent of that premium; you should 
pay 45 percent.''
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, can we have order in the Chamber? It seems 
we have some visitors. We need decorum here.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank my friend from Kentucky. ``No, no, you should 
not have to pay 50 percent, you are beleaguered, tortured.''
  Bosh, it is a voluntary program. It is $46.10 a month; $46.10 a month 
to people who are floating in a golden parachute. This is absolutely 
bizarre, when the thing was originally 50-50 and now we have it to 25-
75 and now we want to say 31 is too much? Ask the people who are called 
``Joe Six-Pack'' how they feel about paying 70 percent of the premium 
for somebody who is loaded. This is crazy.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator from Wyoming yield for a question?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. In the Finance Committee, you offered an amendment which 
would have the effect of causing high-income Medicare beneficiaries to 
pay a larger percentage of the cost to the program; is that correct?
  Mr. SIMPSON. That is correct.
  Mr. GRAHAM. That was adopted by the Finance Committee.
  Mr. SIMPSON. It was a very fine bipartisan vote of 15-5.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Would this proposal of setting the percentage at 31.5 
percent obviate your amendment which would have set a higher percentage 
for high-income Medicare beneficiaries?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Obviously, it would. If we cannot maintain the current 
level of 31.5 percent, we are in deep trouble, to go back to 25, to 
strike everything we are trying to do in means testing.
  Mr. GRAHAM. What I am saying is, if we retain the provisions in the 
continuing resolution, it appears to mandate that we set the computers 
at 31.5 percent for all beneficiaries, the rationale being if we do not 
act now, it will be too late to adjust those computers. 

[[Page S 16891]]

  Would that not have the effect of eliminating the opportunity to do 
what your amendment calls for, which is to have a different percentage 
for high-income beneficiaries?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I do not know how better to explain the situation. If 
you are going to change this formula, obviously the means testing or 
affluence testing, as I call it, of part B premiums cannot be done 
properly if you are going to give more of a break to people regardless 
of their net worth or income.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Wyoming has 
expired.
  Mr. DASCHLE. How much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes, 10 seconds.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader.
  The Republicans are asking seniors to pay more than Congress intended 
because they want seniors to pay more. They think they should pay more, 
and this, I warn my colleagues, is the beginning of the Republican plan 
to ask seniors to pay more for their health care coverage.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me associate myself with the remarks 
of both our Democratic Senators. The Senator from Florida and the 
Senator from West Virginia have made a point I was going to make in 
response to the Senator from Wyoming. The fact remains that seniors pay 
more for their health care than any other group of people in the 
country. That is not disputable. They pay more than anyone else. Yet, 
this amendment requires them to pay even more than they pay today. That 
is what this issue is about and no one ought to be misled about that.
  I want to make two final points, reiterating what I said earlier 
about the importance of this legislation and confirming what the 
distinguished Senator from Rhode Island said earlier.
  Current law dictates that 1996 premiums will revert back to the 25 
percent level. The continuing resolution seeks to change this and lock-
in the premium at 31 percent. We have debated this, we have discussed 
it, we have analyzed it, we have consulted and we have concluded over a 
long period of time that 25 percent is the figure that we ought to 
lock-in for seniors to pay their fair share, given the fact that they 
already pay more in out-of-pocket costs and in higher deductibles than 
any other segment of the population.
  Mr. President, we made a commitment 30 years ago that seniors would 
get health care, and it would be affordable. That commitment is now 
jeopardized if this amendment is not adopted. I hope Senators on both 
sides of the aisle will recognize that and support it as this 
legislation comes before us tonight.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. DASCHLE. 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.


     Vote on Amendment No. 3049, As Modified, Upon Reconsideration

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on amendment No. 3049, as 
modified, offered by the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig]. The yeas and 
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator for Indiana [Mr. Lugar] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator for Hawaii [Mr. Akaka] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] is 
absent because of illness in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 565 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--47

     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Akaka
     Bradley
     Lugar
  So the amendment (No. 3049), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


               Amendments Nos. 3045, 3046, 3047, and 3048

  Mr. DOLE. In light of the vote, I now ask that the amendment 3048 be 
agreed to, and amendments 3047, 3046 and 3045 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wish 
Senators would just stop and look around. I wish Senators would just 
take a look at what is going on on the floor.
  Mr. President, I will not object, but I want to retain the floor 
briefly on a reservation of objection.
  I wish Senators would just look around this Chamber. If you have not 
looked around, do it. I do not mean to be discourteous to our 
colleagues from the House. They have the privilege of the floor. I 
would defend their privilege, their right to the privilege, as long as 
it is in that book. And it is in there--the book on Senate Rules. But 
it is a little disconcerting to see them down in the well, buttonholing 
Members of the Senate. I resent that. I resent that. If there is ever a 
time when they want my vote, where they would like to see me vote a 
certain way, such conduct would turn me the other way.
  All the while I have been speaking, a House Member has been standing 
over there laughing and grinning. I do not mean to be discourteous to 
House Members, but to me that comes with very poor grace.
  I have been in this Senate now 37 years. I used to be a Member of the 
House. Not once have I ever gone over there and attempted to buttonhole 
Members of the other body during a vote.
  I hope that the Chair will insist on better order in the Senate. That 
might go for some of our own Members, as well.
  I try to sit in this chair here most of the time. I know that we all 
are prone to forget and chat with colleagues as they come in on the 
floor because we have not seen them. They have been in committee 
meetings and so on. If that Chair will make that gavel heard, here is a 
Senator who would sit down. I respect that Chair and I respect that 
gavel.
  I hope that House Members will show a little respect for this body 
and for the privilege of the floor which they have been accorded. And I 
hope that we Senators will help the Chair to insist on that.

  Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  I remove my reservation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is their objection to the request of the 
majority leader?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the amendment (No. 3048) was agreed to.
  So the amendments (Nos. 3045, 3046, and 3047) were withdrawn.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, what is the pending business?


                           Amendment No. 3050

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 

[[Page S 16892]]
  now on amendment No. 3050 offered by the minority leader, Mr. Daschle. 
On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to table, and 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. DOLE. Mr. President, I think most of our colleagues are here and 
have been notified, if we might have consent that this be a 10-minute 
vote, and then, following that, there will be a rollcall vote on final 
passage of 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Kansas 
to lay on the table the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota. On 
this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] is 
absent because of illness in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 566 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Akaka
     Bradley
     Lugar
  So, the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3050) was 
agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. I would ask that we have 1 minute before the next vote so 
the chairman of the committee, the Senator from Oregon, may offer a 
technical amendment which has been agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3051

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I have two technical amendments that 
have to be offered, and they have been cleared on the other side of the 
aisle by Senator Byrd. They relate to a technical amendment for the 
U.S. Information Agency and in relation to the DC amendment. So I send 
these to the desk and ask for their immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3051.

  Mr. HATFIELD. 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:

       In Sec. 101. (a) after Educational Exchange Act of 1948, 
     insert: ``section 313 of the Foreign Relations Authorization 
     Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103-236),''.
       On page 10 at line 19, after the period insert the 
     following: ``Included in the apportionment for the Federal 
     Payment to the District of Columbia shall be an additional 
     $15,000,000 above the amount otherwise made available by this 
     joint resolution, for purposes of certain capital 
     construction loan repayments pursuant to Public Law 85-451, 
     as amended.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  So the amendment (No. 3051) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution is open to further 
amendment. If there be no further amendment to be proposed, the 
question is on the engrossment of the amendments and third reading of 
the joint resolution.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the joint resolution 
to be read a third time.
  The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 115) was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the joint resolution 
pass?
  Mr. DOLE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] is 
absent because of illness in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 567 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--46

     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Akaka
     Bradley
     Lugar
  So the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 115), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the joint resolution was passed.
  Mr. ROTH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, has H.R. 2586 arrived?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has.

                          ____________________