[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 198 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18572-S18573]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CORRECTION OF ENROLLMENT OF S. 1060

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 
116 that has just been received from the House.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 116) directing the 
     Secretary of the Senate to make technical corrections in the 
     enrollment of S. 1060.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to proceeding to the 
immediate consideration of the concurrent resolution?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
concurrent resolution.


                           Amendment No. 3098

                (Purpose: To add a technical correction)

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senators Simpson and Craig. 

[[Page S18573]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] for Mr. Simpson, for 
     himself, and Mr. Craig, proposes an amendment numbered 3098.

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, 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 page 2, after line 10, insert the following:
       (7) In section 18, strike ``contract, loan, or any other 
     form'' and insert ``or loan''.
       (8) In section 12(b)(1), strike ``7'' and insert ``6''.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I rise, along with Senator Craig, to 
offer an amendment to H.Con.Res. 116, the resolution to make technical 
corrections to the recently-passed lobbying reform legislation, S. 
1060. We understand that our amendment is acceptable to the managers of 
the lobbying reform legislation, Senators Levin and Cohen, and we are 
grateful to each of them for their cooperation.
  In explaining our technical amendment, we note that three versions of 
the Simpson-Craig lobbying reform amendment have passed the Senate. The 
first was our amendment to S. 1060, banning all forms of Federal fund 
transfers, including contracts, to organizations described in Internal 
Revenue Code section 501(c)(4) who also engage in lobbying activities. 
Part of the rationale for this amendment was that those organizations 
should not simultaneously enjoy the benefits of exemption from 
taxation, unlimited expenditures on lobbying, and Federal funding 
support.
  However, learning of a quirk in the legislative history of 501(c)(4) 
organizations, we found that many insurance companies are still 
technically organized as 501(c)(4) organizations, even though they are 
now fully taxable. Many of these, along with other health care 
providers that are also 501(c)(4) organizations, handle Federal 
contracts under Medicare, the Federal employees health system, and 
CHAMPUS. We believe that our colleagues would concur that such groups 
lie outside the scope of the intended reach of a cutoff of grant money 
to organizations which enjoy the benefits of 501(c)(4) status.
  It is for this reason that we redrafted our amendment, during 
consideration of the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, to correct 
for this and to exclude contracts from the prohibition on Federal 
funding assistance. That amendment passed the Senate by voice vote on 
July 24 of this year.
  The third version of this provision to pass the Senate was included 
in a broader version of grants reform, which was the Simpson-Craig 
amendment to the provision authored by Representatives Istook, 
McIntosh, and Ehrlich that the House had included in House Joint 
Resolution 115, the second FY 1996 continuing resolution. In the 
language in that amendment affecting 501(c)(4) organizations, we also 
took out the ban on contracts and other forms of funding, other than 
grants.
  Mr. CRAIG. Senator Simpson has pointed out the important fact that 
versions of the Simpson-Craig lobbying reform amendment have been 
approved by the Senate three times this year. I commend Senator Simpson 
on his leadership in this area and am happy that the Simpson-Craig 
amendment, along with the rest of the lobbying reform bill, is on the 
verge of being signed into law.
  The first version of our amendment, added to S. 1060, had a scope and 
impact on some insurance and health care providers, uniquely classified 
as 501(c)(4) organizations, that the authors and the Senate never 
intended. This problem was corrected in the second and third versions 
of the Simpson-Craig amendment. Therefore, the Senate twice approved 
the very change in our 501(c)(4) organizations language that we are 
proposing again today.
  For reasons totally unrelated to this change, the House of 
Representatives struck the second and third, perfected, Simpson-Craig 
lobbying reform amendments from the Treasury-Postal bill and the 
continuing resolution. The House was seeking, instead, to promote its 
broader Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich language. However, even in that House 
language, 501(c)(4) organizations were never barred from receiving 
contracts.
  So, Madam President, the intent of the Senate is clear throughout the 
evolution of floor votes on three bills, and the intent of the House is 
clear in two floor votes on a related provision. Neither body intends 
that all 501(c)(4) organizations who lobby should be barred from 
receiving Federal contracts. But because the earliest version of either 
body's position on lobbying and grant reform was the one preserved in 
S. 1060 as cleared by the House, the clear intent of both bodies on 
501(c)(4) organizations is not reflected in that bill.
  That is all we are proposing in our technical amendment today, that 
this technical corrections resolution adjust S. 1060 to reflect the 
clear intent of both the Senate and the House, as expressed in the 
relevant votes taken in both bodies.
  Mr. SIMPSON. The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig] is correct. While we 
are pleased that the House passed lobbying reform legislation with the 
original Simpson-Craig language intact, we also believe that Congress 
would want to take the opportunity, in the form of this technical 
corrections resolution, to acknowledge the unique status of certain 
501(c)(4) organizations, as we did in our redrafted amendment to the 
Treasury-Postal appropriations bill and the second continuing 
resolution. We therefore submit our amendment to eliminate the terms 
``contracts'' and ``any other form'' to the Senate, trusting that the 
correcting language will more closely conform to the intentions of the 
Congress in passing our original amendment.
  Mr. CRAIG. There is one additional provision in our amendment, at the 
request of the bill's managers, to simplify and expedite the process of 
handling this resolution. This provision would correct, in section 
12(b)(1) of the bill, a cross-reference to the definition for 
representation of a foreign entity. This same change was already made 
in section 12(c), and the change in section 12(b)(1) simply makes it 
consistent and correct, clerically.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3098) was agreed to.
  Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be 
considered and agreed to, as amended, and the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the concurrent 
resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 116), as amended, was 
agreed to.

                          ____________________