[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 21, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4910-S4911]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          LOBBYING DISCLOSURE TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1997

   Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wish to add to the statement I 
offered last week when I introduced S. 758, the Lobbying Disclosure 
Technical Amendments Act of 1997. In my statement, I noted that a 
similar piece of legislation that Congressmen Charles Canady and Barney 
Frank sponsored last year and moved through the House of 
Representatives, was unable to gain passage in the Senate because of a 
provision that some Members of the Senate found problematic. I 
emphasized that the bill I have introduced omits that provision.
  Although that revision is, in my view, the key difference between the 
bill I have introduced and last year's version, I should also point out 
a second change. S. 758 omits a provision that would alter the language 
in those sections of the Lobbying Disclosure Act (the ``LDA'') 
requiring LDA registrants to identify certain foreign entities that 
have an interest in the outcome of their lobbying activities. As it 
stands now, the LDA provides that registrants need to identify foreign 
entities that have a direct interest in their lobbying. The provision 
in last year's House-passed bill and which is not included in S. 758 
would have added the word ``significant'' to that phrase. Under that 
provision, registrants

[[Page S4911]]

would have to disclose foreign subsidiaries only if they have a 
significant direct interest in the lobbying.
  In my view, changing direct interest to significant direct interest 
would be counterproductive, especially since the provision in question 
does not define what the word ``significant'' means in this context. At 
what point does a direct interest become a significant direct interest? 
If foreign entities have a direct interest in the lobbying of a 
registrant, but the registrant insists that interest is not 
significant, how can we judge that contention? In the absence of clear 
answers to those questions, I believe the provision I have omitted 
could weaken the LDA. By introducing an element of vagueness into the 
act's language, it could undercut the act's ability to fulfill the 
information-gathering function that we had in mind when we passed it.
  As I emphasized in my initial statement, my purpose in introducing 
this technical amendments bill is to make the LDA even more useful than 
it is now. I do not want to do anything to weaken the act, and S. 758 
is shaped in accordance with that guiding principle.

                          ____________________