[Pages S529-S534]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

THE CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1995

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the hour of 9:30
a.m. having arrived, the Senate will now resume consideration of S. 2,
which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 2) to make certain laws applicable to the
legislative branch of the Federal Government.

The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

Pending:
Ford-Feingold amendment No. 4, to prohibit the personal use
of accrued frequent flyer miles by Members and employees of
the Congress.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment of Mr. Ford, No. 4, is
pending.
Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this amendment I have before the Senate
merely prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars for personal use; that is,
the frequent flyer mileage miles that are built up as a result of
expense-paid trips back to our States. That is simply what it is.
I understand that my friends on the other side of the aisle are not
ready to accept it, and particularly not ready for a vote.

Order of Procedure

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be
set aside, and I further ask unanimous consent that Senator Wellstone
be recognized for the introduction of an amendment.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished Senator from Minnesota
is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from
Kentucky.
Mr. President, yesterday, in introducing an amendment with Senator
Levin of Michigan, Senator Feingold, and Senator Lautenberg which dealt
with lobby disclosure but mainly with gift bans, I on the floor of the
Senate read from what I think is a very, very interesting, very
important, and very revealing piece in Roll Call of October 17, 1994.
The title is, ``How Lobbyists Put Meals, Gifts to Work.''

This memo, obtained by Roll Call, says one prominent D.C.
firm lays out 1994 strategy,
[[Page S530]] including meals, campaign contributions * * *.

And we talked yesterday about trips.
Mr. President, the amendment that I am going to introduce today
focuses on lobbying. Yesterday, what I urged my colleagues--since so
many of us ran on a reform agenda and since so many of us have talked
about the need to make this process more accountable, open, and
honest--I asked my colleagues really, under the leadership of Senator
Levin, to vote on an amendment which would say that we would put an end
to this taking of gifts. The vote was ``no.''
So today, focusing on the same question, I am going to, in this
amendment, essentially say to my colleagues if you are going to vote
``no'' against the taking of gifts, the gift ban part, at least let us
put a stop to this, I think, insidious connection between the lobbying
and the taking of cash and campaign contributions.
So this amendment is going to prohibit lobbyists who may lobby within
the preceding year from making contributions to or soliciting
contributions for Members of Congress and from lobbying Members of
Congress to whom they have contributed or on whose behalf they have
solicited funds within the previous year.
In other words, if you have made a contribution or you have
instructed a PAC you control to make a contribution to a candidate,
then for 1 year thereafter you should not be lobbying that candidate or
staff. Vice versa, if you have been in that office lobbying a Senator
or lobbying staff, then there is a 1-year window here whereby you would
not be allowed to make a campaign contribution.
This amendment is all about congressional accountability. Let me
repeat that. This amendment is all about congressional accountability.
And it is designed to sever the connection between lobbyists and big
PAC contributions to Members of Congress.
This covers congressional staff, and it would prohibit lobbyists from
lobbying new Members of Congress to whom they have contributed or on
whose behalf they have solicited funds during the past year which I
think, from the point of view of the new class, also represents real
reform.
Mr. President, this amendment was part of S. 3, which the Senate
passed by a very lopsided vote. Senators then said that they thought
this was an important reform idea, or I should say an important reform
measure. It would prohibit the practice whereby a lobbyist who lobbies
a Member for a client then directs that client to make a contribution
to the Member. It closes the potential loophole allowing lobbyists to
get around the prohibition by having clients make contributions to
Members to further their lobbying efforts.
In other words, it is not just a question of lobbyists not being able
to do it, but it is also a question of a lobbyist not being able to
instruct a client to make such a contribution.
This amendment will also prohibit a lobbyist from directing that a
contribution be made by a political action committee to a Member of
Congress whom that lobbyist has lobbied during the past year, a key
element of any reform effort designed to sever--let me emphasize that--
the connection, big money connection, between large lobbying firms,
their clients, and PAC's.
Mr. President, one more time, we have before us the Congressional
Accountability Act. We are talking about how to make this process more
accountable. Reform is in the air in America. We started out this
session on the basis of a focus on reform, and this particular
amendment speaks to that question.
Yesterday, I urged my colleagues to vote for an amendment that I
thought was a huge step forward--not a small step forward, but a huge
step forward--in changing the political culture of Washington in
putting a stop to taking these gifts. Many Senators, though I am proud
to say by no means all Senators, but certainly many Senators, and on
the other side of the aisle, all Senators on the other side of the
aisle--I guess there were two exceptions--voted ``no.'' With this
amendment, I am saying if you are not willing to put an end to the
accepting of gifts, at least put an end to this insidious connection
between lobbying and the giving of money.
If there is one thing we have heard from people in the country, it is
that they do not like this mix of money and politics. They do not like
the fact that some people march on Washington every day. They do not
like the fact that this is such a closed loop in which they do not feel
as if they participate. And I cannot think of an amendment that would
speak more clearly and more directly to people's concerns than this
amendment.
Mr. President, this provision, when this amendment was first brought
up for S. 3--which again I remind my colleagues was passed by an
overwhelmingly positive vote--was crafted narrowly to withstand the
test of constitutionality. The Court has said that any seeming
infringement on first amendment speech rights has to be balanced
against concerns about corruption or the appearance of corruption. That
is what we are talking about here, the appearance of corruption. If you
run for office and you are elected, lobbyists come in and lobby you,
and then later there is a contribution. Or, vice versa, you receive a
contribution and lobbyists instruct a PAC or client to make a
contribution to you, and then shortly thereafter the lobbyist is in
your office.
If you want to talk about the appearance of corruption and if you
want to talk about a way of making this process more accountable and
you want to talk about a way that Senators can live up to our mandate
to be reformers, this amendment speaks directly to this question.
Mr. President, again, this amendment meets that test. It is directed
narrowly at the question of the appearance of corruption or
impropriety. Let me emphasis that again. It is directed narrowly at the
question of the appearance of corruption or impropriety.
And it covers only those situations where a lobbyist has made a
lobbying contact and then contributes, solicits on behalf of, or
directs that a contribution be made to a Member.

It attempts to define who is a lobbyist. By the way, so no mistake
will be made, we simply go by the current definition. We get into none
of the debate and argument on the reform of lobby disclosure. We just
go with the current definition which--and by the way, I think all of us
agree, if our words are to be believed--eventually has to be changed.
There are many who lobby who are not officially registered as lobbyists
today.
Mr. President, I also want to include in the Record a letter from the
White House, January 5, 1995, which was addressed to the Speaker, in
which the focus is on congressional reform, with a strong focus on this
whole question of lobbying reform.
I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

The White House,

Washington, January 5, 1995.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: We have an opportunity to make historic
change in the way that Washington works and the government
does the people's business.
This week, the Congress has begun to take important and
positive steps to change its operations for the better.
Shrinking the number of committees, reducing staff, and other
measures are valuable, and long overdue. The passage of
legislation that would apply to Congress the laws that apply
to the public is only fair, is simple common sense, and is
also long overdue. I hope that this time, unlike the last
session of Congress, the Senate follows the House's action. I
congratulate you on these steps.
But true congressional reform must reduce the power of
lobbyists and special interests. The power of organized money
in Washington hurts the middle class, bloats spending and the
deficit, and blocks needed change. Today, some 90,000 people
in Washington are associated with lobbying Congress on behalf
of specific interests, which too often are able to manipulate
the congressional process to insert spending projects or tax
provisions in legislation that do not serve the larger
public's interest. Lobby power coupled with the ever-
escalating cost of campaigns, which has risen fourfold over
the past two decades, gives wealthy interests and wealthy
candidates disproportionate influence in decisionmaking.
These are not partisan concerns; they are American
concerns. I urge you, as you undertake the task of reforming
Congress, to take on these real political reform issues.
First, as you enact legislation to apply general laws to
Congress, it is vital that professional lobbyists be barred
from giving
[[Page S531]] gifts, meals and entertainment to members of
Congress--just as they are now barred from giving these
benefits to executive branch officials.
Second, Congress should also quickly enact legislation to
bring professional lobbyists into the sunlight of public
scrutiny. The current lobby disclosure statute is cumbersome
and
antiquated. Lobbyists should disclose who their clients are,
what bills they seek to pass or block, and how much they
are paid.
Third, I am pleased that the Congress wants to pass a line
item veto authority for the President, something that I have
consistently supported before and during the 1992 campaign
and since. The line item veto authority will help us cut
unnecessary spending and reduce the budget deficit. It is a
powerful tool for fighting special interests, who too often
are able to win approval of wasteful projects through
manipulation of the congressional process, and bury them in
massive bills where they are protected from Presidential
vetoes. It will increase the accountability of government. I
want a strong version of the line item veto, one that enables
the President to take direct steps to curb wasteful spending.
This is clearly an area where both parties can come together
in the national interest, and I look forward to working with
the Congress to quickly enact this measure.
Finally, we must clean up political campaigns, limit the
cost of campaigning, reduce the role of special interests,
and increase the role of ordinary citizens. Real campaign
finance reform, too, should be an area of bipartisan
cooperation. Requiring broadcasters to provide time to bona
fide candidates would cut the cost of campaigning and ensure
that voters hear all arguments, regardless of candidate
wealth. Strong proposals for free TV time have been
introduced in previous years by Senator Dole and by the new
chair of the House Commerce Committee, Rep. Thomas Bliley;
these proposals should be the basis of agreement on reform.
I look forward to working with the Congress to achieve
results that are bipartisan, bold, and give the government
back to the people.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me just summarize for my
colleagues, because I think that we will be casting an important vote
on this amendment, I think it is an important vote because this is sort
of a litmus test as to how committed we are to reform.
I cite this as a relevant document: Roll Call, Monday, October 17,
where the whole focus is on meals and travel and campaign
contributions, as ways of having access for clients. Mr. President, if
you want to talk about a memo that tells it all, if you want to talk
about a memo that, unfortunately, sort of speaks to the very concerns
that people have about this process, this is an example.
I ask unanimous consent that this Roll Call piece be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From Roll Call, Oct. 17, 1994]

How Lobbyists Put Meals, Gifts to Work

(By Timothy J. Burger)

During the protracted debate over new lobbying and gift
rules--which went down to stunning defeat in the waning days
of the second session--Members argued violently over the
influence of lobbyist-paid meals and campaign contributions.
``Now, a Big Mac will not buy influence from anybody. I am
sure $15,000 will not buy influence from anybody,'' Rep. Dan
Burton (R-Ind) said on the floor.
Mocked retiring House Minority Leader Bob Michel (R-Ill):
``Here we are today demeaning ourselves by saying. `Oh,
please stop me before I accept another cup of coffee and a
Danish.'''
Despite such protestations, meals and contributions are
fixtures in the lobbying world--and internal documents from a
prominent Washington lobbying firm demonstrate just how
central they are to conducting business.
In December 1993, principals of Gold and Liebengood
assembled plans for expanding their network of Hill contacts
for 1994.
The planning documents, copies of which were obtained by
Roll Call, offer a rare glimpse into the world of lobbying
and, specifically, how meals, gifts, and contributions are
put to use.
Take, for instance, the strategy for James Capel and Co.
Ltd., a British securities firm, that is a longtime client of
Gold and Liebengood.
According to the memo: ``Capel is desirous of dinners,
lunches, and meetings for themselves and their clients, with
a diverse list of Members of Congress Capel has agreed to pay
G&L a separate fee for each and every one of these
Congressional visits we arrange.
Potential targets: John Dingell, Jack Brooks, Norman
Mineta, and Al Swift, were the initial Members mentioned.
Capel would be receptive to suggestions from us.''
The 12-page memo was drafted by Charles Merin, a Gold and
Liebengood partner, and John Scruggs, the firm's managing
director and a former aide to then-Rep. Trent Lott (R-Miss).
It includes specific agencies for each of the principals.
Among Scruggs's ``targets'' were Reps. Porter Goss (R-Fla)
and Pat Danner (D-Mo).
``Congresswoman Danner defeated Tom Coleman. Coleman was a
strong and consistent supporter of Wilcox. Need to develop
similar relationship with Danner,'' the memo noted. ``Action:
Continue to work with staff (hesitancy to accept gifts). Ask
Chuck Merin for introduction followed by fundraising
activity.''
Wilcox, a manufacturing company, is a former Gold and
Leibengood client.
Regarding Goss, the outline noted: ``Porter Goss became a
member of the Rules Committee early in this Congress. Only
Minority Member on the committee with whom I do not have an
established relationship.
``Action: Seek opportunity for campaign contribution,
followed by goodwill development.''
It appears, however, that Gold and Liebengood did not
follow through on all of its plans. Goss and Danner told Roll
Call they never heard from Scruggs.
Among the ``targets'' outlined for Merin were Alan Roth,
staff director of the House Energy and Commerce Committee--
``Multiple client interests before the Committee would be
enhanced by a better working relationship with him''--and
Democratic Reps. Bobby Rush (Ill), Scotty Baesler (Ky), and
Bobby Scott (Va).
The Merin outline describes the Congressmen as ``Promising
Freshman Members with whom I need to firm up an existing, but
casual relationship.
``Action: Arrange sit-downs/meals with these Members and
mutual Member friends.
``Ask Jack Clough, former E&C Committee top aide, to
arrange a lunch.''
Merin said he never followed through with Roth, Baesler, or
Scott and that he become acquainted with Rush through
meetings, not meals, with the Congressman.
Scruggs, Merin, and a founding partner, former Senate
Sergeant at Arms Howard Liebengood, last week were shown
copies of the documents obtained by Roll Call.
In a letter of response, Scruggs wrote: ``The documents are
not newsworthy in any respect and were intended solely for
private not public consumption. The activities suggested in
the documents are neither unique nor inappropriate in any
manner. As this firm is bipartisan and has no Political
Action Committee, all members are encouraged to participate
in political development-individually and they do.''
Gold and Liebengood is in the final year of a five-year
buyout and will be wholly owned by Burson-Marsteller at the
end of 1994.
The memo also documents the firm's involvement in
leadership races.
Written some 11 months ago, the Gold and Liebengood
``Campaign Activity Outline'' discussed Merin's plans to work
on the year's most dramatic long-shot leadership race:
``Charlie Rose for Speaker.''
Merin's plans were to ``Continue working with Rose and his
campaign deputies to broaden the network of Member
commitments.''
This type of activity is ``always a game of Russian
roulette,'' said Howard Marlowe of the lobbying firm, Marlowe
& Co., who served as president of the American League of
Lobbyists from 1988 to 1990 and is a member of the
organization's board.
``As long as you back the winner, then you've made the
right choice,'' said Marlowe. ``[And] in this case, the loser
is somebody who's still around and so whatever you did to
help him or her out is probably going to be remembered. So I
think that probably represents a smart political move on
their part.''
But, Marlowe said, ``I think in general lobbyist ought to
probably try to refrain from getting involved in the internal
leadership of the House or Senate.''
Said Merin of his involvement in the leadership race: ``The
election of a Speaker of the House, much like the appointment
of any Member to any committee, is a matter exclusively and
totally within the purview of the institution. The ability of
any outsider to leverage the process to his or her advantage
is virtually nil. The only real role any outside can play in
the process is to provide limited advice and counsel.''
Said Rose: ``I don't see Chuck Merin much more than I see
other lobbyists that visit me. But be's a friend. * * * He
has been helping me [with] new candidates and [to] raise
money from some of his clients. * * * Some of the people he
represents have given money to my leadership PAC. * * * He's
told them that I have a good chance to be Speaker.''
Rose noted that ``since the beginning of Congress,
[lobbying firms] have helped people become Speaker and
Majority Leader and get elected to Congress. The vote for
leadership around here comes from the Democratic Caucus. And
Chuck has helped me raise money for Democratic candidates.''
Also on Merin's agenda is ``Vic Fazio for Caucus Chair.''
The plan called for Merin to ``Assist Fazio [D-Calif] with
Member contacts on an as directed basis, relative to hid bid
to succeed Steny Hoyer.'' Fazio, the Democratic Caucus vice
chairman, is unopposed in a bid to succeed Hoyer.
Asked about the memo, a Fazio aide said: ``Mr. Merin has
been a good friend and supportive of Mr. Fazio's campaigns in
the past.''
[[Page S532]] The most prominent political activity listed
for Scruggs, meanwhile, is the ``Bob Walker for Whip''
campaign. Walker (Pa) is running against Reps. Tom DeLay
(Texas) and Bill McCollum (Fla) for the GOP Whip post that
Rep. Newt Gingrich (Ga) will leave when he's elected
Republican Leader in December.
Scruggs, the memo states, is ``Serving on advisory group of
lobbyists supporting Walker Whip campaign.'' It cites a
``Commitment
to do `meet and greets' for GOP candidates identified by
Walker as he campaigns for potential GOP freshmen in next
year's Congressional races.''
Said Walker in an interview, ``This is a guy who is a
personal friend of mine of 20 years standing. * * * It's not
being done as a lobbyist. It's being done as a personal
friend.'' Walker said Scruggs ``consults with me from time to
time * * * and has put together some meet and greets.''
Walker said Scruggs is only one of many lobbyists working on
his behalf.
Gold and Liebengood does not have a PAC and does not as a
firm formally back specific candidates, although its 13
individual lobbyists are encouraged to follow their own
political development agendas. This sometimes leads Gold and
Liebengood lobbyists to support opposing candidates for the
same office.
Underscoring this point, Scruggs said in the interview that
``Gold and Liebengood is not working for Charlie Rose for
Speaker. Because I'm the managing director and I'm supporting
Newt Gingrich for Speaker and I think that sort of sums it
up.''
Said Ellen Miller, executive director of the Center for
Responsive Politics: ``We always expect this happens. But you
know that level of involvement in leadership races is pretty
startling. It's another chapter in the book `How Washington
Really Works'. * * * I'm afraid it's not unique at all.''
``Do I know we get targeted? Sure,'' said Goss. As a public
official, ``You give up some privacy and you just expect
people are trying to figure out ways to get access to get
their views across.''
Other political development projects listed for Merin:
``Mel Watts [sic] for a Rules Committee seat. The
Congressional Black Caucus will be able to recommend a
successor to [A]lan Wheat on the Rules Committee. Mel is the
CBC Chairman's choice for that vacancy. Assist Mel in
building a network of non-CBC Steering and Policy Committee
Members who will support his appointment.''
Watt said this month he has no knowledge of the memo or
Merin's interest in winning him a spot on the Rules panel.
``Al Wynn for an Energy and Commerce Committee Seat.
Maryland is looking to get back the seat it lost with Tom
McMillen's defeat. Anticipated Member defeats/departures will
create Democratic vacancies at the Committee. Help Albert
craft his campaign for an appointment.'' Merin gave Wynn's
re-election $200, according to FEC records.
An aide to Wynn--who had previously expressed interest in
Rules, not Energy and Commerce--had no comment.
``Greg Laughlin for a Ways and Means Committee Seat. The
departure of Representatives Pickle and Andrews from the
Congress will create two vacancies for Texas Democrats to
fill. Greg is the leading delegation choice for one of those
vacancies. Assist him in securing non-Texas Steering and
Policy Committee votes as the year goes on.''
Laughlin could not be reached for comment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, to summarize, this amendment is
designed to prohibit lobbyists from making contributions to, or
soliciting contributions for Members of Congress whom they have lobbied
within the preceding year, and from lobbying Members of Congress to
whom they have contributed or on whose behalf they have solicited funds
within the previous year.
If you have gone in--this includes staff as well--if you have gone in
to see one of the Senators as a lobbyist or gone in to lobby with
staff, then for 1 year--that is what we are talking about--you are not
allowed to make campaign contributions. If you have contributed to a
Senator, then within a 1-year period of time, you are prohibited from
lobbying the Senator or staff.
This is all about making this process more open. This is all about
reform. This is all about making sure we have a system in our country
of democracy for the many and not democracy for the few. This is all
about congressional accountability. And yesterday, too many of my
colleagues--as it did not get a majority vote--voted against ending
this practice of receiving the gifts, the argument being we will get to
it later. By the way, since I have been here in the Senate, I have
heard that argument over and over and over again. I think we will get
to it later this term. I know I will bring this up over and over and
over again until we do get to it.
Today I say this to my colleagues: If you are not going to agree with
the proposition that we should put an end to the taking of these gifts
now, then at least agree to the proposition--if we are talking about
congressional accountability--that we ought not to be taking this money
from lobbyists. At least agree there ought to be a 1-year period of
time between the lobbying activity and the giving of money. Does it not
seem as if this is reasonable? Does it not seem as if this is a prudent
course? Does it not seem that if we are talking about reform, we ought
to vote for this? We cannot separate the legislative lives we live and
how we vote from the words we speak.

Amendment No. 5

(Purpose: To restrict political contributions by lobbyists)

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

The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an
amendment numbered 5.

Mr. WELLSTONE. 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 appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ____. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS BY LOBBYISTS.

Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 441a) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(i)(1) A lobbyist, or a political committee controlled by
a lobbyist, shall not make contributions to, or solicit
contributions for or on behalf of--
``(A) any member of Congress with whom the lobbyist has,
during the preceding 12 months, made a lobbying contact; or
``(B) any authorized committee of the President of the
United States if, during the preceding 12 months, the
lobbyist has made a lobbying contact with a covered executive
branch official.
``(2) A lobbyist who, or a lobbyist whose political
committee, has made any contribution to, or solicited
contributions for or on behalf of, any member of Congress or
candidate for Congress (or any authorized committee of the
President) shall not, during the 12 months following such
contribution or solicitation, make a lobbying contact with
such member or candidate who becomes a member of Congress (or
a covered executive branch official).
``(3) If a lobbyist advises or otherwise suggests to a
client of the lobbyist (including a client that is the
lobbyist's regular employer), or to a political committee
that is funded or administered by such a client, that the
client or political committee should make a contribution to
or solicit a contribution for or on behalf of--
``(A) a member of Congress or candidate for Congress, the
making or soliciting of such a contribution is prohibited if
the lobbyist has made a lobbying contact with the member of
Congress within the preceding 12 months; or
``(B) an authorized committee of the President, the making
or soliciting of such a contribution shall be unlawful if the
lobbyist has made a lobbying contact with a covered executive
branch official within the preceding 12 months.
``(4) For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) the term `covered executive branch official' means
the President, Vice-President, any officer or employee of the
executive office of the President other than a clerical or
secretarial employee, any officer or employee serving in an
Executive Level I, II, III, IV, or V position as designated
in statute or Executive order, any officer or employee
serving in a senior executive service position (as defined in
section 3232(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code), any
member of the uniformed services whose pay grade is at or in
excess of 0-7 under section 201 of title 37, United States
Code, and any officer or employee serving in a position of
confidential or policy-determining character under schedule C
of the excepted service pursuant to regulations implementing
section 2103 of title 5, United States Code;
``(B) the term `lobbyist' means a person required to
register under section 308 of the Federal Regulation of
Lobbying Act (2 U.S.C. 267) or the Foreign Agents
Registration Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C. 611 et seq.) or any
successor Federal law requiring a person who is a lobbyist or
foreign agent to register or a person to report its lobbying
activities; and
``(C) the term `lobbying contact'--
``(i) means an oral or written communication with or
appearance before a member of Congress or covered executive
branch official made by a lobbyist representing an interest
of another person with regard to--
``(I) the formulation, modification, or adoption of Federal
legislation (including a legislative proposal);
[[Page S533]] ``(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; or
``(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); but
``(ii) does not include a communication that is--
``(I) made by a public official acting in an official
capacity;
``(II) made by a representative of a media organization who
is primarily engaged in gathering and disseminating news and
information to the public;
``(III) made in a speech, article, publication, or other
material that is widely distributed to the public or through
the media;
``(IV) a request for an appointment, a request for the
status of a Federal action, or another similar ministerial
contact, if there is no attempt to influence a member of
Congress or covered executive branch official at the time of
the contact;
``(V) made in the course of participation in an advisory
committee subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. App.);
``(VI) testimony given before a committee, subcommittee, or
office of Congress a Federal agency, or submitted for
inclusion in the public record of a hearing conducted by the
committee, subcommittee, or office;
``(VII) information provided in writing in response to a
specific written request from a member of Congress or covered
executive branch official;
``(VIII) required by subpoena, civil investigative demand,
or otherwise compelled by statute, regulation, or other
action of Congress or a Federal agency;
``(IX) made to an agency official with regard to a judicial
proceeding, criminal or civil law enforcement inquiry,
investigation, or proceeding, or filing required by law;
``(X) 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;
``(XI) a written comment filed in a public docket and other
communication that is made on the record in a public
proceeding;
``(XII) a formal petition for agency action, made in
writing pursuant to established agency procedures; or
``(XIII) made on behalf of a person with regard to the
person's benefits, employment, other personal matters
involving only that person, or disclosures pursuant to a
whistleblower statute.
``(5) For purposes of this subsection, a lobbyist shall be
considered to make a lobbying contact or communication with a
member of Congress if the lobbyist makes a lobbying contact
or communication with--
``(i) the member of Congress;
``(ii) any person employed in the office of the member of
Congress; or
``(iii) any person employed by a committee, joint
committee, or leadership office who, to the knowledge of the
lobbyist, was employed at the request of or is employed at
the pleasure of, reports primarily to, represents, or acts as
the agent of the member of Congress.''.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I, in a short period of time, have to
get ready for a call-in that I do back with Minnesotans. So not seeing
anybody, I am wondering whether colleagues are interested in debating
this. If not, I will ask unanimous consent that this amendment, for the
moment, be set aside.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. What was
the specific point that the Senator from Minnesota requested?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I asked unanimous consent that if there
was no further debate at the moment, that my amendment be temporarily
set aside. I have another engagement, but I will be back at 11 and
ready to debate.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I think some debate may proceed on your amendment while
you are gone because people on our side of the aisle want to speak on
that. So I would like to keep his amendment before the body.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Iowa that
that course is very reasonable, as long as I would have time to
respond. I will be back here at 11.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Obviously, we will be able to do that since there is no
time agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the request withdrawn?
Mr. GLENN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not, just to
clarify this, if there is not sufficient opposition on this side to
take up the time, if another amendment was brought to the floor before
Senator Wellstone comes back, I presume it would be OK if we set it
aside and went on with the other amendment.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would be agreeable to either
proposition. If Senators want to debate this--and certainly there
should be debate on this amendment, as that is what we are all about,
and it is an important debate--I would be pleased to have this
amendment out on the floor. I will be back at 11 and I will be pleased
to respond. If other Senators come with amendments and there are not
Senators speaking directly to this amendment, I would be pleased to
have this amendment set aside.
Mr. GLENN. I will not object.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I do withdraw my initial unanimous-consent request.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the situation this morning, Friday
morning, is that we are on S. 2. This is a bill that we Republicans,
the new majority, promised that we would give early consideration to,
and hopefully pass early on to get the bill to the President for
signature.
The House of Representatives, in their first day of session,
unanimously, on a rollcall vote, passed this piece of legislation. This
legislation provides that the exemptions that Congress as an
institution and individual Members of Congress have had as employers
from certain employment and safety laws, in some instances for over 60
years, will no longer be in place.
The purpose of this legislation is to end the environment in this
country where we have two sets of laws--one for Capitol Hill and the
one for everybody else, everywhere else in the country.
It will end a situation where there is one set of laws for
Pennsylvania Avenue and another set of laws for Main Street, U.S.A. It
will end the situation where employees of Congress do not have the same
employment and safety rights and access to the courts for the
enforcement of those rights that private sector employees have.
For a long period of time people, in the private sector, both
employees and employers, but particularly employers, have resented a
legal situation in this country where laws passed for the safety and
the employment rights of individual private-sector employees of this
country, have been in place for one set of employees but not for
another. The burden of regulation on the private-sector employer has
been in place, but that burden of regulation has not been in place for
Capitol Hill. And, of course, that resentment has mounted, and mounted,
and mounted over several years now that this has become an issue.
It was No. 1 on the list of promises that the new majority made to
the American people that we would pass. Consequently, that is why it
did pass the House of Representatives and that is consequently why our
distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole, made a promise to make
that the first bill for consideration of this body.
So we had a full day's debate on this bill yesterday and we are
probably going to have a full day's debate today and into next week.
But I notice from the debate yesterday and the debate so far today, it
is not on the substance of the legislation: ending the situation where
we have one set of laws for Congress and another set of laws for the
rest of the country.
I am glad to know that there is that fair amount of unanimity, maybe
a great deal of consensus, at least, on the issue of the legislation.
But debate yesterday was on the issue of lobbying and on the issue of
gifts--very legitimate issues to be discussed before this body--and now
this morning we are starting debate on unrelated legislation dealing
with lobbying; again, a very legitimate subject for the Senator from
Minnesota to bring to this floor.
But is it legitimate at this time to bring it before this body? Well,
of course, under the rules, it is. But does it fit in with the goals
that people desired for this Congress early on when they made the
decision in the last election to send a new majority to the House and
Senate and to the House for the first time in 40 years? I think not,
particularly in light of the fact that the distinguished majority
leader, Senator Dole, has promised that all of these issues will have
time for discussion on the floor of this body very early in this
session, probably within the next 2, 3, 4 months, at the latest.
So I beg the Senator from Minnesota and the Senators from other
States that have other amendments not germane to the specific purpose
of S. 2 to wait for the appropriate time so that
[[Page S534]] we do not frustrate the will of the people expressed in
the last election, and that we move forward with ending this special
treatment of Capitol Hill to be exempted from 11 major pieces of
legislation. Let us move on with this bill, get it to the President for
signature--the President wants to sign it--and then take up the usual
course of business and abide with faith in the promise of the
distinguished majority leader that these issues will be brought up and
bring them up at that appropriate time. We should not try to wreck a
very good piece of legislation that passed the House unanimously and I
will bet will almost pass this body unanimously as well.
I yield the floor and urge Senators on my side who want to debate
Senator Wellstone's amendment to please come over here and do that,
because we will not have rollcalls as long as there is a leadership
meeting down at the White House.
Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I do not have a dog in this fight. I do not
have an amendment that I am proposing here, but I cannot help but
respond to the remarks of my distinguished colleague from Iowa. I will
be very brief because I know Senator Simon would like to make a
statement here on the floor and I am happy to see him do that.
But this idea that somehow because there is a push on for something
here that we can avoid having anyone put on amendments is wishful
thinking. I need only go back in my mind's eye and remember what was
happening about 60 days ago or 90 days ago here on floor when anything
we put forth was subject to amendments, extraneous or not. It was delay
for delay's sake and it was a scorched earth policy.
To say that we should let some piece of legislation, as much as I
want it--and I am as big a backer on this piece of legislation on
congressional accountability one could possibly be, but it is entirely
within the right of any Senator who wants to offer an amendment.
Although I do not have an amendment to offer, I do not want to let
anything go by that would be critical of people who do have amendments
to offer and are offering them in all good sincerity. They think it is
right. If they want to attach it on by the rules of the Senate, we,
obviously, can do that.
We had talk here yesterday about we should be giving the new majority
a chance to govern. Well, we do not set aside all the Senate rules in
giving anybody a chance to lead or a chance to govern. I am all for
leadership having all the leadership prerogatives, but those
prerogatives do not mean that we are able to set aside amendments that
people may, in all sincerity, propose, whether I agree with them or
not.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the
Senate for 5 minutes as if in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________