LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1976

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 24
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 24, 2001
• Sequence Number: 45
• Publication Date: June 15, 1976
• Content Type: OPEN

June 15, roved For Rele e 3 ? I - SibM00
-
,TAR7r, V. 'OREIGN BRIBE-PRODUCED INCOME
"ZE.47.41.-.IN*ONS
.5, EFFECTIVE HATE.
be,amendments; made by this Act apply
to taxable years beginning alter December 31,
1975.
Tare stiiiIrouss,
June 14?, 1976.
eTATEIV/ENT OF THE PRESIDENT
Ten weeks ago I appointed a Task Force
beaded by Secretary Richardson to review
our ,policies toward corporations that en7
- gage in questionable payments to other nit-
- tions, Today, based upon the findings of
that Task Force, I am announcing three new
First, as a ,deterrent to bribery by Amen-
can-controlled industries, I am directing
the Task Force to prepare legislation that
would require corporate disclosure of all
payments made with the intention of in-
fluencing foreign government officials. Fail-
ure to comply with the new disclosure laws
would lead to civil and criminal penalties.
? Second, I am announcing my support of
pending legislation to strengthen the law
requiring corporatfons to keep their share-
holders fully and honestly informed about
their foreign behavior.
?- Finally, r am asking our major trading
partners to Work with us in reaching agree-
ment on a new cocie to govern international
corporate activities. Let me emphasize my
conviction that the va-st majority of Amer-
109,u-based corporations are honest, upsta.nd-
lng citizens in the international commu-
nity. nonetheless, we must recognize that
unethical behavior by only a few companies
Can spoil the envirorunent for everyone. Our
system of private enterprise, a system that
has provided a higher standard of living and
greater economic security than any system
known to man, is under constant attack to-
day because many citizens no longer trust
big business.
Tti order to renew and to restore public
faith In tree enterprise, we must avoid or
provide the public with concrete assurance
that major Corporations are clean and honest.
The_initiatives I am announcing today can
be a big step in that direction.
Thank you very much.
Tar W4LITE HOITSra
June 14, 1976.
(l
,Dscrsimas oN le c)FO_ J LE it zaTS
? rAY*ENTS Asaoau
The President today announced three de-
Cialons based on bla reVlew of an interim re-
port by the Cabinet Task Force on Ques-
tionable Corporate Payments Abroad. The de-
Cislons are: (1) to propose new corporate
"disclosure" legislation with regard to ques-
tionable payments abroad; (2) to endorse
legislation proposed by the SEC intended to
assure the Integrity of Corporate reporting
procedures and the accountability of cor-
porate executives; and (3) to seek priority
treatment at forthcoming international
Meetings for the United States' proposed in-
Wap ational agreement on questionable pay-
liac.ltalt011are
The President created. the Cabinet Task
Force on Questionable corporate Paymen.ts
Abroad oil March 31, 1970. The Teekroree 113
;hatred by Commerce Secretary Elliot Rich-
ardson:Its inembeis fnclucle: Secretary of
State; Secretary of Treasury; Secretary of De-
-tense; Attorney General; Special Representa-
(tIve for Trade Negotiations; Director, Office
of atariKement and Budget; Assistant to the
,President forfunninic Affairs; Asststant to
the President er,15,atiOnal Security Affairs;
an Egir.,eclAthti.ALZPS441.4. cOnhell OU Interim-
r#9,94gfag
57'eng Task Force the iresident
directed It to conduct a comprehensive poi.-
icy review and to explore whether "additional
avenues should be undertaken in the interest
of ethical conduct in the international mar-
ketplace and the continued vitality of our
free enterprise system." He instructed the
Task Force to provide him with interim re-
ports and a final report by the end of the
ota lent calendar year.
? The President's decisions followed his re-
ceipt of the first interim report of the Task
Force.
Sr. THE DECISIONS
A. "Disclosure" Legislative Initiative. The
President announced that he had decided to
submit legislation to the Congress requIr-
Mg reporting and disclosure of certain pay-
ments by U.S.-controlled corporations made
with the intent of influences, directly or in-
directly, the conduct of foreign government
officials. The President instructed the Task
Force to develop detailed specifications to
such legislation as quickly as possible?i
order to allow Congressional action on th
proposal in this session of Congress.
In announcing these decisions, the Presi-
dent expressed confidence that the over-
whelming majority of American businessmen
have conducted themselves as good citizens
,both E4 home, and abroad. The president's
decisions derived, in par t,he said, from a need
to halt the growing trend of spreading
cynicism and to help restore :confidence in
basic American institutions and principles.
B. Corporate Accountability Decision, The
President endorsed legislation proposed by
SEC Chairman Roderielt Hills In his Rep
of May 12. The legislation would amend e
Securities Exchange Act of 1934:
To prohibit falsification of corporate a
counting records;
To prohibit the making of false and m1
leading statements by corporate officials r
agents to persons conducting audits of t e
-.company's books and records and financi
operations;
To require corporate management to estab-
lish and maintain its own system of internal
accounting controls' designed to provide rea-
sonable assurances that corporate transac-
tions are executed in accordance with
management's general or specific authoriza-
tion, and that such transactions are properly
reflected on the corporation's books.
C. Acceleration of International Efforts.
The President announced his ,intention to
seek ,prierly treatment for the United
States' proposed international agreement on
?questionable corporate payments abroad,
Tile proposed agreement was first put for-
ward by the United States in a United Na-
tions forum on March 5, 1976. If successful,
it would result in an international treaty
based on the following principles: ,
It would apply to international trade and
investment transactions with Governments,
i.e., government procurement and other gov-
ernmental actions affecting international
trade and investment as may be agreed;
Pt would apply equally to those who offer
or make improper payments and to those
Who request or accept them;
Importing Governments would agree to
establish clear guidelines concerning the use
of agents in connection with government
procurerrierit and other covered transac-
tions, and establisch appropriate criminal
penalties for defined corrupt practices by
,enterprises and officials in their territory;
All Governments would cooperate and ex-
change information to help eradicate corrupt
practices:
Uniform provisions would be agreed for
disclosure by enterprises, agents and officials
of political contributions, gifts and payments
made In connection with covered transac-
tions.
The President's initiative will supplement
related U.S, International initiatives taken
in the OAS, OECD, GATT and U. ?
TEC ONGOING ACTIVITIES
A, Policy Development and Coordination.
The Hash Force will continue to have re-
sponsibility for policy development and co-
ordination within the Executive Branch in
accordance- with the President's directive of
B. Investigations. Responsibility for inves-
tigative activities will remain with the ap-
propriate investigative agencies and not the
Task Force. Investigations and enforcement
actions of the audit agencies, the IRS, the
FTC, the SEC and the Department of Jus-
tice are ongoing in arc rd- ce with the dic-
tates of current law.
Mr. HAR
ilejit, how
ing?
F.
1M
JR. Mr. Presi-
o I have remain-
bJt PRESIDENT pro tern-
",. ie enator from Virginia has 1
te remaining.
HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. Pres
dent, I 'yield e emainder o y
time and sugge t . ence quo-
I In
rum.
The A TIN
pore.cle
The 41. : tiv
-
the
. HA
- unanimous
quorum call
L4
AW
ons:d
e gri
?
PRE
1 c,a1
lar
11: t
I ceed
tem-
to call
r. President, I ask
at the order for the
inded.
RESIDENT pro tern-
ection, it is so ordered.
iY
. Without o
LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF
1976
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. Under the previous order, the Sen-
ate will now resume consideration of the
unfinished business, S. 2477, which will
be stated by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2477) to provide more effective
,disclosure to Congress and the public of cer-
tain lobbying activities to influence issues
before the Congress, and for other purposes.
Ur AMENDMENT NO. 30
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. The Senator from Maine (Mr.
HATHAWAY) is recognized to call up an
amendment, on which there is to be a
time limitation of 30 minutes, to be
equally divided between and -controlled
by the Senator from Maine (Mr. HATH-
AWAY) and the Senator from Connec-
ticut (Mr. RIBICOFF).
Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, I
send to the desk an unprinted amend-
ment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine (Mr. HATHAWAY)
proposes unprinted amendment No. 30, as
follows:
On page 37, line 20, strike out "any"
through "excluded" on line 25.
Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, this
amendment removes the provision re-
garding direct oral lobbying communi-
cations as it applies to contacts between
representatives of an organization which
contacts its own Senators or its own dis-
trict Congressman only and, therefore,
cannot become a lobbyist under this pro-
vision Of thea bill relating to 12 or more
oral lobbying communications.
In combination with the high thresh-
old zequirswilt of the following pro-
_
rOved For Release 2001/08/30 CIA-RDPIIM00144R00,08091
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 :_CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE June 15, 1976
vision regarding an organization which
solicits others to lobby on issues, this
home State/district exemption presents
a rather large loophole in the coverage of
this bill. No one wants to "discourage"
contacts between constituents and their
representatives, nor between ary mem-
ber_of the public and any of the Mem-
bers of Congress. But this is not a regu-
latory law which places any limitation
on the amount or kind of lobbying which
may be done, nor does it even apply to
any lncIividualswho may express their
opinions to a number of Members of
Congress or tbAeexpelativ,ranch. It ap-
plies only to otgazae1o4s, Which neces-
sarily of course must wotk tjr? h indi-
viduals representing the nte t.s of
those organizations, and req es4 s-
,elosure, of only substantial lobbying ef-
?forts which meet_ one or more of the,
t%reshold require en of the bill. For.
pint es of dIscur alone, when an
on eetsjse threshold re-
ho be colsidered a
axdless ?peci? whom
? ng e cows ,of con-
the tihre,shOld re-
tion the adverse
Impact of this home; and district
exemption may be tp6st'clearly,seen.
tinder these two proViSions, an organi-
zation may get on its WATS line, call
organizations which may be located in
every State and ask them to call their
Senators and Congressman. The affili-
ates in the States may in turn call their
own membership and request that they
also call their Senators and Congress-
man regarding a given issue or piece of
legislation, and no more than a few hours
and a minimal amount of money will be
spent by anyone in carrying out an ef-
fective lobbying campaign which in fact
results in lobbying of all of Congress
cin an unlimited basis, though not lobby-
ing within the terms of the bill itself.
This campaign would not have been dis-
closed so long as the organization was
not a lobbyist under other provisions of
the bill.
In short the home "State? exemption
represents an unnecessary and attrac-
tive loophole for any large organization
which has affiliates across the country.
When combined with other provisions of
the bill, it appears that substantial, ef-
fective, and extensive oral and written
lobbying campaigns can be structured in
? such a way as to avoid meeting any of the
threshold tests contained in the bill for
determining when an organization be-
comes a lobbyist. And similarly to the
overly high dollar requirement contained
In the provision for determining when
an organization is a lobbyist by virtue of
Its solicitation campaigns, the home
state exemption will treat organizations
which do substantially the same type of
lobbying in different ways.
? An organization which is fortunate
enough to be situated in a district or
State whose Congressman or Senator is
the chairman of a powerful committee
with jurisdiction over an issue of inter-
est to that organization, will not have to
disclose its lobbying activities no matter
?how Many times it meets with, or calls
and discusses proposed or pending' legis-
;)"
orgailli
quirern
"lobby
It con cte
ducting its lob
In conjunction
quiretnents for s
lation. Nor will the organization have
to register if it also makes up to 12 other
face to face or telephone lobbying corn-
municatnins with other members. The
organization located across the State or
the district line, however, which has an
equal interest in making its views known
to the chairman of that same committee,
perhaps even in regard to the same is-
sue or legislation, however, have to reg-
ister and report as a lobbyist as soon as
the threshold of 12 oral lobbying com-
munications is met in a quarter.
This differential treatment of orga-
nizations in the same situation under
the guise of not wanting to require the
same treatment for our own constit-
uents as we do for other Members' con-
stituents does not have any place in a
alaw which is intended only to disclose
substantial lobbying activities which are
A carried on by various organizations in
our society. Additionally, when com-
bined with other provisions in the bill,
this exemption from reporting require-
ments which do substantial effective
lobbying over the telephone, while con-
centrating their effort on their own Sen-
ators or Congressmen, and while solicit-
ing other individuals to write to every-
one regarding the issue, represents a
major loophole in the coverage of orga-
izat,ions under this bill for determining
hen they become lobbyists.
The purpose of public disclosure, to
insure that Congress and the public may
ore accurately evaluate the weight of
public opinion, is not met if some orga-
pizations which conduct one type of ac-
tivity are reequired to register and re-
port, while other organizatioras, doing
essentially the same type of activity, are
not required to register and report. This
will be one of the adverse effects of re-
tention of the home State and district
exemption; and there seems little coun-
tervailing rationale which would Indi-
cate a need to include such an exefnp-
tion in a lobbying disclosure law.
Mr. President, one of the major short-
comings which I find in this bill is that
it does not cover everyone. I realize it
would be extremely difficult to make
every individual and every organization
in this country which has an interest in
legislation disclose just what communi-
cations it makes and the nature of those
communications, and to whom they were
addressed in Congress. I also realize it
would be extremely difficult, although
this would he an ideal situation, to have
every Member of Congress?every Mem-
ber of the House and every Member of
the Senate?maintain a log on all the
oral communications as well as all the
written communications, or the com-
munications in general, from people in-
terested inainfluencing legislation. That
would be, as 1 say, an ideal situation, be-
cause what we are trying to accomplish
in this lobbying bill, as I mentioned ear- .,
lier, in the course of my remarks, is not
to regulate lobbying, but simply to dis-
close who is lobbying for what, so that
the Members of Congress will know and
so that the general public will know just
what influences are brought to bear upon
the Meinbers of Congress in their delib-
erations on the legislation which cqmes
before them.
I commend the committee for the
various thresholds which they have es-
tablished in order to cut down what
would be an extremely burdensome re-
porting matter if we were to have an
ideal situation. But I think that the
threshold exemption in the case of home
State lobbying is totally unwarranted.
The Senator from Cormecticut and I
both serve on the Finance Committee,
and we know that through the home
State lobbying exemption, those corpor-
ations that are interested in DISC, for
example?those which have overseas op-
erations?there is probably at least one
such company in every State in the
Union, and I am sure in the State of
every member of the Finance Commit-
tee?could, I suppose, make an unlimited
number of calls under the home State
exemption to their home State's Sena-
tors in respect to this matter. And there
are many other matters that come be-
fore Congress where equally effective lob-
bying could take place without any dis-
closure whatsoever.
The evil that I think is present in lim-
iting the threshold in such a way on
allowing for this exemption?and I have
amendments to correct what I believe are
inequities in the other thresholds as
well?is that we distort the picture so
that we, in passing a bill which has
thresholds which are too high and which
exempt too many organizations from the
lobbying disclosure provisions, lead the
general public to believe that the only
effective lobbyists are those who are
spending a huge amount of money lobby-
ing.
We know, as Members of the Senate,
that that is not necessarily true, that
many home-State lobbyists, in particu-
lar, are most effective upon legislation
here in the Senate, and I presume in the
riouse of Representatives as well, be-
cause of the fact that they are from
pur home State or your home district.
I think that in exempting them and in
the other threshold requirements, we are
distorting the picture to the American
public and leading them to believe that
only certain classes of people, either be-
cause they satisfy the money require-
ment or other requirements, are the
lobbyists, the influences upon the Con-
gress.
And I very seriously would consider
not supporting this bill in its final pas-
.age if this home-State exemption were
left in the law as well as some of the
other threshold requirements, because
think that the distorted ai.cture that
would be presented to the public would
not do equity and justice to those who
aave to disclose, leaving many others
who do not have to disclose free to lobby
in any way that they wish, and as I
mentioned earlier many of those are
more effective than those who are being
required to disclose under this proposed
legislation.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder
of my time.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, I rise
opposition to the Hathaway amend-
ment.
S. 2477 specifically 'provides that no
organization can fiedome a lobbyist sim-
ply by tallang to ,the two Senators who
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
Aaaroved For Release 2001/08/30 ? CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
June 15, iu714 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 9349
represent the State and the Congressman
who represents the district where the
organization has its principal place of
business.
? The reason for this provision is to as-
sure that legislators can keep the lines
of communication as open as possible
between themselves and their constitu-
ents. Congressmen and Senators have a
special responsibility to the citizens who
elected them and have a need to have
unimpeded access to information con-
cerning local problems.
An organization should not have to
register as a lobbyist just because its
officers or employees talked with a Con-
gressman representing the district in
which the business is headquartered, on
the one hand, locally based organiza-
tions interested primarily in local issues
and, on the other hand, organizations
that are regionally or nationally oriented
and who lobby Members of Congress re-
gardless of the State they are from.
The distinguished Senator from Maine
mentioned the problem of DISC and said
that home-State companies lobbied or
talked to the members of the Committee
on Finance. That is certainly true.
The State of Connecticut is a large
manufacturing State. The State of Con-
necticut has thousands of employees who
depend, for their livelihoods, upon ex-
ports. The people who have jobs and
businesses in the State of Connecticut
have an absolute right to talk to Senator
WEICKER and me concerning the problems
of employment and of their prosperity
that might arise if DISC were eliminated.
Consequently, we felt that a Senator who
represents his Stlate should always be
available to his constituents without oral
communications being counted toward
the lobbying bill's thresholds.,
So we are very careful to Write this
exemption into the lobbying bill. It would
really be a sad state of affairs a) have
any organization cut off from its duly
elected representatives. Consequently, I
hope that the Senate opposes and votes
against the Hathaway amendment.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I rise in
opposition to the Hathaway amendment.
I do so primarily because of the fact that
when a Senator or Congressman is lob-
bied from outside his State or district
he really does not have access to infor-
mation about the organization and he
does not know as much about the people
Involved. He has to make inquiry in for-
eign territory, in a sense, unless he is a
national candidate.
A Congressman would have a very dif-
ficult time not knowing really quite a bit
about an organization outside his area,
whether it be a labor union, a business
organization, a trade association; or a
plant or naval gun factory that has been
shut down.
For instance, when we receive a deluge
Of letters from an installation that is be-
ing closed down by the Government in
the State we know intimately about that.
We know the people. We have been in the
plant probably. We do not have to have
a reporting mechanism to tell us where
the forces and the factors are.
So, I think it Is an entirely different
thing when we are lobbied by our constit-
uents to whom we have a direct respon-
?
sibility and with whom we have worked,
or where they have worked against us or
for us in our particular campaigns, than
someone outside our district and outside
our State. And certainly it is a fact that
there is a sense of unresponsiveness of
government today among people. We do
not want in any way to build any kind of
a barrier between our own constituents,
who look upon their, elected representa-
tives in the Senate and the House of
Representatives as the individuals they
can approach directly without any re-
strictions of any kind. We do not want a
cloud over the head of a contact being
made between an elected representative
and his on constituents. We feel that
they are the ones who are able to break
through the bureaucracy. By the possi-
bility of putting them in a category of a
lobbyist who must somehow report, I
think it would create an artificial barrier
that would restrain and restrict the con-
tact that should be absolutely free flow-
ing between the constituent and the
elected representative.
For the reasons cited by the floor
manager of the bill, the chairman of the
Committee on Government Operations
(Mr. RIBICOFF) and my own concerns I
would have to regretfully oppose the
amendment.
Mr. HATHAWAY. If the Senator will
yield, I appreciate the Senator's obser-
vation that he, of course, would know all
about the company in his own State and
would not know about companies outside
his State, so disclosure fulfills that one
purpose of allowing the Senator to know
exactly who these other companies are
that are lobbying. But, on the other
hand, I do not know the nature of the
companies that are lobbying the Senator
from Illinois, the Senator from Connect-
icut, or the other Senators, nor Mem-
bers of the House of Representatives. I
think I am entitled to know exactly what
is influencing the Senators' decisions.
It was expressed in the Supreme Court
case in 1946, which upheld that act,
United States against Harriss. The court
stated:
Present day legislative complexities are
such that individual Members of Congress
cannot be expected to explore the myriad
pressures to which they are regularly sub-
jected. Yet full realization of the American
ideal of government depends to no small ex-
tent on their ability to properly evaluate
such pressures. Otherwise, the voice of the
people may all too easily be drowned out by
the voice of special interest groups seeking
favored treatment while masquerading as
proponents of the public weal.
For that reason I think all of us should
know to what pressures the others are
subjected. I mentioned the case of DISC,
and I know that my own companies in
Maine have pressured' me more on na-
tional issues than they have on local is-
sues. Although each business may not
have its own place of business within my
State, his State and/or the State of the
Senator from Connecticut, and all the
other States, they would qualify for this
exemption even though they have this
one legislative issue in common, and
they are constantly lobbying their own
Congressman and Senator in that re-
gard. I think that ought to be disclosed
not only to other Members of this body
and the other body but also to the gen-
eral public as well.
Mr. PERCY. The Senator from Illinois
certainly concedes that it would be of
interest to know exactly how many con-
tacts and how much money had been
spent by the oil interests in Texas to
influence a decision by a Senator from
Texas. But' I do not think it would be a
surprise to know that there were con-
siderable. pressures. I think we all are
Well aware that a Senator from Min-
nesota and a Senator from Iowa are
going to be much more subjected to the
influence of farming groups than a Sen-
ator from some State that is essentially
nonagricultural.
I think it is a matter of balance. Here
I think we naturally assume those pres-
sures operate, and the question is, what is
the overriding concern? The overriding
concern must be the free flow of contact
between constituents and their elected
representatives. I believe that interest
is so overriding that, for that reason,
the Senator from Illinois still would op-
pose the amendment of the distinguished
Senator.
Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield further?
Mr. PERCY. I am happy to yield the
floor. .
Mr. HATHAWAY. I doubt that every
Senator knows all the influences that
every other Senator is subject to in his
own State. We know that potatoes are
grown in Maine, and I am going to be
subject to influence from potato farmers.
We also produce paper, and so forth. But
the Senator from Illinois does not know
all of the interests there any more than
I know all of the interests in the State
of Illinois, in the State of Connecticut,
or any other State in the Union.
? I believe it would have an extremely
salutary effect to have all these in-
fluences put on the public record. Mem-
bers might be a little more objective in
their evaluation of legislation and in the
votes that are cast upon that legislation,
because they would know that all the
other Members of this body know just
what pressures have been brought upon
them in their individual States.
Mr. President, do I have any time
remaining?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
STONE). The Senator has 3 minutes re-
maining.
Mr. HATHAWAY. It seems to me that
if I or any other Member of this body
have knowledge of what pressures are
being exerted upon an individual with
whom we may be having a disagreement
in the Senate, we could much better
evaluate the position of another Senator,
if we know what pressures are being
brought to bear upon him. Often it ap-
pears that someone in this body or the
other body is advocating a position
simply because that is the ideal position.
If we had the register of lobbyists and
knew just which ones were bringing pres-
sure to bear upon him, we could better
judge the argument that individual is
making for a particular piece of legisla-
tion. In that way, I think we would get
better legislation, and the public would
be better informed, and all of us would be
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
S 9350 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENA1 E June 15, 1976
much more conscientious and more ob-
jective legislators.
Mr. President. if the Senator from
Connecticut is ready to yield back the
remainder of his time, I am ready to yield
back mine.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, I yield
back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
has been yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment of the Senator from Maine.
On this question the yeas and nays have
been ordered, and the clerk will call the
roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
called the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce
that the Senator from Delaware (Mr.
BIDEN) , the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
CHURCH) . the Senator from Mississippi
(Mr. EASTLAND) , the Senator from Alaska
(Mr. GRAVEL) , the Senator from Colorado
GARY HART) , the Senator from Michigan
(Mr. PHILIP A. HART ) , the Senator from
Indiana (Mr. HARTKE) , the Senators
from Washington (Mr. JACKSON) and
(Mr. MAGNUSON) , the Senator from
Louisiana (Mr. LONG), and the Senator
from New Jersey (Mr. WILLIAMS), are
necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from
Indiana (Mr. BATH) and the Senator
from Missouri (Mr. SYMINGTON) , are ab-
sent because of illness.
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from Washington
(Mr. Jaeicsoia) would vote "nay."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER) ,
the Senator from Nevada (Mr. LAXALT)
the Senator from Maryland (Mr.
MATHIAS) , the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
PEARSON) , the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. WILLIAM L. Scone , and the Sen-
ator from Vermont (Mr. STAFFORD) , are
necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from
New York (Mr. BUCKLEY) , the Senator
from Oklahoma (Mr. BELLMON) , and the
Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Dom-
Eincr) , are absent on official business.
The result was announced?yeas 17,
nays 61, as follows:
Police ll Vote No. 287 Leg.1
YEAS-17
Abourezk Hathaway Nelson
Burdick Helms Proxmire
Case Leahy Schweiker
Clark Mansfield Stevenson
Culver Metcalf Taft
Dole Moss
NAYS-61
Allen Glenn Muskie
Baker Griffin Nunn
Bartlett Hansen Packwood
Beall Haskell Pastore
Bentsen Hatfield Pell
Brock Hollings Percy
Brooke Hruska Randolph
Bumpers Huddleston Ribicoff
Byrd, Humphrey Roth
Harry F.. Jr. Inouye Scott, Hugh
Byrd, Robert C. Javits Sparkman
Cannon Johnston Stennis
Chiles Kennedy Stevens
Cranston McClellan Stone
Curtis McClure Talmadge
Durkin McGee Thurmond
Eagleton McGovern Tower
Fannin McIntyre Tunney
Fong Mondale Weicker
Ford Montoya Young
Garn Morgan
Bayh
Bellmon
Eiden
Buckley
Church
Domenici
Eastland
Goldwater
NOT VOTING-22
Gravel
Hart, Gary
Hart, Philip A.
Hartke
Jackson
Laxalt
Long
Magnuson
Mathias
Pearson
Scott,
William L.
Stafford
Symington
Williams
So Mr. liATHAWAY'S amendment was
rejected.
Mr. RIBLCOFF. Mr. President, I move
to reconsider the vote by which the
amendmens was rejected.
Mr. PASTORS/. I move to lay that mo-
tion on the table.
Mr. PERCY. I move to lay that motion
on the tabl
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mc-
INTYRE) . The Senator from Montana is
recognized for 5 minutes.
The clers. will state the amendment of
the Senate from Montana.
The Senitor from Montana has been
recognized.
Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, I yield
to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, I
send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING arrICER. Does the
Senator frsm Maine ask unanimous con-
sent that the pending amendment be
temporarily set aside?
Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be temporarily set aside.
The PR,EISIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
UP AMENDMENT NO. 31
The clei .c will report the amendment
of the Sen tor from Maine.
The secsnd assistant legislative clerk
read as follows:
The Senator from Maine (Mr. HATHAWAY)
proposes ar amendment on page 38, line 6,
strike out l7,500" and insert in lieu thereof
"61,000".
Mr. Hsa l'HAWAY. Mr. President, I
modified my amendment by changing the
figure at fee end from $1,000 to $5,000,
and I send the modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as fol-
lows:
On page :18, line 6, strike out "67,500" and
Insert in lic.0 thereof "65,000."
Mr. HATHAWAY. This amendment
lowers the expenditure requirement for
organizations which engage in lobbying
solicitations either directly or through a
legislative agent from $7,500 per quarter
to $5,000 per quarter. The reason for low-
ering this threshold expenditure of direct
expenses is quite straightforward; with a
WATS line, a research aide whose work
would not entail any lobbying, the or-
dinary technology which is found in most
organizational offices today, and with the
allocation of "direct expenses" between
lobbying :activities and other activities
for which these people and machines may
be used, a:a organization can carry on a
major solicitation campaign without ex-
ceeding the $7,500 limit per quarter now
Included in the bill. This $7,500 threshold
test for solicitations, amounting to
130,000 per year in expenses which may
Ii s attributable to lobbying solicitation
p ior to requiring registration as a lob-
t '1st, is simply too high.
The lowering of the threshold in no
Ay limits the amount of solicitation act-
i ity which an organization may under-
t Ice, nor does it affect in any way the
dividual who tries to persuade his
r :ighbor to write to Congress about a
^ ece of legislation. As with the other de-
f ;Won of a lobbyist in the bill, this
-ovision applies only to organizations
V stla a structure which includes "paid of-
f ers, paid directors, or paid employees."
I agree with the committee that solic-
it ition campaigns by organizations
s iould be included as a threshold test for
C itermining when an organization is a
1, bbyist; my disagreement is as to where
t' e line should be drawn in terms of ex-
r =nditures on such solicitations before
t ie organization becomes a "lobbyist"
a td is required to disclose those activities.
II some respects, solicitation campaigns
t 7 an organization, through an organize-
t an periodical or through telephone con-
t ct with affiliates which in turn solicit
c hers, may well be the most effective
f rm of lobbying which an organization
c ea utilize. Yet they may be no more rep-
r tsentative of "public" opinion than di-
r 'et lobbying of Members of Congress by
y lid legislative agents. In fact, by their
r ature, they are more likely to be mis-
1' ading in terms of evaluating public
c Anion; the response generated by the
s ilicitation may necessarily be outdated,
? based only on partial information or
c ily on having heard one side of the
? ory.
In some cases individuals responding
the solicitation might well have a dif-
f rent opinion on the issue if exposed
) effectively to several different points
? view. This is not to say that these id/-
(dual responses are in any way invalid;
ie purpose of the amendment is simply
t require an organization which carries
cit any substantial solicitation of others
t -) register as a lobbyist and report that
has carried out such solicitations.
My disagreement with the committee
!Il is one of degree as to how many dol-
,rs represent a substantial solicitation
r enpaign which should be disclosed by
t le organization doing the solicitation.
think the committee bill implicitly
1 'cognizes the significance of lobbying
E Aicitations in its reporting require-
/ lents where all "lobbyist" organizations
nder the bill are to report on its solici-
t Aims on the basis of the number of
eople, or affiliates expected to be con-
ieted.
There is no requirement in this section
t lat such solicitations meet any mini-
ium expenditure of funds; only that
the organization be a lobbyist under one
s.f the definitions of section 3. Clearly,
the type of solicitation which is required
13 be reported by a lobbyist in section
(d) of the bill would not require ex-
enses of $7,500 per quarter, and I think
the committee implicitly acknowledges
- he importance of solicitations, in terms
of a lobbying technique, when the direct
expenses of such a solicitation may be
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
June 15, 1U76 ? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 9351
well below the $7,500 per quarter thresh-
old requirement for determining that the
organization is subject to the disclosure
requirements of the bill.
I agree fully with the policy reflected
in section 6(d) of the bill; and feel that
the threshold test for determining when
an organization becomes a lobbyist
through solicitations should be more in
accord with the policy reflected in that
section, For that reason, I would lower
the threshold under the provision relat-
ing to solicitation by organizations.
Mr. President, I have discussed this
amendment with the floor managers of
the bill, and I believe the distinguished
Senator from Connecticut is willing to
accept this amendment, as modified. I
thank him very much for his considera-
tion in that regard.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, as floor
manager of the bill I accept the amend-
ment offered by the distinguished Sena-
tor from Maine. '
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I simply
would like to concur with the distin-
guished Senator, the chairman of the
Government Operations Committee, in
accepting the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing?to the amendment, as
modified, of the Senator from Maine.
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT NO. 1651
Mr, METCALF. Mr. President, I send
to the desk a modified version of amend-
ment No. 1651.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will state the amendment', as modified.
The second assistant legislative clerk
read as follows:
On page 38, line 21, after "influence" in-
sert the following: "in a specific or general
way".
, On page 38, line 22, after "by" insert "clear-
ly".
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the amendment is so modified.
Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, this
amendment has been discussed with the
floor managers of the bill. This amend-
ment is half of the original amendment
No. 1651 that I offered. The balance of
the amendment I have stricken in order
to arrive at a compromise, and I would
hope that the Senator from Connecticut
and the Senator from Illinois would
accept it.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, as
manager of the bill I would accept the
amendment offered by the distinguished
Senator from Montana.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I concur
with that judgment and accept the
amendment and extend appreciation to
the Senator from Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is On agreeing to the amendment,
Et..i modified, of the Senator from Mon-
tana.
The amendment, as modified, was
agreed to.
AMENDMENT NO. 1830
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair
lays before the Senate amendment No.
1830 and recognizes the Senator from
Montana.
The clerk will state the amendment.
The second assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to read amendment No. 1830.
Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, the
amendment was printed in the RECORD
last night and it is before the Senate.
It is a long amendment. I will explain it
in my discussion, and I, therefore, ask
unanimous consent that further read-
ing of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 37, beginning with line 14, strike
out all through page 38, line 6, and insert
in lieu thereof the following:
"(2) (A) an organization which engages
on its own behalf, or on behalf of its mem-
bers, in twenty-five or more oral lobbying
communications in any quarterly period,
acting through its own paid officers, paid
directors, or paid employees. For purposes of
determining whether an organization is a
lobbyist under this subparagraph, there shall
be excluded-
"(i) for any organization which main-
tains its principal place of business in the
Washington. District of Columbia, metro-
politan statistical area, any communication
with Congress with respect to municipal gov-
ernance of the District of Columbia, and
"(Li) any communication initiated by
Congress whereby the organization provides
information or opinions to Congress solely
at the request of Congress.
"(B) notwithstanding the provisions of
subparagraph (A), no organization shall be
a lobbyist if it-
"(1) does riot maintain an office within
the Washington, District of Columbia, stand-
ard metropolitan statistical area;
"(ii) does not engage on five or more
separate days in any quarterly period in one
or more personal lobbying communications
within such Washington, District of Colum-
bia, area acting through its own paid officers,
paid directors, or paid employees; and
"(iii) is either (a) an affiliate of an orga-
nization which Ls itself a lobbyist, or (b) an
organization whose income did not in the
preceding year, nor can reasonably be ex-
pected in the present year, to exceed $250,-
000; or
"(3) an organization which, in any quar-
terly period, engages directly or through a
legislative agent in lobbying solicitations
where the total direct expenses of such so-
licitations is $5,000 or more with respect to
any issue before the Congress.".
On page 41, line 12, -immediately before
"shall" insert the following: "in the course
of a single meeting or conversation".
On page 41, between lines 13 and 14, in-
sert the following new subsection:
"(f) For purposes of this Act, a communi-
cation or solicitation addressed to any indi-
vidual in his capacity as an officer, director,
or employee of a related organization shall
be considered a communication or solicita-
tion addressed to the related organization.".
On page 42, line 4, strike out "and".
On page 42, line 25, strike out the period
and insert in lieu thereof a semicolon and
"and".
On page 42, after line 25, insert the follow-
ing new paragraph:
"(4) an identification of the organization's
affiliates, and in the case of each affiliate
that is a voluntary memberhip organization,
the approximate number of individuals who
are members of that affiliate, and the ap-
proximate number of organizations which
are members of that affiliate.".
On page 44, line 19, strike out "affiliates"
and insert in lieu thereof "related organiza-
tions".
On page 47, beginning with line 14, strike
out all through page 48, line 28, and insert
in lieu thereof the following:
"(1) a description of the twenty-five issues
which accounted for the greatest proportion
of the lobbying activities of the organization;
"(2) an identification of each paid officer,
paid director, or paid employee of the lob-
byist who made one or more lobbying com-
munications on behalf of the organization;
"(3) an estimate of (a) the total direct
expenses incurred by the lobbyist during the
period in connection with all the issues with
respect to which the organization engaged
in lobbying, and (b) the portion of the salary
of any paid officer, paid director, or paid
employee attributable to such person's ac-
tivities related to lobbying if such portion
exceeds 10 per centum of his activities on
behalf of the organization; and
"(4) an estimate of the portion of the total
expenses reportable under subparagraph (3)
expended on lobbying communications and
the portion expended on lobbying solicita-
tions.".
On page 49, line 10, strike out "affiliates"
and insert in lieu thereof "related organiza-
tions".
On page 50, line 8, strike out "affiliates"
and insert in lieu thereof "related organiza-
tions".
On page 50, line 9, strike out "affiliate"
and insert in lieu thereof "related organiza-
tion".
On page 50, line 10, strike out "affiliate"
and insert in lieu thereof "related organiza-
tion".
On page 50, line 12, strike out "affiliate"
and insert in lieu thereof "related organiza-
tion".
On page 50, line 14, strike out "affiliate'
and insert in lieu thereof "related organiza-
tion".
On page 50, line 16, strike out "affiliates"
and insert in lieu thereof "related organiza-
tions",
On page 50, line 17, strike out "affiliates"
and insert in lieu thereof "related organiza-
tions".
On page 50, line 18, strike out "affiliate"
and insert in lieu thereof "related organiza-
tions". .
On page 50, line 20, strike out "affiliates"
and insert in lieu thereof "related organiza-
tions".
On page 50, line 22, strike out "affiliates"
and insert in lieu thereof "related organiza-
tions".
On page 50, between lines 23 and 24, in-
sert the following new sentence: "This sub-
section shall not apply to any organization
which is a lobbyist solely pursuant to sec-
tion 3(a) (1) and which is an affiliate of an
organization which is a lobbyist pursuant
to either 3(a) (2) or
On page 50, line 26, strike out ", loans, or
honorariums".
On page 51, line 4, strike out ", loans, or".
On page 51, beginning with line 5, strike
out all through page 52, line 18, and insert
in lieu thereof the following: "and a descrip-
tion of the gift and its amount or value,
ekcept that in the case of a gift described
in subsection (c) (1) the recipients need
not be named individually, but may be de-
scribed by appropriate categories.
"(b) The requirements of this section
apply to-
"(1) any gift in the amount or value of
$10 or more made by the lobbyist;
"(2) any gift in the amount or value of
$1.0 or more made by any officer, director,
employee, or legislative agent of the lobbyist
if the person making the gift has been or
will be reimbursed by the lobbyist, in whole
or in part,- for such gift;
"(3) any gift in the amount or value of
$10 or more made by any officer, director,
employee, or legislative agent of the lobbyist
if the person making the gift has taken or
will take, in whole or in part, the amount
or value of the gift as a deduction under
section 161 or 212 of the Internal Revenue
Code,
where the aggregate 'amount or value of all
such gifts under (1), (2), and (3) made to
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
Approved For Release 2001/08/30: CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
S 9352 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA!' E June 15, 1976
any individual Member, officer, or employee
of Congress during the quarterly period
equals $50.
"(c) The requirements of this section shall
also apply to-
"(1) any reception, dinner, or other sim-
ilar event paid for, in whole or in part, by
the lobbyist for Members, officers, or _em-
ployees of Congress, regardless of the num-
ber of persons invited or in attendance,
where the total cost of the event exceeds
$500;
2) any gift by an officer, director, em-
ployee, or legislative agent of the lobbyist
not covered by section (b) (3), which, either
by itself or together with other gifts to the
same individual, exceeds $100 in amount
or value during the quarterly period.
"(d) Any organization that is not a lobby-
ist but which makes reportable gifts of the
kind described in subsections (b) (1) and
(b) (2) hereof shall file with the Comptroller
General a gifts report within the time pro-
vided in subsection 6(a), if the total of such
reportable gifts equal $250 in a quarterly
period. Such report shall identify the or-
ganization and shall provide the other in-
formation required by this section with re-
spect to gifts described in subsections (b)
(1) and (b) (2).".
On page 51, line 20, strike out "section 6"
and insert in lieu thereof "sections 6 and
7".
On page 51, line 21, after "organization"
insert the following: "or by the individual
responsible for day-to-day supervision of the
organization's lobbying activities".
On page 61, line 4, strike out "610,000"
and insert in lieu thereof "$2,500".
On page 61, line 8, strike out "Any person
who fails to comply with this subsection
shall be subject to a civil penalty of not
more than $10,000," and insert in lieu there-
of the following: "Any person who violates
this subsection shall be subject to a civil
penalty of not more than the greater of
$2,500 or an amount equal to 300 per centum
of the amount realized by reason of the
violation.".
On page 63, beginning with line 3, strike
out all through line 15,
thereof the following:
"(1) 'affiliates' includes-
"(A) organizations which are associated
with each other through a formal relation-
ship based on ownership or an agreement
(including a charter, franchise agreement,
or bylaws) under which one of the organiza-
tions maintains actual control or has the
right of potential control of all or a part of
the activities of the other organization;
"(13) units of a particular denomination
of a church or of a convention or association
of churches;
"(C) national membership organizations
and their State and local membership orga-
nizations, including but not limited to na-
tional trade associations and their State
and local trade associations; national busi-
ness leagues and their State and local busi-
ness leagues; national federations of labor
organizations and their State and local fed-
erations; and national labor organizations
and their State and local labor organiza-
flocs; ".
On page 64 beginning with line 13, strike
out all through line 20, and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
"15) 'direct expenses' means expenses such
as the cost of mailing, printing, advertising,
telephones, consultant fees, or the like in-
cluded in an item which is attributable to a
lobbying activity, and which is not attribut-
able to a lobbying activity, and which is
not attributable, to any substantial extent,
to any activity other than lobbying. The term
also means expenses included in an item
partly attributable to activities other than
lobbying, where such item may, with reason-
able preciseness and ease, be directly allo-
cated in part to lobbying, 'except that this
sentence shall not apply to a regular publi-
and insert in lieu
cation of a voluntary membership organiza-
tion published in substantial part for pur-
poses unrelated to lobbying;".
On page 05, between lines 9 and 10, insert
the followii,g:
"(9) 'Girl s' include a donation, contribu-
tion, payment for services rendered, honor-
arium, loan advance salary, or other thing
of value, ineluding food, beverages, lodging,
transportatem, and entertainment. It does
not include--
"(A) any loan made on terms and condi-
tions that are not more favorable than avail-
able generally;
-"(B) any gift where the parties are mem-
bers of the same immediate family; and
"(C) a contribution to a candidate as de-
fined in section 431(e) of title 2, United
States Code ".
On page 65, line 10, strike out "(9)" and
insert in lieu thereof "(10)".
On page 65, line 17, strike out "(10)" and
insert in lieu thereof "(11)."
On page 65, line 24, strike out "(11)" and
insert in lieu thereof "(12)".
On page 66, line 5, strike out "(12)" and
insert in lieu thereof "(13)".
On page 06, beginning with line 9, strike
out all through line 13 and insert in lieu
thereof "matter in Congress:".
On page 36, line 14, strike out "(13)" and
insert in lieu thereof "(14)".
On page 66, line 23 strike out "(14)" and
insert in lieu thereof "(15)".
On page 37, line 1, strike out "(15)" and
insert in lieu thereof "(16)".
On page 07, line 8, strike out "(16)" and
ineert in lieu thereof "(17)".
On page 67, line 14, strike out "(17)" and
insert in lieu thereof "(18)".
On page 07, line 24, strike out "(18)" and
Insert in lieu thereof "(19)".
On page 38, line 3, strike out "(19)" and
Insert in lieu thereof "(20)".
On page 38, between lines 12 and 13, in-
sert the following:
"(21) 'related organizations' includes (a)
affiliates and (b) organizations which are as-
sociated weal each other through any type
of formal relationship other than affiliation
(including the election of officers or directors,
common funding, a charter or bylaws). The
terms does not include an informal or ad hoc
or alliance er coalition.".
On page 08, line 13, strike out "(20)" and
insert in thereof "(22)".
Mr. ST AFFORD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield briefly?
Mr. METCALF. I am delighted to yield.
Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. President, the
Senator from Vermont was necessarily
absent from the Chamber on the vote on
the amendment of the Senator from
Maine, and I would like the RECORD to
show that if the Senator from Vermont
had been present he would have voted
for the amendment.
I thank the Senator from Montana.
Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, from
time to time after the reporting of this
legislation. I had printed in the RECORD
four prop,sed amendments. In this series
of amendments I made an explanation
of what CZ:a bill actually did and some of
the corrections I felt should be made.
My amendments were discussed briefly
yesterday. One was amendment No. 1651,
a portion of which we just voted on. The
section which was taken out pertains to
coverage of the regular publications of
voluntary membership organizations,
Such as the AFL-CIO, and the National
Chamber of Commerce, and the National
Association of Manufacturers.
The publications that I thought should
be excluded from coverage are such
-.? .riodicals as Nation's Business and the
t FL-CIO News.
These are publications that are gener-
c ly circulated and are not only found
L dues-paying members' homes and of-
f .es, but are found in barbershops and
L oraries and, in some instances, are sold
Vn the newsstands.
They are covered by S. 2477. They are
r wered, and an article in Nation's Busi-
ess urging support for or against a piece
c 'legislation, could be deterrhined to be a
.11obying solicitation, whereas such an
s opeal in the Western News of Hamilton,
Mont., to vote for or against something
could not be a lobbying solicitation unless
was in a paid advertisement.
The Washington Post can urge readers
It an editorial to write Congress, and
t tat is not lobbying, but if the AFL-
'IO News makes a similar appeal in its
rews pages-which are circulated not
only to members, but to nonmembers, as
v 'ell as into every one of our offices-then
they have to account for how much of the
r ewspaper's cost was for, perhaps, the
j akes in the machinists' column, and how
mch was for the lobbying activity.
I am very much concerned about this
roblem. But, I have withdrawn that
concern from amendment, because a
slmilar provision is in the comprehen-
.ve amendment.
Mr. President, in spite of the assur-
.
nces the Senator from Connecticut gave
ti the Senator from Georgia yesterday
t hat there are no questions about the
cortstitutionality of this legislation, the
nfair distinction between various types
of publications-despite the fact they are
j ublished regularly and are circulated,
j ublicly-may run into both 1st, 4th,
nd 14th amendment problems.
Mr. President, I want to renew my as-
; prances, and the Senator from Connec-
ticut and the Senator from Illinois both
}now that I am convinced that there
hould be a lobby disclosure bill. I am
onvinced that the 1946 Lobbying Act
completely ineffective. It would be bet-
er not to have any law at all than that
. et.
I am convinced that there should be
isclosure. We conduct the people's busi-
i ess. I have supported disclosure and
pen meeting legislation in many areas.
Imt, Mr. President, I cannot vote for this
1111 unless reasonable requirements are
a lade for reporting, burdensome or un-
- ecessary requirements are removed, and
quitable provision is made for groups
3 petition their government without be-
aming subject to reporting as lobbyists.
Yesterday, the Senator from Conhec-
tent said that I was trying to exempt
he AFL-CIO or others. That is not true.
The amendment I am going to de-
aribe in a few minutes covers the
The AFL-CIO or the National Cham-
er of Commerce, as well as others of
hese large lobbying organizations, can
ertainly take care of themselves. They
an prepare the reports. They can absorb
he cost of the reporting requirements.
fhey do not need any protection. But
ome of their affiliates may need protec-
ton. There may be no need at all to sub-
ect them to the burdensome reporting
:equirements in this bill.
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
June 15,
oved For RelecaakTMOlaftriiiipeawys_omaopp800150045-2
Since S. 2477 was reported. I have
talked to groups of people from time to
time, attempting to interest them, and
said, "Well, why do you not go home, sit
down with your lawyers, take this bill
and figure just exactly how your orga-
nization will be affected?" Many of them
did that. And some came back to me and
were horrified, saying, "Well, we cannot
support any legislation at all." And
others, "Well, what cap we do to modify
the legislation so tharwe can live with
it?" Or, "What cari we do to modify it so
our affiliates can live with it?"
Subsequently, a group joined to sug-
gest amendments, which I introduced
yesterday as amendment No. 1830. This
amendment does not eliminate all of the
objections I have to the bill.
Yesterday, I also inserted in the REC-
ORD a series of letters. Some of the groups
said, "Well, we are absolutely against the
lobbying disclosure bill, but if you are go-
ing to have to pass such a bill, pass one
that includes the so-called Metcalf
amendment."
This is the coalition supported
amendment.
I could not get them interested in
some of the problems that I described
In connection with my four earlier. But
they were concerned enough to draft
some proposal, to refer to my staff. We
helped with the draft which was worked
over by the legislative counsel and the
result is 1830.
(Mr. HUDDLESTON assumed the
Chair at this point.)
Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, before I
describe what amendment No. 1830 does,
generally, let me comment on the home
State or exemption, which it modifies. A
home State exemption so that. consti-
tuents can lobby their own Senators and
Congressmen, without being covered, is
very appealing. On the surface, it seems
to be the kind of an exemption that we
should write into the legislation. How-
ever, it opens huge loopholes.
For example, every one of the Wash-
ington-based lobbyists, with almost un-
limited funds, have affiliates in the va-
rious States. Again, a personal example:
the AFL-CIO does not need to call me
at all. The AFL-CIO does not have to
send a single person to see me. All they
need under the home State exemption
Is to have somebody from the Montana
State Federation of Labor call me.
The National Chamber of Commerce
does not have to call me. All they have
to do is have somebody from the Great
Falls, the Billings, or the Missoula Cham-
ber of Commerce call me. That sort of
lobbying is much more effective than the
lobbying from the District of Columbia
based organizations.
The large, wealthy groups will have a
tremendous advantage and a tremendous
opportunity to use this loophole. The
people who have WATS lines, unlimited
telegraph allowances, and staffs for un-
limited letter writing campaigns have a
tremendous advantage under the home
State exemption. Nevertheless, that is in
the bill.
My amendment raises the threshold?
from 12 to 25 oral lobbying communica-
tions?so there will be a protection for
the home State people, and also provides
an execption to protect local affiliates of
nationally based groups. At the same
time, it will eliminate the advantage giv-
en to these large lobbying organizations,
whose representatives spend substantial
periods of time in Washington.
The first thing that amendment No.
1830 does is to change threshold test so
that, first, any organization becomes sub-
ject to registration if its paid employees
make 25 or more oral lobbying communi-
cations in a quarter.
Excepted from this test are groups
which?
First, are either affiliates whose parent
organization are already registered as
lobbyists, or whose annual income is less
than $250,000; and
Second, neither maintain a Washing-
ton office nor assign their paid represent-
atives for direct, face-to-face lobbying
on five or more separate days during a
three-month period.
Thus, an affiliate of an organization
which is already registered as a lobbyist,
for example, the National Chamber of
Commerce, or an organization which has
an annual income of less than $250,000,
would not have to report if it had no
office here and its people did not speak
directly to Members and staff personally
on Capitol Hill. But the larger parent
organizations, with offices here, would
have to register and report, identifying
their affiliates.
Further, an organization which had
an annual income as defined by the bill
of less than $250,000 would be exempt
from registration or reporting if it
neither maintained an office nor sent its
- representatives here to lobby in person.
This exemption, coupled with the
higher threshold test, will protect small
organizations, insuring that the bill's
reporting requirements?and they will
prove to be very burdensome for many?
will not apply to distant affiliates or the
vast majority of independent groups who
come to see Senators or Congressmen
only infrequently.
Certainly, the group which has an in-
come of less than $250,000 yearly, does
not maintain a Washington office, and
sends its representatives just on one trip
to talk to us, to talk to the Finance Com-
mittee about the tax bill, or to the Bank-
ing, Housing and Urban Affairs Commit-
tee about various changes in banking
legislation, or to talk to this Senator
about strip mining, should not have to
be burdened by all these reporting re-
quirements.
What we need, Mr. President, is dis-
closure. What we need is disclosure of
the activities of the major lobbying or-
ganizations.
What we do not want to do is to dis-
courage or inhibit the ordinary people
of our State or other States from talk-
ing to their Senators or Congressmen.
I remind you, Mr. President, that the
so-called home-State exemption places
constraints on those from out of State
who wish to see Senators other than
their own. We are United States Sena-
tors. This is a Congress that makes laws
for the United States.
The distinguished majority leader, my
colleague from Montana, is not only a
Senator from the State of Montana, with
S 9353
a population of a little over three-quar-
ters of a million, but he Is a leader in a
Congress that writes the laws for the
entire United States of America.
People may want to come from other
States and talk to him about these mat-
ters. They should not pay a surcharge?
in the form of costly reporting require-
ments?for communicating in the same
manner that is free to Montanans.
My amendment also modifies the defi-
nition of affiliate, to include groups
which are actually controlled by or sub-
ject to the practical control of a lobbying
organization.
For instance, the chamber of com-
merce informs me they have chambers of
Commerce, State and local, throughout
the United States, and they are not un-
der the formal control of the National
Chamber. They would be subject to reg-
istration and reporting under S. 2477.
Under my amendment, however, such
groups as local churches, local chambers
of commerce, and the like would qualify
as affiliates and would not have to reg-
ister if they did not maintain their own
offices and assign their own people here.
An organization such as the chamber
of commerce has people supporting it
such as the large oil companies, Exxon,
for instance. It has people supporting it
such as the large industrial organiza-
tions. But they are not affiliates. They
are separate organizations and are not
treated as affiliates, under my amend-
ment.
However, to insure that there is dis-
closure of lobbying solicitations directed
to these nonaffiliated organizations, the
amendment adds a new definition of "re-
lated organization." This term includes
all affiliates, plus all the other organiza-
tions which would have been considered
to be affiliates under the current bill, S.
2477, and thereby we preserve the re-
quirement for disclosure of such activi-
ties.
Another change my amendment makes
in the bill is to limit its coverage to coin-
municatiOns which are intended to in-
fluence decisions on issues within Con-
gress.
The amendment strikeS out that por-
tion of the S. 2477's definition of "issue"
before Congress which relates to actions
by Members and employees of Congress
to influence or attempt to influence any
action or proposed action by executive
branch employees. Otherwise, the defini-
tion of "issue before the Congress" re-
mains the same as in S. 2477, as reported.
Mr. President, I now want to turn to
the question of what information lobby-
ists must report, another area which this
amendment will modify and improve, I
believe substantially.
Section 6(c) of ST 2477 would require
the lobbying organization to describe
every issue on which it engaged in lobby- '
ing communications, written or oral, as
well as the 10 most significant issues on
which each of its paid officers, paid di-
rectors, and paid employees spoke for it
during each reporting period.
As a practical matter, despite the 10
issue limitation, this means that all em-
ployees would have to keep records on all
the issues on which they lobby, so that
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
S 9354 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE June 15, 1976
their sponsoring organization does not
miss a single issue in its report.
Many of these organizations, many of
the major ones, lobby on as many as 100
Issues in a session of Congress. Many of
then send one lobbyist up on one issue
and another on another, make a casual
call on one issue and make a major lob-
bying effort on another; and the idea of
the 10 most wanted list is certainly a
burden when you consider the record-
keeping required.
Under provisions of my amendment,
the requirement for describing every is-
sue is eliminated. Instead, an organiza-
tion will report on only the 25 most
significant issues on which it lobbies. If
it has not lobbied on 25 issues, it would
report on only the issues that were
lobbied.
This amendment eliminates reporting
of the issues dealt with by each individ-
ual paid officer or employee of the lobby-
ing organization, but those who lobby
must be identified, as is the case in S.
2477.
We modify section 6(c) (4) pertaining
to the computation of the total dollar
amounts expended in connection with all
lobbying activities.
Such a requirement would not be un-
duly burdensome if organizations could
always isolate all their lobbying activities
In separate compartments. Unfortu-
nately, this neat division of labor is not
possible.
Where computation is most difficult is
for the casual employee who spends only
a part of his time lobbying. Much of the
cost information that would be required,
such as overhead, is by no means clearly
relevant to any determination of how
much of an organization's resources are
devoted to lobbying activities.
What really counts are the direct ex-
penses of the lobbyists, and under the
provisions of my amendment, only the
reporting of such expenses, as defined
under S. 2477, would be required.
In addition, our language specifically
requires inclusion of the portion of the
salary paid any employee for time de-
voted to lobbying activities, except for
those who spend only 10 percent or less
of their time on such activities.
For example, the Farmers Union might
have some of its paid employees come in
with a busload of people to our offices,
and the president of the Farmers Union
would lobby every one of the Senators
about the needs of agriculture in his
State. If more 'than 10 percent of his
salary was allocated to lobbying activity,
they would have to report it, but if it was
less than that, they would not.
Another important feature of this sec-
tion of the amendment eliminates the
reporting requirement for lobbying solic-
itations relating to an organization's
regular publications. Because of the bill's
broad definition of solicitation?and even
though my amendment No. 1651 nar-
rowed this considerably?a general arti-
cle in such a magazine as Nation's Busi-
ness relating to legislation could be
construed to constitute a solicitation, in
a publication which is otherwise primar-
ily devoted merely to general news and
Information.
For each issue of such publications, it
will be necessary to determine which
articles contain solicitations, which are
for the information of the Members, and
which were just of general news value.
You might find an appeal to write to
Congress in a part of a general article on
the tax bill, and the sponsoring organiza-
tion would have to estimate the cost of
that part for its report,.
The elimination of this burdensome
requirement?and it is a bruden, and I
doubt that the results would have any
validity?is accomplished by redefining
the term "direct expenses" to mean that
the cost of publishing a house organ need
not be reported.
Finally, Mr. President, one of the most
difficult provisions in this bill is that in
section 7, pertaining to the reporting of
gifts. This business of reporting gifts is a
very difficult one. What is the threshold
for the reporting of gifts? Is it the re-
porting of a luncheon with a lobbyist? Is
there a dollar threshold, or is there a
service threshold? Is it reporting a trip
on an industrial plane that is going your
way already?
These things are problems. They were
a problem to the committee. I believe
that in resolving this problem, we have
probably leaned over backward and made
it very difficult to even associate with our
former friends who might come back
here on an expedition to try to get a
contract, and ask us to go to dinner, have
lunch, or something of the sort.
In any event, my amendment adds a
requirement for reporting major enter-
tainment expenses, such as congressional
receptions, if the direct expenses involved
exceed $500.
Another new provision provides that
organizations which have no registered
lobbyists?but nonetheless provide gifts
to Members of Congress and staff per-
sonnel? would be required to report such
expenditures if they amount to $250 or
more in :my quarterly period.
Receptions are not considered as re-
portable gifts under this provision. Only
gifts mgcle directly from funds of the
organization or for which the organiza-
tion provides reimbursement are in-
cluded.
Mr. Bresident, during the course) of
the markup on S. 2477, I offered other
amendments. As I say, I feel rather
strongly about some of them. But the
provisions of this amendment are based
on a consensus among a broad coalition
of growls which are going to be directly
affected. They feel they can live with
S. 2477, with my amendment, and I am
convincid that, as amended, this bill
will pro vide for meaningful disclosure,
yet at tie same time will not diminish
the ability of citizens to talk to their
elected representatives.
I rese- ye the remainder of my time.
Mr. 1?...BICOFF. Mr. President, I sug-
gest the rtbsence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OPFICER. The
clerk wi; call the roll.
The legislative clerk pr3ceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. Pr.BICOFP. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The I- RESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. F IBICOFF. Mr. President. I rise
in opposition to the amendment of the
distinguished Senator from Montana. His
amendment would really add a second
definition of a lobbyist, largely exeitipt-
ing from any reporting or registration re-
quirements affiliated organizations and
organizations having an income under
$250,000 a year, located outside Wash-
ington, D.C. Further, the second part of
the amendment would eliminate the
home State exemption and raise the
number of oral contacts the organization
may make before becoming a lobbyist.
The same type of provision under the
Hathaway amendment was overwhelm-
ingly defeated on a rollcall vote.
The first part of the Metcalf amend-
ment apparently totally exempts from
the bill any organization that either has
an income under $250,000 or is affiliated
with an organization that is a lobbyist
so long as, in either case, the organiza-
tion does not have an office in Washing-
ton. The only limitation is that the or-
ganization not send its paid employees
to lobby in Washington on 5 or more
days in a quarter. If it does so and meets
the other tests, only then would the or-
ganization have to register and report.
Such an amendment is very undesir-
able. It creates artificial distinctions
which are hard to define and enforce,
but easy to exceed and abuse. Whether
an organization is a lobbyist under this
proposal would bear no necessary rela-
tionship to the amount of lobbying it
does. It would leave out many organiza-
tions that do very substantial amounts
of lobbying and who should have to reg-
ister and report under any reasonable or
fair lobbying law. Affiliates that do un-
limited telephone lobbying would be ex-
empted. Other, perhaps smaller, orga-
nizations that talk just to their State
delegation any more than 25 times would
become lobbyists. The tests established
could be easily evaded. It unwisely aban-
dons the bill's basic evenhanded ap-
proach and provides special treatment
for one kind of organization compared
to another. The proposed changes are
unnecessary to protect the legitimate in-
terests of small? or affiliated organiza-
tions.
The proposal bears no clear relation-
ship to an organization's influence.
The test assumes that an organization
outside Washington, D.C. with an income
of less than $250,000 will not have suffi-
cient influence on the decisionmaking
process. This is not so. The amount of
money spent is not directly equivalent
to an organization's influence.
An organization outside Washington,
D.C. which as operating expenses of
$240,000 and spends all of that amount
on lobbying could make an unlimited
number of telephone calls and never have
to register.
Similarly, the proposal provides special
treatment for affiliates. An affiliate out-
side Washington may be very influential,
and engage in very substantial lobbying
efforts, and never have to register There
is no justification for exempting an or-
ganization that engages in an unlimited
number of telephone calls just because
it happens to be affiliated with a lobbying
organization.
The Metcalf proposal would impose a
definition of a lobbyist which may well
bear no relationship to the extent that
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
June 15, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE S 9355
the organization engages in lobbying or
the extent of its influence.
The proposal creates large loopholes.
A definition based on such artificial
distinctions will be widely abused and
? evaded. A host of lobbylists' offices are
-likely to be located just outside the
Washington area.
The proposal would spawn separate
organizations devoted exclusively to
lobbying on behalf of other affiliated or-
ganizations. 411 the organization would
have to do is to locate its offices outside
the greater Washington, D.C. area.
Further, the provision provides a total
reporting exemption for affiliates as well.
There is no requirement in the Met-
calf amendment that the lobbying or-
ganization that is the parent of an ex-
empted affiliate provide any information
about the lobbying activities of its ex-
empted affiliate. The provision does not
require that the parent organization
provide very basic information about the
issues on which the parent has asked the
exempted affiliate to work.
The practical effect of the proposal in
tote would be to provide special treat-
ment for affiliates and relatively small
voluntary membership organizations,
compared to business and other types of
organizations.
Further, the provision is unnecessary.
The committee's bill already amply
protects the small organizations,
whether or not they are affiliated with a
larger organization, from undue report-
ing burdens.
Test for larger, unaffiliated organiza-
tions is not reasonable.
The proposed amendment would also
strike the home state exemption for or-
ganizations that do not have an operat-
ing budget under $150,000 a year. At the
same time it would substantially raise to
25 the total number of lobbying com-
munications such an organization may
engage in before becoming a lobbyist.
Mr. President, as we analyze the Met-
calf amendment, it is obvious that it
eliminates the evenhanded proposals of
the committee bill. It is absolutely un-
necessary and would be creating pref-
erential treat/tent for one group of
lobbyists over other groups of lobbyists.
I hope that the Senate rejects the Met-
calf proposals.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I wish to
ask the distinguished Senator from
Montana a question or two. Could he tell
the Senator from Illinois exactly what
the Washington, District of Columbia,
standard metropolitan statistical area
Is?
In other words, I am simply putting
myself in the role of a lobbying organi-
zation, let us just say the NRA, located
right in Washington, D.C., and I find
that I must file reports if I am in this
particular statistical metropolitan area.
I have determined I do not care to file
reports but I desire to stay as close to
Washington as possible. I want to dis-
rupt my operations as little as possible. I
wish to carry on exactly the same kind
of work I am doing, but I want to get
out of this reporting requirement. How
far will I have to go?
Mr. METCALF. I have a map. The
description is a standard, recognized
description by the Bureau of the Census
and is published on a map. So it is def-
inite as to what the area is. One would
have to go out of town, from the cen-
ter of town, about 60 miles to get out.
Mr. PERCY. Is Baltimore, for exam-
ple, in the area?
Mr. METCALF. No.
Mr. PERCY. Baltimore is not. So I
could at lest move my office to Balti-
more.
Mr. METCALF. If the Senator wished
to make that sacrifice.
Mr. PERCY. Is Reston in the area?
Mr. METCALF. Yes. In the map that
is before me, I do not have these special
localities; but as I see the map, Reston
Is in the area.
Mr. PERCY. If we are trying to evacu-
ate Washington and get rid of a lot of
lobbyists and open up some office space,
this might be the way to do it, because
I think many of these organizations
would just move outside and commute.
They might have an hour's drive or half
Ein hour's drive, but I think they could
very easily then receive special, favored
treatment.
As the Senator from Illinois said the
other day, I do not know how we could
operate without lobbyists. I would like to
have them here, as close as possible. All
of these lobbyists are an important
source of information?whether they are
union groups, labor groups, business
groups, the NRA, or whatever. They can
present to us the best evidence, the best
side of their argument, so that our staffs
have the kind of analysis we nced in our
appraisal of a. piece of legislation. We can
get it on both sides. I do not want them
to have a disincentiVe to be in the Dis-
trict of Columbia. We are not that tight
on office space.
It seems that this amendment provides
a tremendous loophole for these orga-
nizations that do not want to report, the
very kind of groups on which we want
that information. They are going to move
out. If their overriding concern is public
knowledge as to what they are doing,
they are going to get out to wherever it
is necessary to get to?Columbia, Balti-
more?and operate out of there, and they
will be totally exempt from the provi-
sions.
For that reason as well as the fact
that this amendment would enable
national organizations to hide lobby-
ing done through their affiliates, the
Senator from Illinois would be forced
to oppose the amendment offered by
the distinguished Senator, who has
been very helpful .in this area.
Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, may I
be recognized, on my time, to respond?
The PRESIDING OrrICER. The Sen-
ator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, if this
bill is passed in its present form, there
will be an entirely new growth industry
in the District of Columbia. There will
be storage robins for all the filing cabi-
nets we will need to take care of the
blizzard of paperwork that will develop.
Salesmen for filing companies, paper
companies, and so forth, will flock in to
take care of it. We may be able to fill up
the basement of the FBI building im-
mediately and have to dig another one
down there, or build another Pentagon
for such things.
We have to have someplace as a defini-
tion of the base of the lobbying organiza-
tion. These people are here in Washing-
ton.
I agree completely with the Senator
from Illinois that lobbying is an honor-
able profession. Every time we get a list
of the 10 most respected men in Amer-
ica, we invariably find Ralph Nader on
that list. He is a professional lobbyist
and nothing else. The man who has had
more to do in getting this bill before Con-
gress than anybody else, John Gardner,
is a lobbyist, and he is respected.
Believe me, I call on the lobbyists for
Information and for assistance and for
facts more than they call on me, with
respect to legislation. I want them here.
I suggest that they will want to be here
in order to do the very job they have to
do; that they will not move out to Balti-
more or Philadelphia, even if they can
come in rapidly, on the Metroliner.
It may be that people deliberately will
want to evade the provisions of reporting
and recordkeeping by moving out and
moving their headquarters away from
Washington to some other point, but the
costs involved for the major lobbying
organizations would prevent that.
The home State exemption is a much
larger loophole. The lobbying organiza-
tion's Washington man can sit down-
town and get on a WATS line, call people
all over the United States, and suggest
that they call somebody from Kentucky
and somebody from Connecticut and
somebody from rilinois and somebody
from Montana?to call their respective
Senators. Some have enough money to
get their 'members or associates on air-
planes and say, "Go see your' Congress-
man," and there will be no reporting re-
quirement, none of the burdensome re-
porting that would accrue to other less
well funded organizations, such as some
of the conservation groups which do not
have the telephones and do not have the
expense accounts and do not have the
manpeWer to do something such as that.
So, in order to take care of the differ-
ence between the smaller groups and the
big professional guns for hire, this is a
legitimate and a valid distinction. It is
definite. It can be determined as to just
where the boundary line is, from a stand-
and Government publication.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder
of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time,
Mr. RIBICOFF. Will the Chair indi-
cate how much time remains to both
sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Montana has 56 minutes re-
maining. The Senator from Connecticut
has 18 minutes.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, I know
that the distinguished Senator from
Maine and the distinguished Senator
from New York have an amendment to
the amendment which will be ready in a
few minutes, and they would like to offer
It. So I suggest the absence of a quorum..
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, will the
Senator withhold that?
Mr. RIBICOFF. Yes.
The Senator from Illinois would like
to ask a couple of questions of the Sen-
ator from Montana.
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
S 9356 Approved F:?15Man?iggilik98/11g8Itel5RDPsRAIN44R0008001509,4qt-/ 15, 19
Mr. METCALF. I yield on my time.
Mr. PERCY. The Senator from Mon-
Lana has indicated that the present bill
before us would require a lot of record-
keeping and so forth. On page 4 of the
f-chator':: amendment, lines 18 through
2, it is f.adicated that?this is an inser-
' rot? the bill?lobbyists would have
ie report "the portions of the salary of
any paid officer, paid director or paid
employee attributable to such person's
activities related to lobbying if such por-
tion exceeds 10 percent of his activities
on behalf of the organization." It would
seem to.rne that a considerable number
of employees would have to start keeping
records very much like lawyers, charging
their time to clients. Is that a way to
eliminate recordkeeping?
The present bill before us only requires
a statement as to the total amount of
money spent. This amendment would re-
quire lobbyists to allocate proportionate
amounts of salaries of individuals, and
they would have to make certain that
the threshold for every individual on the
staff was not exceeded by having that 10
Percent figure in there. So everyone has
to have his salary and all his activities
monitored. Does this not create paper-
work and create an obvious opportunity
for evasion, and a great deal of gray area
as to how to prove whether a person falls
under that or not?
Mr. METCALF. Of course it is paper-
work. Of course there are reporting re-
quirements. Any disclosure measure
would require such reporting, such pa-
perwork, breakdowns and analysis. The
point I want to make is that with the
higher threshold in my amendment, the
bill's reporting requirements will fall
primarily on larger nationally based or-
ganizations?which can absorb the
costs?and my amendment also reduces
the requirements, overall.
The Senator from Montana recog-
nizes that one of the burdens of running
an office in the Congress of the United
States is this matter of operating in the
open. The Senator from Illinois and I
are in complete agreement that when we
are doing the people's business, we have
to have disclosure. In spite of the fact
that the Constitution says that you have
a right to petition for redress of griev-
ances, it does not say that you have a
right to petition secretly for such redress
of grievances.
Inevitably, we are going to have paper-
work. We are going to have burdensome
reporting; we are going to have the kind
of paperwork that we deplore but which,
nevertheless, is necessary in order to have
evidence of what goes on. But I am
trying to keep the paperwork to a mini-
mum, to what is essential, not to require
paperwork from the legion of smaller
groups that would have to report under
S. 2477.
Mr. PERCY. My second question re-
lates again to who is exempted. The
Senator from Illinois would like to deter-
mine from his colleague whether or not
the Senator from Montana really does
believe that we ought to have more in-
formation available about who is lobby-
ing whom and what their objectives are
and how much money they are spending.
Are we in agreement on that overall basic
objective
Mr. METCALF. Yes, sir. The Senator
knows thrt, too.
Mr. PE RCY. Then, obviously, what we
are tryin to do is draft legislation that
will not is subject to a great many loop-
holes. Th e Senator from Illinois has al-
ready po: Red out one loophole where an
organization can just move a few miles
out of Washington and be totally ex-
empt. Here I think is an even bigger
loophole. On page 2, lines 21 and 22, there
is exemn mi an affiliate of an organiza-
tion which is, itself, a lobbyist. The Sena-
tor from Illinois recognizes that there is
concern among some labor unions that
their local chapters would be required to
report. But the Senator from Illinois
would like to know from the Senator
from Montana whether or not the whole
purpose cf the bill would not be defeated
with that exemption the way it is drafted
right now.
Take the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
They are registered to lobby, but they
have also chambers of commerce all over
the United States. In the State of Illinois
they have them affiliated all thorugh
the State. The chamber in Chicago,
Springfie-d, Peoria, Paris, Illinois, and
Vienna, and so forth?they would all
be exempt.
So why would not the great organiza-
tion here in Washington simply say, all
we do is change our direction. Instead
of our doing it, why not do it through our
local organizations, and no one will have
to report their activities?
Should we not know how much effort
Is being exerted to defeat the consumer
protection agency, now called the Agen-
cy for Consumer Advocacy, which the
Senator from Montana is a strong sup-
porter of and not have that subterfuge
used by going through affiliates who are
exempt?
Mr. RIBICOFF. If the Senator will
yield.
Mr. METCALF. I have the floor and
I am glad to yield.
Mr. RIBICOFF. I could imagine that
the city of Chicago Chamber of Com-
merce or the Illinois Chamber of Com-
merce wauld have a very substantial
budget. Is that not true?
Mr. PERCY. That is right.
Mr. RIBICOFF. They would have a-
substantial budget and they would also
have a staff sufficiently large to enable it
to come to Washington to lobby, or to
hire representatives. They would be ex-
empt because they are an affiliate out-
side of the greater Washington area.
Therefore, I can see how wrong it would
be. To me, it would seem that the same
would apply to a large labor local. The
AFL-CIO that was located in Chicago
or New York?may have a substantial
budget. They would have enough employ-
ees to be able to come to Washington. To
pass an amendment such as this that
would eliminate any record of the activi-
ties of this affiliate unless they lobbied
In person on five or more days eliminates
the evenhanded philosophy that goes
throughout this entire bill. The bill must
treat every segment of American so-
ciety on the same basis.
Mr. PERCY. That-is correct. The Sena-
tor from Illinois would like simply to add
also that, as I read the Metcalf amend-
:nent, there is no way that we would be
Lble to get any information as to what
-he national actually directs the local to
They can direct them to carry on
lobbying activities; they can provide all
kinds of assistance to them. It looks,
,gain, like a huge loophole which really
'rustrates the efforts of the Senator from
Montana to write legislation that will be
effective and cannot be circumvented as
,a-sily as it would appear that this could
:q3 circumvented.
Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, the two
llinois "affiliates" described by the Sen-
ator from Connecticut certainly would be
?equired to register and report under
provisions of my amendment. A large
well-financed State chamber of com-
merce in Illinois that engaged in sub-
stantial lobbying activity here in Wash-
ington would pass the threshold and be
required to report. The same is true of
the Illinois State Federation of Labor.
But suppose you have a smaller cham-
ber of commerce, not even under the
eontrol of the national chamber. They
may be responsible under S. 2477 for re-
porting of lobbying activities and not
even know what is going on in some State
and local chambers of commerce.
Mr. PERCY. Will the Senator yield for
a question?
Mr. METCALF. I did not interrupt the
Senator while he was propounding a long
question. May I complete my statement?
Mr. PERCY. The Senator has the floor,
of course.
Mr. METCALF. S. 2477 requires that if
the AFL-CIO and the National Chamber
of Commerce?and we keep dragging
them in because they are two of the
major national lobbying organizations?
have people, which participate in their
lobbying activity, they have to list them
and tell what they have done and where.
But the kind of loophole that the Sen-
ator from Illinois is talking about is
covered because the Illinois State-Federa-
tion of Labor, would probably engage in
more than 5 days of direct lobbying here
in a quarter, and would make more than
25 calls, thus triggering the reporting
:egistration and reporting requirements.
I now yield to the Senator.
Mr. PERCY. The Senatorfrom Illinois
mould just like to ask this question: Let
us just take three of the most power-
ful, influential business organizations
that are local: the New York Chamber of
Commerce, the Chicago Association of
Commerce and Industry, the Los Angeles
Chamber of Commerce. Would it not be
possible for them to make unlimited
phone calls, make unlimited contacts by
correspondence with Members of Con-
gress and lobby full time 4 days every
quarter in Washington and not report
one bit?
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent, without losing the
floor, that the colloquy between the dis-
'Anguished Senator from Illinois and the
listinguished Senator from Montana be
suspended to allow the distinguished
Senator from Maine to put in an amend-
ment. He is already late to a Budget
Committee hearing.
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
/Approved For RehwagginkChnE11119RA4NR0800150045-2
June 15, S 9357
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none, and it
is so ordered.
UP AMENDMENT NO. 32
Mr. MUSKIE, Mr. President, I send an
amendment to the desk and ask that it
be stated.
May I say that I am most appreciative
of my colleagues, Senator RIBICOFF, Sen-
ator METCALF, and Senator PERCY, for
giving me this courtesy. I would like to
get this amendment into the dialog and,
perhaps, add to it?maybe not?but, in
any case, put it before the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, The Sen-
ator requires unanimous consent in
order to call up the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be temporarily laid aside
and my amendment considered so that
it may be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will state the amendment.
The legislative clerk proceeded to read
the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. 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 amendment is as follows:
On page 1 of amendment No. 1880 strike
lines 4 through page 3 line 5 and insert in
lieu thereof:
(2) an organization, other than an orga-
nization described in subsection (f) of this
section, which engages on its own behalf, or
on behalf of its members, in twelve or more
oral lobbying communications in any quar-
terly period, acting through its own paid
officers, paid directors, or paid employees.
For purposes of determining whether any
organization is a lobbyist under this para-
graph, there shall be excluded any commu-
nication with a Member of Congress, or an
individual on the personal staff of such
Member, representing the State, or the con-
gressional district within the State, in which
such organization has its principal place of
business, and, further, there shall be ex-
cluded any communication initiated by Con-
gress whereby the organization provides in-
formation or opinions to Congress solely at
the request of Congress; or
"(f) Any organization that would other-
wise be a lobbyist solely as a result of this
paragraph of this section shall not be a
lobbyist for purposes of this Act if
(1) the Comptroller General determines
that the organization is a controlled local
_affiliate of a parent voluntary membership
organization. The Comptroller General shall
not designate any organization a controlled
local affiliate if he determines that it is the
intent of the parent organization to use such
a designation as a means to evade, in whole
or in part, the requirements of this Act;
(11) the paid officers, paid directors, and
paid employees of the controlled local af-
filiate engage in less than 12 in person oral
lobbying communications in the quarter;
and
(iii) the parent voluntary membership
organization is a lobbyist which includes on
its quarterly report all the information on
the lobbying activities of the controlled
local affiliate described In subsection (g) of
this Section.
"(g) A Parent voluntary membership orga-
nization may also provide the following ad-
f-ditional information about the lobbying ac-
tivities of any of Its controlled local affiliates
described in subsection (f) of section 8 of
the Act:
(1) the identity of the affiliate and the
approximate number of individuals who are
members of that affiliate, and the approxi-
mate number of organizations which are
members of that affiliate;
(2) a description of each issue in connec-
tion with which the lobbyist urged, re-
quested, or required the affiliate to engage in
one or more lobbying communications or
solicitations; and
(3) a report of any gifts by the affiliate or
its officers, directors, or employees, which
the affiliate would otherwise be required as
a lobbyist to report pursuant to section 7."
"(h) For purposes of subsection (g) con-
trolled local affiliate means a local voluntary
membership organization whose lobbying
activities and policies are, either by formal
agreement, or by practice, subject to the
control of a parent 'voluntary membership
organization with whom the affiliate is re-
lated through bylaws, charters, or similar
agreements. In determining whether an orga-
nization is a controlled local affiliate the
Comptroller General shag consider, among
other factors, whether the parent may con-
trol what position the affiliate may take on
an issue before Congress, and whether the
parent may require the affiliate to engage, or
not to engage, in particular lobbying com-
munications or solicitations."
Strike page 3, line 9, of amendment-No.
1830 through line 7 on page 6.
Strike line 10 of page 6 of amendment No.
1830 through ilne 2 of page 8 and insert in
lieu thereof:
honorarium and a description of the gift,
loan, or honorarium and its amount or value,
except that in the case of a gift described
in subsection (d) the recipients need not be
named individually, but may be described by
appropriate categories."
(b) The requirements of this section shall
apply?
(1) to any gift or loan of money, or any
honorarium, made during the quarterly pe-
riod by the lobbyist, by any officer, director,
or employee of the lobbyist, or by any legis-
lative agent on behalf of the lobbyist, which
exceeds $10 in amount;
(2) to any gift or loan of any goods, serv-
ices, or any other thing of value made during
the quarterly period, by the lobbyist, or by
a legislative agent on behalf of the lobbyist,
including food, lodging, transportation or
entertainment, which exceeds $10 in value;
(3) to any gift or loan of any goods, serv-
ices, or any other thing of value made during
the quarterly period by any officer, director,
or employee of the lobbyist or by a legislative
agent on behalf of the lobbyist, which ex-
ceeds $10 in value and which the officer, di-
rector, employee, or legislative agent has
taken or will take, in whole or in part, as a
deduction under section 162 or 212 of the
Internal Revenue Code;
where the aggregate value of all the gifts,
loans, or honorariums described in para-
graphs (1), (2), and (3) made by the lobby-
ist, or by the officers, directors, employees, or
legislative agents of the lobbyist, to any in-
dividual Member, officer, or employee of Con-
gress exceeds $50 in amount of value,
(c) The requirements of this section shall
also apply to any gift or loan of any goods,
services, or any other thing of value, in-
cluding food, lodging, transportation, or en-
tertainment, made during the quarterly pe-
riod by an officer, director or employee of the
lobbyist, or by a legislative agent on behalf
of the lobbyist, which exceeds $100 in value.
"(d) The requirements of this section
shall also apply to any reception, dinner, or
other similar event paid for, in whole or in
part, by the lobbyist for Members, officers,
or employees of Congress, regardless of the
number of persons invited or in attendance,
where the total cost of the event exceeds
$500;"
(d) This section shall not apply to any
loan made on terms and conditions that
are no more favorable than available gen-
erally, or to any gift or loan to any individ-
ual who is an immediate member of the
family of the donor or lender, or to any
contribution to a candidate as defined in
section 431(e) of title 2, United States Code.
Strike line 7 of page 7 of amendment No.
1830 through line 13 of page 9.
Strike line 5 of page 10 of amendment No.
1830 through page 11, line 25.
(Later in the day the following pro-
ceedings occurred:)
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that four lines of the
lobbying bill be reinserted as part of
unprinted amendment No. 32 after line
14. The four lines are:
(3) an organization which, in any quarter-
ly period, engages directly or through a leg-
islative agent in any lobbying solicitations
where the total direct expenses of such solic-
itations is $5,000 or more.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I offer
this amendment on behalf of myself,
Senator JAVITS, Senator BROCK, and Sen-
ator CLARK, and I will at this point de-
scribe it briefly.
Before I do, may I say I listened with
great interest and great respect to the
comments of my good friend from Mon-
tana, Senator METCALF. I know of his ex-
tensive work on this bill in the Commit-
tee on Government Operations of which
we are both members, and a great deal
of the philosophy which he expressed
with reference to the objectives and the
?problems of the disclosure bill I find my-
self in agreement with.
I think we ought to be careful that in
the process of writing the lobbying dis-
closure law that we do not chill the right
of citizens to petition Congress as pro-
vided in the Constitution of the United
States.
It is not easy to draw that line, and the
Senator from Montana has undertaken
to refine that line inorder to serve both
objectives with maximum benefit to the
public interest. I want him to understand
that I sympathize wholly with his objec-
tives, and I do not suspect his motives at
all. As a matter of fact, I honor them
completely, and it may be that the for-
mula I am advocating may also be sub-
ject to some questions. But may I de-
scribe it.
This amendment, Mr. President, hope-
fully insures that the local affiliates of a
lobbyist which carry out the policy or the
wishes of that lobbyist would not be re-
quired to register and report as a lobby-
ist unless they make 12 or more in-person
contacts with Congress. Therefore, such
a local affiliate will not have to register
and report regardless of the extent of its
lobbying by letters, telegrams, or tele-
phone.
Incidentally, I hope to give a copy to
the Senator, and I will get it shortly.
The amendment applies to all orga-
nizations whose lobbying practices are
directed by a parent organization which
Is itself a lobbyist. It will apply to na-
tional labor unions and their State and
local organizations. It will apply to
churches and their State and local orga-
nizations. The Comptroller General de-
termines that an affiliate qualifies as a
controlled local affiliate under this pro-
vision.
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
S 9358 - CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENA' CE June 15, 1973
The parent organization of the con-
trolled affiliate must provide a minimal
amount of information about the activi-
ties of its affiliates. This information is
limited to: First, a description of the af-
filiate: second, a description of the issues
before Congress on which the parent or-
ganization asked the affiliate to lobby;
and third, a report on any gifts by the
affiliate to Congress where the gifts are
large enough to meet the reporting re-
quirements applicable to lobbyists them-
selves.
The amendment will provide Congress
and the public with the essential infor-
mation about the lobbying activities of a
controlled local affiliate. But it does so in
a way that avoids placing any reporting
burden on the local affiliate itself.
The remainder of the compromise
amendment is addressed to a number of
questions raised during the considera-
tion of this legislation. These include the
following:
A clarification of the definition of an
oral lobbying communication so as to
minimize the number of oral lobbying
contacts that will be allocable to an or-
ganization which sends several employ-
ees to a single meeting with Congress;
An addition to the reporting require-
ments applicable to gifts to cover large
receptions or similar events given by
lobbyists for Congress;
An addition to the definition of "direct
expenses" so that an organization need
not determine what portion of the cost
of its regular newsletters is allocable to
lobbying when calculating the amount
spent by it on lobbying solicitations.
Now, Mr. President, I think all of us
who have been here any length of time
at all understand that lobbying is done
In two ways: By direct contact here in
Washington with Members of Congress;
and, second, by directing communica-
tions from our constituents to bring
pressure or influence upon us indirectly.
I myself think that the latter kind of
lobbying is the most effective in the long
run. It is, after all, our constituents to
whom we are answerable and account-
able, and when a national organization
Is able to generate that kind of pressure
with local affiliates upon Members of
Congress I think that ought to be under-
stood. It ought to be understood that
that kind of pressure is lobbying in the
same way, with the same impact and,
perhaps, even greater, than the lobby-
ing which is applied directly to us here
In Washington.
It is with that in mind that we tried
to phrase this amendment to try to meet
some of the legitimate questions which
the Senator from Montana has raised
while, at the same meeting the broad
and, hopefully, even-handed objectives
of the bill itself.
At this point I regret I must go to a
meeting of the Budget Committee which
was called at 10 o'clock to consider the
tax bill which is pending, and it is a
rather important one, and I apologize
for that fact. But I understand that my
cosponsors and, indeed, Senator RIBI-
COFF himself, are ready to address them-
selves to the language of the amendment,
and I hope the Senator from Montana
would do so as well.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays on the Mu.skie
amendment and the Metcalf amend-
ment.
The PRESIDING 010.F10ER. Is there a
sufficient second? There is a sufficient
second.
The ye..s and nays were ordered.
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimoha consent that Alvin From of
my staff have the privileges of the Boor
during the consideration and debate on
this measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, who has
the time?
Mr. METCALF. I am prepared to yield
time in just a moment. May I yield my-
self 1 minute.
Mr. President, the Senator from Maine
has made several cogent suggestions. For -
instance. he has proposed a solution, I
think, in iais amendment to some of the
criticism I have had about the home
State exemption.
Some of the other questions that were
raised by the Senator from Illinois -are
raised by the amendment of the Sena-
tor from Maine.
I will yield to the Senator from New
York in 30 seconds.
However, I have not seen the exact
language. where it fits into my amend-
ment, and I will reserve further com-
ment on it until I do have an opportu-
nity to examine it, though right now I
respond favorably to many of the com-
ments of the Senator from Maine.
Now I t.deld to the Senator from New
York, if he desires.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I under-
stand there is time on the amendment,
and in order to economize on time, I
yield myself 5 minutes of the time.
Mr. METCALF. Very well.
Mr. ,JAVITS. Mr. President, I think
what Senator METCALF has just said is
quite characteristic and also very appro-
priate to the situation.
We on the side of the committee bill
have also had to grapple with the Met-
calf amendment which came to us rather
overnight, as it were, and came in a com-
plete package so that it was not too easy
to design the ways in which to amend
the Metcalf amendment.
Simile Cy, Senator METCALF has had his
own problem with respect to absorbing
so quickly the suggestions which Senator
MUSKIE and I and our associates are
making.
Mr. President, the group which is back-
ing this bill essentially, having settled it-
self on eroblems yesterday respecting
lobbying in the executive branch, has
sent a letter to the members dated yes-
terday which deals with our position on
Senator METCALF'S amendment.
I wish to emphasize that there are no
Ideological problems betwen us. Senator
METCALF believes in a lobbying reform
bill, and we do, and an effective one.
The difficulty is that we believe Senator
METCALF'S amendment, in an effort to
deal with the problems of union affili-
ates, to deal with the problem of the
Nader and other public intereSt organi-
iations, excludes critically important
elements of the bill which should not be
xcluded.
Senator RIBICOFF has explained our
.osition very admirably.
We feel that lobbying is an honorable
indertaking. We are idea blind as far as
obbying is concerned. In other words,
re lobby for what we wish, whether for
iberal causes, at least as popularly cle-
aned. or conservative causes. We expect
,he same rules for both, and that is what
his really tests.
We feel the proposal opened important
oopholes in the bill, for example, the 25
Jral communications as against 12 in a
luarter, and the fact that on a given
lumber of days a lobbying effort could
? concentrated without being subject to
he act under Senator METCALF'S amend-
ment. Likewise, by taking out the pro-
,isionivhich we put in which would bring
'ealph Nader?for whom I have great ad-
miration?under this bill, and his or-
mnization, we would violate our goal of
-venhandedness. We feel that the bet-
-er way to approach that?and, essen-
.ially, this is the difference between the
-am amendments?is to agglomerate the
Ictivities of affiliates and related orga-
aizations and require, as it were, a con-
olidated return.
That is the essence of the amendment
which Senator Moslem and I presented.
ret us say that the principal lobbying
->rganization is a trade union or a trade
association, with union locals, and even
:egional organizations, or a trade asso-
-iation with local trade associations.
When the principal organization essen-
' ially controls, in lobbying terms, the ac-
'ivities of the local organization, it may
agglomerate the totality of the lobbying
activities.
The requirements then become very
minor in terms of the details of their own
tctivities.
We exclude all telephone contacts, and
;tick only to the oral in person communi-
mtions. We also simplify other matters
as Senator METCALF has done respecting
receptions, dinners, et cetera, and sim-
Ally the matter of reporting when many
eeople are involved in a given confer-
ence, that would under the original bill
proliferate the number of oral communi-
eations.
There is no question here about pur-
pose or intent or design or enthusiasm
for control respecting public disclosures
as to lobbying on both sides. But the
essential thrust of Senator METCALF'S
approach is to so relax the rules as to
allow the local organization, which is
aart of the total national organization,
to operate free of the law.
We bring it under the law, but we bring
It under by the efficient, we think, way of
a consolidated return?to give the an-
alogy to the tax system. The other things
are refinements.
We may have a view that a particu-
lar luncheon or dinner or reception
should be based on a per person basis. I
Personally would prefer that it be that
way, rather than a total of $500, or some-
thing like that, because that would only,
for example, allow 50 people at $10 a
head, which is probably quite imprac-
tical.
But the fundamental thrust, we do
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
June 15, /9)9fproved For R
eCht9ftiffiliffiR9d,CA891TEll CRIAIWO800150045-2 s 9359
not agree on. So, in my judgment, we
have to leave it up to the Senate.
Again, just to repeat and end my time,
the fundamental thrust being that we
propose to agglomerate the information
on locals by a report by the principal,
lobbying from them, to wit, the head or-
ganization.
We, therefore, do not automatically
exclude people who do not lobby in
Washington. We intend, precisely, to
reach everybody who has that kind of
dominant lobbying position. That is the
essential thrust of ours as contrasted
with the kind of tailoring of the proposi-
tion that local entities are not included
in the law.
I hope very much the Senate will sup-
port our position.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, I want
to take this opportunity to commend
Senators MUSKIE, JAVITS, BROCK, and
CLARK for their hard work and states-
manlike activities in drafting this
amendment to the Metcalf amendment.
It is my feeling that, in doing so, it
goes very far toward the problems ad-
dressed by the distinguished Senator
from Montana. This amendment insures
that the controlled local affiliates of a na-
tional lobbying organization will not be
required to register and report as lobby-
ists unless they make substantial in per-
son contacts with Congress. Therefore,
such local affiliates will not have to reg-
ister and report regardless of the extent
of their lobbying by letters, telegrams, or
telephone.
It applies to all organizations whose
lobbying practices are directed by a par-
ent organization which is itself a lobbyist/
Therefore, it will apply to national labor
unions and their State and local organi-
zations, and also many public interest
groups and their local and State
chapters.
It will also apply to churches and their
State and their local organizations. This
last question was raised by the distin-
guished Senator from Rhode Island
yesterday.
At the same time, it does eliminate
from the Metcalf amendment the pro-
vision which would delete the home-
district exemption, upon which there was
a substantial negative vote on the
Hathaway amendment.
As far as I am concerned, I shall vote
for the Muskie-Javits-Brock-Clark
amendment.
I would hope also that the distin-
guished Senator from Montana could see
fit to accept the Muskie-Javits amend-
ment. This would be a solution to many
of the difficulties we now 'find ourselves
facing.
Again my commendation to Senator
MUSKIE and Senator JAVITS.
I do want to take this opportunity to
give high praise to the distinguished
Senator from Montana. Throughout the
hearings and the markup of the entire
bill his contributions were many, sub-
stantial, and important. His imprint can
be found throughout S. 2477.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I think
possibly Senator METCALF might like to
have reactions from both sides of the
aisle. That would give him a further op-
portunity to study the amendment to his
own amendment.
Mr. President, the Senator from Illi-
nois, if the Senator from Montana would
accept and support this amendment to
his amendment, would find the amend-
ment of the Senator from Montana then
acceptable. Certainly, the Senator from
Montana is attempting to achieve certain
objectives which we all share. However,
there have been in the course of our col-
loquy and conversations on the amend-
ments certain problems pointed out
which I think overnight we have tried to
take into account. I think by a melding
of forces we may have arrived at a con-
sensus.
I can assure the Senator from Mon-
tana that all of the problems presented
by all of the groups which are interested
in this are not being resolved. They.are
not all going to be happy, but there may
be an equality of unhappiness that will
enable us to move forward to a con-
sensus.
This amendment to the Metcalf
amendment addresses the basic problem
of burdensome reporting by local affili-
ates. That is the first point I would like
to make.
Second, it retains certain Metcalf pro-
visions which the Senator from Illinois
thinks will actually improve the bill.
Third, it dqes not open major loopholes
for hiding extensive lobbying through lo-
cal affiliates, which the Senator from Illi-
nois is certain is an objective that he
shares in common with the Senator from
Montana.
I would like to comment on the first
problem I saw with the Metcalf amend-
ment, unamended.
It allows national organizations to
lobby through local, affiliates, no matter
how large the affiliate, with no report-
ing. The amendment to the Metcalf
amendment would eliminate the report-
ing burden on local affiliates so they
would not have to register as lobbyists.
But critical information with respect to
what the locals have been directed to do
would be reported.
In other words, the objection raised by
the Senator from Illinois is that we would
not know what 'direction had been sent
from the Washington-based U.S. Cham-
ber of Commerce or the Washington-
based AFL?CIO to its local affiliates. We,
would not have any sense of what direc-f
tion they are being given. The Muskie-
Jayits amendment would correct that
problem. So the objection the Senator
from Illinois had to the original version
would be removed.
Second, the original amendment al-
lowed affiliates and moderately small
groups outside of Washington to make
unlimited phone calls and lobby on 4
days in Washington, possibly making
hundreds of contacts without any dis-
closure whatsoever. This appeared to be,
a major loophole to the Senator from
Illinois.
The amendment now being offered to
the Metcalf amendment applies the same
number of in-person contacts as for any
other lobbyist before they have to dis-
close. Locals can make unlimited phone
calls but the fact that they have been
directed to lobby will be reported. We
would be on notice of that, which I think
Is information that we all want to have
available to us.
Third and finally, the original version
would exempt an individual such as
Ralph Nader from being identified as a
lobbyist.
I happen to share with my distin-
guished colleague from Connecticut and
my distinguished colleague from New
York an immense admiration for Ralph
Nader. I do not care who knows I admire
him. I have told business organizations,
"You may malign him, but every one of
you would hire him at a six-figure salary
if you could get him, and you know you
cannot get him."
In fact, he did get a six-figure amount
from one of our great corporations, Gen-
eral Motors, and he waA offered a job by
a major organization thht I know of and
he just did not choose to go that route.
Yesterday, the Senator from Illinois
had 80 to 100 mayors from Illinois here
in Washington. Secretary Butz addressed
the group and so did Mr. Cannon, the
executive director of the Domestic Coun-
cil. Both of them were extraordinarily
well received.
The keynote speaker at the outset of
the meeting was Ralph Nader. Most of
those mayors had only heard of Ralph
Nader by reputation. When Ralph Nader
spoke to them concerning the Agency for
Consumer Advocacy they were almost all
converts.
In fact, one of the earliest and tough-.
est questions to the executive director
of the Domestic Council was, Why does
the administration not support an agency
for consumer advocacy after what Ralph
Nader had to say about the basic need
for it?
So it is not a question of not admiring
Ralph Nader. I just want him to get
credit for his lobbying. I do not know
why he should be exempted. I think he
would be one of the first to say, "We do
not want a loophole to exempt a lobbyist".
such as he is simply because he is a
volunteer and chooses to be a volunteer.
There may be someone on the other
side whose motivation may be entirely
different, who sets himself up in the
same way, and could then use that loop-
hole to exempt himself.
The amendment now being offered to
the Metcalf amendment would retain
the provision of S. 2477 which requires
all principal operating officers, including
those who qualify as volunteers, to be
Identified.
I think this is an even-handed ap-
proach. It is not aimed at anyone. It is
aimed to be an even-handed approach
so we do not exclude a major, influential
source of lobbying.
As I have said previously, I commend
my distinguished colleague from Mon-
tana for the major contribution he has
made to the bill. Having carefully con-
sidered this amendment overnight, the
Senato,r from Illinois would find the
amendment of the Senator from Mon-
tana entirely acceptable with the modifi-
cations that are now being offered with
the support of a number of Senators.
Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, a par-
liamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GARY
HART) . The Senator will state it.
Mr. METCALF. I would like to -ask
about the disposition of time on the
amendment.
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
S 9360 Approved Feoftmesaarikat-fpPs7a1R9144R00080015091154 16, /976
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time In-
opposition is in control of the floor man-
ager of the bill.
Mr. METCALF. The floor manager is
in support of the amendment.
Mr. RIBICOFF. I would be delighted
to yield my time to the Senator from
Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All that
tine has been used, except for 1 minute.
Mr. ME's CALF. Again I find myself in
the situation described yesterday, that
this is an across-the-aisle sort of proce- ?
dure. How much time have I remaining
on my amendments?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator has 41 minutes remaining.
Mr. RIBICOFF. If the Senator will
yield, if the Senator makes a unanimous-
consent request for time, I do not believe
anyone would oppose.
Mr. METCALF. I still have 41 minutes
remaining.
The PRESIDING OeitoiCER. The
Senator would need unanimous consent
to use that time on this amendment.
Mr. METCALF. I ask unanimous con-
sent to use 15 minutes of the time that
I have on amendment No. 1830 to re-
spond in part to the amendment offered
by Senator MUSKIE.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. METCALF. As noted by the Sena-
tor from New York, I was not able to sup-
ply copies of my comprehensive amend-
ment until late yesterday afternoon and
not able to get it printed in the RECORD
until last night, and the printed amend-
ment was not on Senators' desks until
this morning so I can understand that it
is difficult to fit a proposed amendment
or a compromise amendment in with my
amendment. And, of course, I have the
same difficulty. I still have not seen the
language of the Muskie amendment.
However, I have been provided with Sen-
ator Moslem's analysis of the amend-
ment, and I have been provided with
the description of the amendment that
has been so eloquently set forth by the
Senator from Connecticut, the Senator
from Illinois, and the Senator from New
York.
As I glance over this analysis, I have
some questions. First, it would seem to
me that this amendment would require
each national organization and the locals
of such a national organization to secure
advisory opinions each year as to whether
or not they were covered. For example,
when the League of Women Voters told
me that they were in opposition to the
bill unless it was amended, it was sug-
gested that they had 1,400 State and local
leaders. I do not know how many labor
unions there are, but there are thousands
of local labor unions in the United States.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says
there are 2,700 State and local Chambers
of Commerce.
Does the language require?and I will
direct ray inquiry to anyone who can re-
spond?does the language require an
annual determination or an advisory
opinion as to which is a covered affiliate
and which is not, and would the League
of Women Voters have to go out and find
out which of their State and local leagues
were covered?
Mr. JAVITS. Well, as a practical mat-
ter, if the senator will yield to me, the
way in which lobbying organizations are
organized is subject to continuing review
by the organizations themselves. I would
say it would only require an opinion if
there were some major change relating
to the foimal relationships in any orga-
nization, but in the absence of a major
organizat onal change, the same rela-
tionehip would continue throughout, so
that if a trade union were reorganized
with some new relationship between the
international and the locals, then they
would have to decide again, you know,
whether or not they still had the same
status they had before. But in the ab-
sence of any basic change relating to its
charter or constitution it would certainly
be the opinion of the proponents of the
legislation that no new determination
would be necessary.
Mr. METCALF. What is the basic im-
pact upon such groups as chambers of
commerce, the dioceses of the Catholic
Church, end so forth, where the parent
organization does not claim control over
the affiliate?
Mr. JAVITS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. METCALF. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. It is my construction of
the amendment that where the parent
organization animates the controlled af-
filiate to lobby for a certain issue, then
the parent organization is responsible for
reporting regarding that lobbying ac-
tivity.
An organization such as a diocese
would qualify or not qualify depending
on the terms of the law. But where, say,
the Chamber of Commerce of the United
States or the National Catholic Welfare
Conference sends out a broadside, let us
say, sayiag "It is very wrong to revise
title 20 of the Social Security Act in this
way," then the parent must under-
take to report that on its own report
because the affiliate 'was engaged in it
at its request. The Muskie-Javits propo-
sal goes directly to that situation. Where
a local lobbies on an issue at the request
of the parent, the latter reports the
activity.
That is my interpretation. I might turn
;to Senator Memos's' just to make sure
we are on the same wavelength.
Mr. RI:31COFF. A parent organization
involved in lobbying, may ask its con-
trolled local affiliates across the coun-
try to do some lobbying also. When the
parent organization does so, it must say
on its own reporting form that it so
asked pasticular affiliates in Connecticut,
New Yore, Illinois, and Rhode Island to
work on a specific issue. The affiliate has
rio burden or duty to register or file itself.
As I understand, this was the problem
that also caused the Senator from Mon-
tana, when he offered his amendment, to
avoid placing the reporting burden on
the affiliates. Such an affiliate might have
to register were it not for the amendment
of the Senator from Montana.
I think that what has been achieved by
the Musk ie-Javits approach is to exempt
local affeiates that lobby on issues in
response to a request from the parent
organization.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me again?
Mr. RIBICOFF. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. We think that the Sena-
tor has put his finger on an important
point, and we are prepared to amend our
substitute, or whatever it is technically
called, to provide that the Comptroller
General may be asked for a determine,-
',ion on this issue at any time by any or-
!anization, and he is obliged to issue his
decision on that subject within 30 days
of the request.
We think that will regularize the pre ?-
Ace, and not leave people in doubt. But
have described to the Senator how the
amendment will work.
Mr. RIBICOFF. The Senator is abso-
lutely correct. If you have, for example,
the AFL-CIO, which has many local af-
filiates across the Nation, it would go in
to the Comptroller General and give him
its list?or its IBM printout, or whatever
am sure it has which lists its affiliates,
and say, "These are our affiliates which
from time to time we have to get involved
with certain types of legislation." The
Comptroller General would then rule
that these were controlled affiliates, and
that would be that. If affiliates were
dropped or added, the AFL-CIO would
give an amended list to the Comptroller
General. The amendment the distin-
guished Senator from New York would
like to put in, would require the Comp-
troller General within 30 days of any re-
quest to rule on whether the affiliates
qualified as controlled affiliates.
Mr. METCALF. I ask the Senator
from New York, when he does get an
amendment before the Senate for con-
sideration, it will be amended as the
Senator suggests?
Mr. JAVITS. Exactly. I have 3 min-
utes left, and I will ask for considera-
tion of the modification.
Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, I have
a problem about gifts. What happens
back in our home districts when some
local group gives a banquet or a recep-
tion, or something such as that? That
would qualify under my amendment
but would not qualify under the Sen-
ator's amendment as a gift.
Mr. JAVITS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. METCALF. Surely.
Mr. JAVITS. If that particular local
is tied into a national lobbying effort?
and I have already defined that?then
the way this would read, they would
just change it according to what I men-
tioned to the Senator before.
I shall read it again exactly as it will
read: I think it covers the situation
excatly and will not affect locals, I might
say.
The requirements of this section shall also
apply to any reception, dinner, or other
.similar event paid for, in whole or in part,
by the lobbyist for members, officers, or
employees of Congress, where the total cost
of the event exceeds $500.
In other words, what I am trying to
confine it to is the classic reception for
Members of Congress, and we left out all
the other verbage. That is highly un-
likely in a local area. That is a Wash-
ington proposition.
Mr. RIBICOFF. I agree. I think the
problem with the amendment of the
Senator from Montana is that it applies
not only to affiliates but also to any
organization whether or not they are
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
June 15, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 9361
lobbyists or affiliated with lobbyists. I
believe the Muskie-Javits proposal ap-
plies to gifts by controlled affiliates only.
So if a local affiliate in New York, Chi-
cago, Hartford, or Butte gave a recep-
tion, they would be excluded and ex-
empt as a lobbyist but the parent might
have to report the reception; an orga-
nization that was not an affiliate, that
was a completely independent organiza-
tion. They would not have to report gifts
unless they qualified separately as a
lobbyist.
Mr. METCALF. Under this amend-
ment what would happen to those small
organizations that are not affiliated with
anyone?
Mr. RIBICOFF. There is no reporting
requirement for gifts at all, unless the
organization is a lobbyist in its own
right. Is the Senator talking about an
Independent organization that just lob-
bies by giving a reception for its home-
State Congressman or Senators?
Mr. METCALF. Yes.
Mr. RIBICOFF. They would be
exempt.
Mr. METCALF. Completely.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Yes, they would be
exempt completely. Even if the orga-
nization that gives the reception is a
controlled affiliate, and local affiliates
often give such receptions during an-
nual labor conventions, the parent or-
ganization would not be required to
report on the reception of the local, un-
less the reception was one for Members
of Congress.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me?
Mr. METCALF. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. That is why I stream-
lined the language. We want to confine
it to the classic reception for Members
of Congress, employees, et cetera. That
is why I eliminated the words "regard-
less of who attends," and so on. We un-
derstand that, and it does not include
the local reception where the local Con-
gressman or the local Senator is invited
In to say hello.
We do not want to get confused. That
is why I left it $500 for the event where
It is a congressional reception as classi-
cally defined.
Mr. METCALF. I want the Senate to
appreciate that the Senator from Mon-
tana, the Senator from Maine, the
Senator from New York, and the Sena-
tor from Connecticut, in these amend-
ments and series of questions are trying
to realize the same objectives?to sim-
plify, streamline the bill, and give an
opportunity for local affiliates to partici-
pate without burdensome and reporting
.requirements, and let the major na-
tionally based parent organizations re-
port on their behalf.
The questions that I ,'have pro-
pounded have been answered, I think, to
clarify some of the language whenever
we get it. If I have any time left, I
would like to ask the Senator from Con-
necticut, as a floor manager of the bill,
If he concurrs with the Senator from
Illinois that if this series of amendments
is agreed to then he will agree to my
amendment to the bill?
Mr. RIBICOFF. If the distinguished
Senator from Montana will accept the
Muskie-Javits amendment, then I would
accept the Metcalf amendment as
amended by the Muskie-Javits amend-
ment.
Mr. PERCY. The Senator from Illinois
has so indicated also.
Mr. METCALF. It is very difficult for
me, and I am as much at fault as anyone,
but it is very difficult for me to accept
an amendment that I have not been able
to work into the exact language of the
bill. But as I hear the arguments of my
very respected and distinguished friends
on this bill and the men whom I respect
and have worked with in developing this
bill, it would seem to me that we tried to
realize some of the same targets, and I
am inclined to accept the amendment,
Mr. President, with the modifications
that the Senator from New York has de-
scribed that will be worked .into the
legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 15
minutes of time of the Senator from
Montana has expired.
Mr. JAVITS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from New York has 3 minutes.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I yield my-
self 2 minutes.
MODIF/ED AMENDMENT
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the modification I send to the
desk of the amendment on the desk now
before the Senate be substituted for the
amendment on the desk.
It makes three changes. First, it cor-
rects paragraphing and pagination
which in haste we missed on some parts.
Second, it deals with the question of re-.
ceptions, et cetera, and strikes out the
words "regardless of the number of per-
sons invited or in attendance" at page
10 of the amendment. Third, it inserts
the language respecting the Comptroller
General's obligation to give an opinion
within 30 days after submission of a re-
quest on the definition of an affiliate.
The PRESIDING Ote.toiCER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Chair.
The modified amendment is as follows:
On page 1 of amendment No. 1830 strike
lines 4 through page 3, line 5 and insert In
lieu thereof:
(2) an organization, other than an orga-
nization described in subsection (f) of this
section which engages on its own behalf, or
on behalf of its members, in twelve or more
oral lobbying communications in any quar-
terly period, acting through its own paid
officers, paid directors, or paid employees. For
purposes of determining whether any orga-
nization is a lobbyist under this paragraph,
there shall be excluded any communication
with a Member of Congress, or an individual
on the personal staff of such Member, rep-
resenting the State, or the congressional dis-
trict within the State, in which such orga-
nization has its principal place of business,
and, further, there shall be excluded any
communication initiated by Congress where-
by the organization provides information or
opinions to Congress solely at the request of
Congress; or
"(f) Any organization that would other-
wise be a lobbyist solely as a result of this
paragraph 3 of this section shall not be a
lobbyist for purposes of this Act if
(i) the Comptroller General determines
that the organization is a controlled local
affiliate of a parent voluntary membership
organization. The Comptroller General shall
not designate any organization a controlled
local affiliate if he determines that it is the
intent of the parent organization to use such
a designation as a means to evade, in whole
or in part, the requirements of this Act; the
Comptroller General shall issue any such
determination no later than 30 days follow-
ing the submission of a request for such
determination;
(it) the paid officers, paid directors, and
paid employees of the controlled local affil-
iate engage in less than 12 in person oral
lobbying communications in the quarter;
and
(iii) the parent voluntary membership or-
ganization is a lobbyist which includes on its
quarterly report all the information on the
lobbying activities of the controlled local
affiliate described in subsection (g) of this
section.
(g) A parent voluntary membership or-
ganization may also provide the following
additional information about the lobbying
activities of any of its controlled local affil-
iates described in subsection (f) of Section
3 of the Act:
(1) the identity of the affiliate and the
approximate number of individuals who are
members of that affiliate, and the approxi-
mate number of organizations which are
members of the affiliate;
(2) a description of each issue in connec-
tion with which the lobbyist urged, re-
quested, or required the affiliate to engage
in one or more lobbying communications or
solicitations; and
(3) a reptirt of any gifts by the affiliate or
Its officers, directors, or employees, which
the affiliate would otherwise be required as a
lobbyist to report pursuant to Section 7."
"(1) For purposes of subsection (g) "con-
trolled local affiliate" means a local volun-
tary membership organization whose lobby-
ing activities and policies are, either by for-
mal agreement, or by practice, subject to the
control of a parent voluntary membership
organization with whom the affiliate is re-
lated through bylaws, charters or similar
agreements. In determining whether an or-
ganization is a controlled local affiliate the
Comptroller General shall consider, among
other factors, whether the parent may control
what position the affiliate may take on an
issue before Congress, and whether the par-
ent may require the affiliate to engage, or
not to engage, in particular lobbying com-
munications or solicitations."
Strike page 3, line 9 of amendment No.
1830 through line 7 on page 6.
Strike line 10 of page 6 of amendment No.
1830 through line 13 of page 9 and insert in
lieu thereof:
honorarium and a description of the gift,
loan, or honorarium and its amount or value,
except that in the case of a gift described
in subsection (d) the recipients need not
be named individually, but may be described
by appropriate categories."
(b) The requirements of this section shall
apply?
(1) to any gift or loan of money, or any
honorarium, made during the quarterly pe-
riod by the lobbyist, by any officer, director,
or employee of the lobbyist, or by any legis-
lative agent on behalf of the lobbyist, which
exceeds $10 in amount;
(2) to any gift or loan of any goods, serv-
ices, or any other thing of value made during
the quarterly period, by the lobbyist, or by
a legislative agent on behalf of the lobbyist,
including food, lodging, transportation or
entertainment, which exceeds $10 in value;
(3) to any gift or loan of any goods, serv-
ices, or any other thing of value made during
the quarterly period by any officer, director,
or employee of the lobbyist or by a legislative
agent on behalf of the lobbyist, which ex-
ceeds $10 in value and which the officer,
director, employee, or legislative agent has
taken or will take, in whole or in part, as
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
S 9362 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENA1 E June 15, 1976
a deduction under section 162 or 212 of the
Internal_Ftevenue Code;
where the aggregate value of all the gifts,
loans, or honorariums described in para-
graphs (1). (2) , and (3) made by the lobby-
ist, or by the officers, directors, employees,
or legislative agents of the lobbyist, to any
individual Member, officer, or employee of
Congress exceeds $50 in amount or value.
(c) The requirements of this section shall
also apply to any gift or loan of any goods,
services, or any other thing of value, includ-
ing food, lodging, transportation, or enter-
tainment, made during the quarterly period
by an officer, director or employee of the
lobbyist, or by a legislative agent on behalf
of the lobbyist, which exceeds $100 in value.
"(d) The requirements of this section shall
also apply to any-reception, dinner, or other
similar event paid for, in whole or in part, by
the lobbyist for Members, officers, or em-
ployees (31 Congress, where the total cost
of the event exceeds $500;"
(e) This section shall not apply to any loan
made on terms and conditions that are no
more favorable than available generally, or
to any gift or loan to any individual who
is an immediate member of the family of
the donor or lender, or to any contribution
to a candidate as defined in section 431(e)
of title 2, United States Code.
Strike line 7 of page 7 of Amendment No.
1830 through line 13 of page 9.
Strike line 10 of page 10 of Amendment No.
1830 through page 11, line 25.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. JAVITS. I yield a minute to the
Senator if he wants it.
ORDER VACATING ROLLCALL VOTE
Mr. RIBICOFF. If the Senator from
Montana will accept the Muskie-Javits
amendment, then I would ask unanimous
consent that the roncall be dispensed
with.
Mr. METCALF. If the Senator from
Connecticut wants to ask unanimous
consent to vacate the rollcall on the
Muskie amendment, I am willing to have
it put to a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is
1 minute remaining.
Mr. JAVITS. I yield back the minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
is yielded back. The question is on agree-
ing to the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. METCALF._ Mr. President, having
agreed to my amendment, as amended,
I am prepared to yield back the remain-
der of my time and again ask that the
rollcall be vacated and put it to a voice
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time
yielded back?
Mr. RIBICOFF. I yield back the re-
mainder of my time.
The PRESIDING 'OFFICER. Is there
objection to vacating the yeas and nays?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment, as amended.
The amendment, as amended, was
agreed to.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I move to
reconsider the vote by which the amend-
ment was agreed to.
Mr. RIBICOFF. I move to lay that mo-
tion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Third reading.
The PRESIDING OFFILaat. The bill
is open to further amendment. If there
be no further amendments to be pro-
posed, the question is on agreeing to the
committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the na-
ture of a substitute, as amended, was
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on the engrossment and the
third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading and was read the
third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does
the Senator from Illinois yield back his
time on the bill?
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, is it per-
missible to suggest the absence of a
quorum at this moment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are
15 minutes remaining on the bill, to the
Senator from Illinois.
Mr. JAV1TS. Mr. President, I ask unan-
imous consent that a quorum call may
be in order, without the time being
charged to either side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none, and it
is so ordered.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The- second assistaht legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimou consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
LO DRY REFORM LONG OVERDUE
Mr. WE1CKER. Mr. President, concern
of the Congress with the pressures which
may influence congressional decisions
and legislation is neither new nor unique.
For more than 100 years, Congress has
grappled with the question of how to best
serve the public's right to know about
lobby activities while, at the same time,
balancing the constitutional rights of
citizens to associate with others and to
petition their government for a redress
of grievances.
The 1946 lobby law has been studied
and examined on no less that 12 separate
occassions by special, joint or select com-
mittees of the Congress since the 1954
Supreme Court decision in United States
against Harriss rendered major portions
of that law unconstitutional. Witnesses
before the Government Operations Com-
mittee were virtually unanimous in de-
claring the current law vague, ineffective
and unenforceable.
The requirements of the current law
are so vague that organizations which do
file reporting statements often file in-
complete information. In April 1975,
General Accounting Office study con-
cluded that 48 percent of the reports filed
In accordance with the 1946 act are in-
complete. The major portions of the in-
complete statements related to the finan-
cial information required to be disclosed.
Nevertheless, the present authorities that
are custodians of these documents do not
return incomplete forms for further in-
formation unless the report itself is im-
properly notorized or unsigned. The rea-
s= al for this lack of follow-up in exami-
n ,tion of these statements is that the
1-i6 act is vague and ambiguous in the
a -ea of enforcement. No agency of the
F ,deral Government is given clear re-
s.. Jonsibility and adequate investigatory
p .wers to enforce compliance with the
at.
S. 2477 which is before the Senate to-
d iy is the product of literally years of
s udy and past congressional concern in
t its area. Under the direction of its dis-
t nguished chairman (Mr. RIBICOFF), the
(Lovernment Operations Committee la-
bored to write a clear and precise law
v Inch balances the public's right to know
v 1th the overriding right to petition its
F avernment. S. 2477 is an effort to close
tie loopholes in present law and achieve
a law which is balanced and perhaps
I Lost importantly, enforceable.
A major portion of the bill before us
i devoted to the definition of the term
lobbyist." A lobbyist is an organization,
Lot an individual. The term "lobbyist" is
f,dditionally keyed to the amount of
raoney spent in the course of activities to
nfluence legislative decisions and the
/ umber of times a lobbying communica-
t on is made. A lobbyist is an organiza-
t_on which engages in lobbying activi-
es through paid individuals, through
aid officers, directors or employees, or
lobbyist can be an organization which
'thefts others to lobby. Voluntary mem-
Hers of public interest groups or trade
t ssociations are guaranteed their right
*a free association and to petition their
overnment. Their activities will not be
eparately reported under this bill. Fur-
hermore, an organization under this
agislation will not become a lobbyist
imply because it exercises its rights to
,tetition or communicate with Members
if Congress from their own States.
Most importantly, S. 2477 establishes
responsibility with the Government
Accounting Office to administer the pro-
Lisions of the act. The GAO is charged
.vith the responsibility to promulgate
-ules and regulations, to adopt the neces-
,ary forms and procedures to carry out
he bill's purpose and to investigate any
violations of the act, and to issue ad-
visory opinions.
Mr. President, it is my belief that S.
2477, the Lobby Reform and Disclosure
Act, offers the Senate balanced, enforce-
able legislation. The public and Mem-
bers of Congress will be given the facts
by which to judge the pressures which
may influence our decisions. The lobby
organizations themselves will be given
a law which is clear and concise as to
intent, definition, and reporting require-
ments. The passage of this legislation
will remove the ambiguity under which
all lobby organizations have had to re-
port the extent of their activities.
Furthermore, there are no exceptions
to the legislation. No single group of
organizations is left out. This was in-
tentional because, in order to write a
balanced bill, we felt it necessary to
write a fair bill.'The test of what orga-
nization is and what organization is not
a lobbyist is left to the test of how much
each organization spends and how many
times an organization may contact Con-
gress in order to spread its influence, not
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
June 15, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
what its philosophical or ideological bent
may be.
Mr. President, the merits of this leg-
islation lay in equal treatment under the
law of all organizations?labor, business,
and public interest groups alike. For this
reason, I urge that the Senate adopt
S. 2477.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I voted to
recommit S. 2477 last night because it
was clear to me that even if we reached a
near consensus, the bill would be fraught
with so many deficiencies that the end
product would make a mockery of its
label, "to provide more effective dis-
closure * " of lobbying activities."
Although our adoption a few minutes
ago of the Muskie-Javits compromise to
the Metcalf amendment was represented
to be the solution we were seeking to the
confusion and concern surrounding this
legislation, I have serious doubts that
any real improvement has been made. It
is only with great reservation, therefore,
that I am supporting the measure on
final passage.
My reason for taking this position, Mr.
President, is that in principle I whole-
heartedly agree with the expressed "re-
form" objectives of the overall bill?and
that is the basis upon which its merits
are evaluated. In substance, however, I
am afraid the proposal really does very
little to achieve those goals in a fair,
complete, rational, and meaningful way.
In this regard, I would just point out
the more prominent flaws in the whole
approach which S. 2477 takes, namely
that "lobbying" itself is somehow sus-
pect and that only money influences leg-
islation. The first is illustrated by the
philosophy underlying the legislation
that we need to "crack down" and "ex-
pose" those who influence Members of
Congress, and the second by the fact
that only those organizations which pay
their lobbyists are required to report.
Personally, Mr. President, I am op-
posed to anything which will have a chill-
ing effect on communications with elect-
ed officials because I think that is one of
our best means of determining the con-
sequences of matters which we consider.
I only hope that the broad-based con-
cerns we have been hearing about this
particular bill have for the most part
been accommodated?and that it will not
Itself serve ultimately to discourage lob-
bying activities.
I am also opposed to the idea of grant-
ing exemptions to groups and organiza-
tions which, though volunteer in nature,
have an enormous impact on Capitol
Hill decisionmaking. It seems that
throughout this bill?in both the defini-
tion and reporting sections?the lan-
guage refers only to paid officers, paid di-
rectors, and paid employees.
It is somewhat reassuring, I suppose,
that Ralph Nader?as a "chief executive
officer or principal operating officer" of
a lobbyist group will be required to file
reports. But what about all those "vol-
unteers" who work for Mr. Nader and act
in his name?
I have wrestled with the first amend-
ment considerations of including such
individuals in the registration and re-
porting requirements of this legislation,
and initially concluded that real consti-
tutional questions could be presented. On
the other hand, when those unpaid staff
members are actually speaking on behalf
of Common Cause or Public Citizen?and
not just themselves?are they actually
any different from a paid representative?
Since we are not, after all, really re-
stricting anyone's freedom of speech?
only asking it to be made public?per-
haps those observations are moot. In any
event, I have a great deal of difficulty
in reconciling the misconception that the
only accountability necessary to demon-
strate where the power bases are in
Washington is that dealing with directly
financed persuasion.
Again, if the purpose of this measure is
to bring out into the open all significant
attempts to exert influence on Members
of Congress, then why should even vol-
unteers for organizations engaged in lob-
bying be excluded from it registration
and reporting requirements? The effect
is the same whether a person is paid $50,-
000 a year or nothing, since a volunteer
performs the same function and does so
in the same manner as a paid lobbyist.
Mr. President, while my lack of enthus-
iasm for this measure is apparent, I do
want to reiterate my concurrence with
the "public's right to know" concept
which it embodies. Honest, responsible
lobbying is an important part of our law-
making process, and to the extent that
S. 2477 recognizes that fact?and seeks
to balance it against the abuses which
may have occurred in the past?I give it
my support.
If, by this bill, we are only requiring
what has been and will continue going
on with respect to legislative policymak-
ing to be fully disclosed, then I will look
back on my vote as the better of mixed
judgments. If, to the contrary, we find
ourselves 5 years from now wondering
what we did in 1976 to undermine one of
our most democratic of all institutions
and Create a maze of unnecessary paper-
work, I will view with regret my role in
bringing it about.
Mr. president, to point up some of the
Ironies and inconsistencies in our effort
to monitor and control the lobbying
"business," I ask unanimous consent to
have printed in the RECORD an article ap-
pearing in last Sunday's Washington
Star. It provides, I believe, a most provoc-
ative insight into the operations of some
of our more influential public interest
lobbying groups.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Washington Star, June 13, 19761
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION Is NOT FOR
RALPH NADER
(By David Sanford)
David Sanford, as a young reporter, caught
the detective who was tailing Ralph Nader
for General Motors. The incident helped
propel Nader to national prominence.
Sanford explains in his new book that he
became Nader's friend and editor, but grad-
ually developed reservations about Nader's
methods and work. They became antago-
nists?to the point where Nader refused to
answer questions for the book, Sanford says.
Sanford now is managing editor of The
New Republic.
This article is excerpted, by permission,
S 9363
from David Sanford's Me & Ralph: Is Nader
Unsafe for America?, to be published next
month by The New Republic Book Co. COpy-
right 1976 by David Sanford.
"Information," Ralph Nader has written,
"Is the currency of democracy. Nobody
understands this better than the omnipres-
ent corporate lobbyists in Washington who
work daily to keep control of crucial infor-
mation and deny it to the citizenry. Be-
hind every scandal coming out of Washing-
ton, from the misuse of campaign contribu-
tions to the big grain deal, there was in-
volved suppression of information which the
public had a right to have."
The Committee to Re-elect the President,
it will be recalled, refused for a time to list
donors to the Nixon 1972 campaign whose
contributions came in before the effective
date of a new federal law (supported by
Nader requiring disclosure of contributors'
names. Ultimately, the courts forced a public
listing, but the president's campaign com-
mittee maintained resolutely throughout
the controversy that it would not be fair
to divulge names of contributors who had
been promised anonymity.
In 1972, when it became known that
Nader's fund-raising unit, which he calls
Public Citizen Inc., had raised over a mil-
lion dollars?in contributions ranging from
a dollar to $5000?through an advertising
and direct-mail "campaign, The New York
Times ran a short Associated Press story
about it. The Writer of the dispatch had
asked an unnamed Nader spokesman the
obvious question that would occur to anyone
who wanted to do more than to rewrite a
press release. Where did the money come
from? That is, who were the largest con-
tributors?
Nader's spokesman came out sounding like
Maurice Stans and CREEP. He wouldn't tell,
he said, before first getting the permission
of the donors.
Nader was influential in the passage of
the Freedom of Information Act, which es-
tablishes the public's right of access to the
business of government. And one of his or-
ganizations, The Press Information Center,
assisted reporters in filing suits under the
act to obtain information.
In his syndicated newspaper column Nader
praised new regulations in Missouri that he
believed would have the effect of eliminating
hanky panky between officials and companies
doing business with the state. The Missouri
Public Service Commission had ruled that
utilities and the trucking companies that
agency regulates would have to submit
monthly reports of all gratuities given or
received and, to quote the regulation, "any
and all contacts in person, oral or written,
concerning or bearing on Missouri PSC busi-
ness." The listing had to include the date,
time, and purpose of the contacts. Nader
wrote that if the federal government adopted
such requirements for its business, "the
secret contacts between IT and the Justice
Department . . . would have been made pub-
lic, or in anticipation of such, would not
have been made." Nader recommended the
Missouri rules to other states and thought
the disclosure requirements would work "if
there is full compliance." That is, they would
work if they would work.
But would they? It is silly to think, as
Nader apparently does, that a rule requiring
officials to detail all phone calls, meetings,
and other human intercourse would have a
preventive effect on those who are up to no
good. Grafters in government and business
would simply not be honest. Conscientious
bureaucrats, on the other hand, would be
saddled with the paperwork and the indig-
nity.
Later, when it was proposed in Congress
that lobbyists be required to report the names
of persons they cbntact and the subjects of
conversations, Nader joined the Chamber of
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
Approved For Release 2001/08/30: CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
S 9364 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE ?Tulle 15, 1976
Commerce in opposing the reform. Public
Citizen, it seems, employs registered lobby-
ists. The reform, Public Citizen claimed,
would result in too much paperwork and
would not add to the public's knowledge of
how government operates. When it serves his
purposes. Nader is all too ready to denounce
his own logic.
Nader, furthermore, makes a careful, self-
serving distinction between the sorts of
information bureaucrats must publish and
that which must be rendered up by private
individuals like himself. Though he raises
money and needs public trust, he wants to
keep his enemies guessing about his finan-
cial resources and his plans. Nader is the
most powerful nonelected politician in
America. His work bears on the public
interest. Yet he is not subject to, nor does
he welcome, the kind of scrutiny he would
impose on others. He certainly is not will-
ing to post in a publie place a list of his
contacts and the substances of his con-
versations.
MELVIN LAIRD. I don't know how you get
along on $5,000 a year.
RALPH NADER. I don't have an automobile.
If it's true that Nader plows back all but
$5,000 of his large personal earnings into
good works, then he has no resources for
conspicuous consumption. And he's not
about to indulge in any personal financial
disclosure of the sort he would force on
elected officials. As Robert Buckhorn put it,
"Nader is testy about his private income .. .
Like his rooming house, his love life, and his
family, he feels strongly that this is not a
matter for public concern."
A loss of privacy is the price public figures
pay for fame and power, and Nader has dis-
cussed his for publication with so many
writers that it's a wonder he has any privacy
left.
What exactly happens to the rest of the
quarter of a million dollars a year that Ralph
Nader personally earns, after he takes what
he needs for his spartan existence? The bulk
of his earnings must go directly into: 1. good
works; 2. the mattress; or 3. investments.
I have always been very curious to know
what Nader the corporate critic considers
a good investment. And I've often suggested
to other reporters that they take an interest
in what Nader actually does with the 90 or
95 per cent of his personal income that he
loosely claims to plow back. Joseph Lely-
veld of The New York Times was the first
reporter 1 know of to have extracted from
Nader the admission that he plays the stock
market and that he does it without much
regard to the corporate responsibility of the
companies he invests in. In his Times piece,
published Nov. 24, 1975, Lelyveld wrote:
"Mr. Nader has never divulged his income
but the most recent of the five books written
about him . . . estimates it at $250,000. Re-
viewing that book in The New Republic, the
magazine's managing editor, David Sanford,
implied that Mr. Nader's assertion that the
money was used almost wholly to support
his causes should not be taken at face value.
"Mr. Nader readily acknowledges that he
has a broker who invests his funds in cer-
tificates of deposit, Treasury notes and cor-
porate stocks, possibly including those of
companies he has assailed. 'You can't trans-
cend the system,' he explains, 'It's all inter-
locked. Instead of buying US Steel, I can
buy a CD from Morgan Guaranty. But if
Morgan Guaranty turns around and lends
the money to US Steel, what do I do?' What
matters. he insists, is that he is increasing
his income for public-interest causes, and
that more than 90 per cent of it goes to those
causes every year."
So it is that as corporations Nader attacks
get richer, so does Nader. Lelyveld, in the
Times, proceeded to say that "in 1971, when
his personal income proved inadequate to
cover his expanding operations, he set Up a
formal fund-raising mechanism called Public
Citizen, Inc." Public Citizen's biggest prob-
lem is that ti its first four and a half years
of existence it was never able to raise much
more than a million dollars annually in con-
tributions. That remained true even as
Nader spent more and more of the money
raised for mailing lists, postage, printing, and
such. According to published accounts he
spends about 30 per cent of the cash that
comes in on fund-raising itself.
As one mest in the case of any charitable
organization the donor to Public Citizen has
to decide lot himself whether money is being
used well or whether too much of what is
given sets eaten up in the fund-raising bu-
reaucracy. Nader. in his first annual report
for Public Citizen, stressed the efforts made
to keep cost,; low:
"In the oar ending May 31, 1972, more
than 62,000 people contributed $1,101,810.70
to Public Citizen. The direct expenses of
advertising and mail costs amounted to
$303,593.46. 'Mese services are unobtainable
except at prevailing costs, although volunteer
help was used whenever possible . . The
only administrative expenses were office,
rental, supplies, telephone, and the salary of
one staff person to do the essential work of
supervising the mailing of these appeals,
handling the replies, and keeping the office
functioning. Public Citizen spent a total of
$10,236.64 for these general administrative
activities. That expenses could be kept so
low is due partly to the dedicated efforts of
many volur seers, who spent week after week
doing the routine jobs of opening and sort-
ing mail, tabulating contributions, and an-
swering inquiries. The services of these
public-spirned people . . . saved thousands
of dollars.-
Accordinn to Lelyveld, by 1975 Nader was
having to mail out four times as many
solicitation letters as he had to send four
years before to raise the same amount of
money.
If all this sounds as if times are tough for
Public Citizen, that may be the impression
Nader wants to convey. Certainly, he doesn't
want anybody to think that too much money
is wasted on raising money. But what of the
money that is left after expenses have been
paid Theannual reports go into great detail
about how much of the contributed money is
disbursed so one or another Nader cause:
for example, a $10,000 grant to the Center for
Women Policy Studies, and a $9,500 grant
to the Small Claims Study Group, $125,000
to the Health Research Group, $75,000 to the
Public Citizen Litigation Group, and so on.
But the annual reports I've seen, while
listing the contributions to Public Citizen
down to tile last penny, say not one word
about a very interesting fact: After all the
expenses and grants and disbursements, Pub-
lic Citizen has ended every year with hun-
dreds of thousands of dollars left over un-
spent. Indeed, it is getting richer and richer
with every passing year.
The punctiliously detailed annual reports
omit mention of Public Citizen's unspent
wealth, but its tax returns (form 990) avail-
able for public inspection at the Internal
Revenue Service tell a different story. Public
Citizen started its fund-raising in mid-1971,
and by the beginning of 1972 it had a net
worth of $411,419.08 in the form of funds in-
vested for the most part in certificates of
deposit. Al; the end of 1972 Public Citizen
had $751,997.97 in retained funds. In one
calendar year the Nader operation had taken
In a little more than $340,000 more than it
spent.
Likewise, in 1973 Public Citizen raised
much more than it disbursed, $313,252.04
more, so :hat by year's end retained funds
equaled $1,059,028.50. The process continued
in 1974. That year the excess or receipts
over expenses and disbursements was $210,-
790. Public Citizen's net worth on the last
day of 1974 had reached $1.3 million. In
each of the years for which I have seen tax
returns the majority of the holdings of Pub-
li Citizen were invested in certificates of
eh posit. Small amounts of money were kept
11 cash or bank accounts. In 1974 the Public
C tizen portfolio acquired stock in two com-
p .nies. the Tremco Manufacturing Co. and
tl e Warner-Lambert Company, which makes
L sterine.
If Ralph Nader would speak to me, which
b won't, I'd ask him why with so much
ti gent public business in need of doing,
p Mlle Citizen is amassing these riches and
iy Nader does not confide in contributors
that he's keeping so much of their money in
t- a bank.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I yield
(ck the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING Ortoi.CER. Is all
t rne yielded back?
The bill having been read a third time,
the question is, Shall it pass? On this
q Iestion the yeas and nays have been
o rdered, and the clerk wilt call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
c -tiled the roll.
Mr. McCLELLAN (after having voted
it the negative). On this vote, I have a
r air with the distinguished majority
I -ader (Mr. MANSFIELD) . If he were pres-
at and voting, he would vote yea; I have
nay. Therefore, I withhold my vote.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce
tgat the Senator from Virginia (Mr.
I(Asuly F. BYRD, Jr.), the Senator from
Indiana (Mr. HARTKE), the Senator from
Washington (Mr. MAGNuSON), and the
F:enator from Montana (Mr. MANSFIELD)
c re necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from
'Aissouri (Mr. SYMINGTON) is absent be-
cause of illness.
I further announce that, if present
:,nd voting, the Senator from Washing-
on (Mr. MAGNUSON) would vote "yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER),
hnd the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
,3EARSON) are necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from
:,,Tew York (Mr. BUCKLEY). is absent on
,fficial business.
I further announce that, if present and
,oting, the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
'ilOLDWATER) would vote "nay."
The result was announced?yeas 82,
lays 9, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 288 Leg.]
YEAS-82
Nbourezk Garn Moss
Allen Glenn Muskie
Baker Gravel Nelson
Bartlett Griffin Nunn
Bayh Hart, Gary Packwood.
Beall Hart, Philip A. Pastore
Bellmon Haskell Pell
Bentsen Hatfield Percy
Biden Helms Proxmire
Brock Hollings Randolph
Brooke Huddleston Ribicoff
Bumpers Humphrey Roth
Burdick Inouye Schweiker
Byrd, Robert C. Jackson Scott, Hugh
Cannon Javits Sparkman
Case Johnston Stafford
Chiles Kennedy Stennis
Church Laxalt Stevens
Clark Leahy Stevenson
Cranston Long Stone
Culver Mathias Taft
Dole McGee Talmadge
Domenici McGovern Tunney
Durkin McIntyre Welcker
Eagleton Metcalf Williams
Eastland Mondale Young
Fong Montoya
Ford Morgan
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
June 15, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
NAYS-9
Curtis Hruska Thurmond
Fannin McClure Tower
Hansen Scott,
Hathaway William L.
PRESENT AND GIVING A LIVE PAIR, AS
PREVIOUSLY RECORDED-- 1
Mr. McClellan, against.
NOT VOTING-8
Buckley Goldwater Mansfield
Byrd, Hartke Pearson
Harry F., Jr. Magnuson Symin gton
SO the bill (S. 2477), as amended, was
passed, as follows:
S. 2477
That this Act may be cited as the "Lobby-
ing Disclosure Act of 1976". _
. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES
SEC. 2. (a) The Congress finds- -
(1) that the enhancement of responsible
representative government requires that the
fullest opportunity be afforded to the people
of the United States to exercise their con-
stitutional right to petition their Govern-
ment for a redress of grievances, to express
their opinions freely to ,their Government,
and to provide information to their Gov-
ernment; and
(2) that the identity and extent of the
activities of organizations which pay others,
or engage on their own behalf, in certain
efforts to influence an issue before Congress
or the executive branch should be publicly
and timely disclosed in order to provide the
Congress, the executive branch, and all mem-
bers of the public with a fuller understand-
ing of the nature and source of such activ-
ities.
(b) It is the purpose of this Act to pro-
vide for the disclosure to the Congress, the
executive branch, and to-all members of the
public of such efforts without interfering
with the right to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances, and with other
constitutional rights.
DEFINITION OF A LOBBYIST
SEC. 3- (a) As used in this Act, the term
"lobbyist" means?
(1) an organization which pays any leg-
islative agent an income of .$250 or more in
any quarterly period, other than payment or
reimbursement for personal travel expenses.
to engage in, one or more lobbying communi-
cations; or
(2) an organization, other than an orga-
nization described in subsection (b) of the
section which engages on its own behalf, or
on behalf of its members, in twelve or More
oral lobbying communications in any quar-
terly period, acting through its own paid
officers, paid directors, or paid employees.
For purposes of determining whether any
organization is a lobbyist under this para-
graph, there shall be excluded any commu-
nication with a Member of Congress, or an
Individual on the personal staff of such
Member, representing the State, or the con-
gressional district within the State, in which
such organization has its principal, place of
business, and, further, there shall be ex-
cluded any communication initiated by Con-
gress or the executive branch whereby the
organization provides information or opin-
ions to Congress Or the executive branch
solely at the request of Congress or the exec-
utive branch; or
(3) an. organization which, in any quar-
terly period, engages directly or through a
legislative agent in any lobbying solicitations
where the total direct expenses of such
solicitations is $5,000 or more.
"(b) Any organization that would other-
wise be a lobbyist solely as a result of para-
graph 3(a) (2) of this section shall not be a
lobbyist for purposes of this Act of?
(I) the Comptroller General determines
that the organization is a controlled local
affiliate of a parent voluntary membership
organization. The Comptroller General
shall not designate any organization a
controlled local affiliate if he determines
that it is the intent of the parent organiza-
tion to use such a designation as a means to
evade, in whole or in part, the requirements
of this Act the Comptroller General shall
issue any such determination no later than
thirty days following the submission of a
request for such determination;
(ii) the paid officers, paid directors, and
paid employees of the controlled local affili-
ate engage in less than twelve in person oral
lobbying communications in the marter;
and
(iii) the parent voluntary membership
organization is a lobbyist which includes on
its quarterly report all the information on
the lobbying activities of the controlled local
affiliate described in subsection (c) of this
section,
"(c) A parent voluntary membership or-
ganization may also provide the following
additional information about the lobbying
activities of any of its controlled local af-
filiates described 'in subsection (b) of sec-
tion 3 of the Act:
(1) the identity of the affiliate and the
approximate number of individuals who are
members of that affiliate, and the approxi-
mate number of organizations which are
members of that affiliate; --
(2) a description of each issue in connec-
tion with which the lobbyist urged, re-
quested, or required the affiliate to engage
in one or more lobbying conimunications
or solicitations; and
(3) a report of any gifts by the affiliate or
Its officers, directors, or employees, which
the affiliate would otherwise 'be required es
a lobbyist to report pursuant to section 7.
(d) For purposes of subsection (b) "con-
trolled local affiliate" means a local voluntary
membership organization whose lobbying
activities and policies are, either by formal
agreement, or by practice, subject to the
control of a. pardnt voluntary membership
organization with whom the affiliate is re-
lated through bylaws, charters or similar
agreements. In determining whether an.
organization is a controlled local affiliate the
Comptroller General shall consider, among
other factors, whether the parent may con-
trol what position the affiliate may take on
an -issue before Congress, and whether the
parent may require the affiliate to engage,
or not to engage, in particular lobbying com-
munications or solicitations.
(e) Except as provided in subsection (g),
as used in this Act, the term "lobbying com-
munication" means,-
(1) a communication with Congress which
is intended to influence an issue before the
Congress;
(2) a communication with the executive
branch urging or requesting any officer or
employee of the executive branch to act or
not to act, or to act in a certain manner,
concerning the approval of any legislation
passed by Congress, any nomination; any ex-
pression of views to Congress concerning
an issue before Congress, or any other com-
munication to, or testimony before, Con-
gress; and
(3) a communication with the executive
branch urging or requesting any officer or
employee of the executive branch to act or
not to act, or to act in a,certain manner, con-
cerning?
(A) any contract to which the Federal Gov-
ernment is or may become a party, or
(B) any award, or other benefit which is
or may be awarded, given, or otherwise be-
stowed upon any person by the Federal Gov-
ernment,
where such contract, award, or other benefit
invloves an obligation incurred by the Fed-
eral Government of $1,000,000 or more.
(f) Except as provided in subsection (g),
as used in this Act, the term, "lobbying
solicitation" means a solicitation which Is
S 9365
Intended to influence in a specific or general
way an issue before the Congress or the ex-
ecutive branch by clearly urging, requesting,
or requiring one or more persons to com-
municate with Congress or the executive
branch with respect to any such issue, or to
solicit another person to make such a com-
munication.
(g) As used in this Act, the term "lobbying
communication" and "lobbying solicitation"
do not include?
(1) a communication or solicitation by an
individual, acting solely on his own behalf,
for redress of his personal grievances or to
express his own personal opinion;
(2) a communication which deals only
with the existence or status of any issue, or
which seeks only to determine the subject
matter of an issue;
(3) testimony given before a committee or
office of the Congress or the executive branch
or submitted to a committee or office of the
Congress for inclusion in the public record
of a hearing conducted by such committee or
office;
(4) a communication or solicitation made
by an officer or employee of the executive
branch, 'acting in his official capacity, or a
communication or solicitation by a Member,
officer, or employee of the Congress, acting in
his official capacity;
(5) a communication or solicitation made
by an individual directly empolyed by a State
or local government or Indian tribe, acting in
his official capacity;
(8) a communication or solicitation made
through the instrumentality of a newspa-
per, book, periodical, magazine, or other pub-
lication of general distribution, or through
a radio or a television broadcast: Provided,
however, That this exception shall not apply
(A) to a communication or solicitation
made through the publication of a voluntary
membership organization which is not cus-
toinarily distributed outside the scope of the
membership of such organization, or (B) to
an organization responsible for the purchase
of a paid advertisement in a newspaper,
magazine, book, periodical, or other publica-
tion of general distribution, or through a
paid radio or television advertisement;
(7) a communication or solicitation by, or
on behalf of, a candidate, as defined in sec-
tion 431(b) or title 2, United States Code,
or by, or on behalf of, a candidate for a
State or local office, made in his capacity as
a candidate for Federal, State, or local of-
fice, including a communication or solicita-
tion by, or on behalf of, an organization in
Its capacity as a political committee, as de-
fined in section 431(d) of title 2, United
States Code.
(8) a communication or solicitation by, or
on behalf of?
(A) a political party, as defined in sec-
tion 431(m) of title 2, United States Code,
or a National, State, or local committee or
other organizational unit of such a po-
litical party, regarding its activities, under-
takings, policies, statements, programs, or
platforms; or
(B) a political party recognized as such
under the laws of a State, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, or a territory or possession of the
United States, or a committee or other orga-
nizational unit of such a political party, re-
garding its activities, undertakings, policies,
statements, programs, or platforms.
(h) For purposes of this Act an oral lob-
bying communication which is made simul-
taneously to more than one individual in
the course of a single meeting or conversa-
tion shall be treated as a single oral lobbying
communication.
REGISTRATION OF LOBBYISTS
SEC. 4. (a) Each organization shall reg-
ister with the Comptroller General within
fifteen days after Initially becoming a lob-
byist. Each registration shall contain?
(1) an identification of the lobbyist;
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
Approved For Release 2001/08/30: CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
8 9366 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE June 15, 1976
(2)- in the case of a voluntary membership
organization, the approximate number of in-
dividuals who are members of the organiza-
tion; the approximate number of organize-
tions which are members of the organization,
and a description of the type of such or-
ganizations; a general description of the
procedures by which the organization estab-
lishes its position with respect to issues
before Congress or the executive branch;
and a general description of the geographic
thstribution and common interests of the
persons who are members thereof; and
(3) the number of organizations and the
number of individuals from whom the lobby-
ist received income during the year preceding
he year in which the registration is filed
iithere such income was expended in whole
or in part for lobbying; an identification of
each organization from which the lobbyist
received income during such period includ-
ing the amount of income provided by the
organization. where the income was expended
in whole or in part for lobbying if the
amount of income received from the organi-
zation was e2,500 or more in amount or value
during such period; and an identification of
each individual from whom the lobbyist
received income during such period includ-
ing the amount of income provided by the
individual where the income was expended
in whole or in part for lobbying if the total
amount of income received from the in-
dividual and his immediate family was e2,500
or more in amount or value during such pe-
riod. This paragraph shall not apply to any
income received by the lobbyist in the form
of a return on an investment by the lobby-
ist, or a return on the capital of the lobbyist
(b) The registration filed under subsection
(a) by an organization which is a lobbyist
under section 3(a) (1) shall- also include?
(1) a general description of the subject
matter of each category of issues whit% the
lobbyist, as of the date of filing, intends to
influence by its legislative agent engaging
in one or more lobbying communications;
and
(2) an identification of the legislative
agent which the lobbyist has retained, in-
cluding an identification of each officer, di-
rector, or employee of the legislative agent,
and of any other person to whom the legisla-
tive agent expects to provide income, other
than personal travel expenses, where the leg-
eslative agent expects such officer, director,
employee or other person will have respon-
sibility for engaging in lobbying communica-
tions on behalf of the lobbyist.
(c) The registration filed under subsection
(a) by an organization which is a lobbyist
under section 3(a) (2) shall also include?
(1) a general description of the subject
matter of each category of issues which the
lobbyist, as of-the date of filing, intends to
influence by engaging in lobbying communi-
cations;
(2) an identification of each paid officer,
paid director, and paid employee of the lob-
byist whom, as of the date of filing, the lob-
byist expects will have responsibility for en-
gaging in oral lobbying communications on
behalf of the organization, excluding any
lobbying communications engaged in as a di-
rect consequence of a :Solicitation described
in subsection 6(d).
(d) The registration filed under subsec-
tion (a) by an organization which Lea lobby-
ist under section 8(a) (3) shall also include?
(1) a general description of the subject
matter on each category of issues which the
lobbyist, as of the date of filing, intends to
influence by engaging, either directly or
through a legislative agent, in any lobby-
ing solicitation which refers to the same
issue or issues and which is intended to
reach, or could reasonably be expected to
reach, in identical or similar form, five hun-
dred or more persons; twenty-five or more of-
ficers or directors, or one hundred or more
employees, of the lobbyist, other than offi-
cers, directors, or employees identified pursu-
ant to subsection (c) of this section; or
twelve or more affiliates; and
(2) the identification of any legislative
agent throe eh whom the lobbyist expects to
make any solicitation described in para-
graph (It.
(e) In the event of any change in the
information filed under subsection (a) , the
lobbyist shell amend the registration re-
quired by this section not later than thirty
days after the close of the next quarterly
period, or at such longer intervals of time as
the Comptroller General determines are ade-
quate to disclose the current identity and
activities ot the lobbyist, except that in the
event that :my organization retains any new
legislative agent after filing a registration
under subsection (a), the lobbyist shall
amend the registration in compliance with
subsection t b) or subsection (d) of this sec-
tion within fifteen days of the time such
legislative agent is retained.
(f) A registration filed under subsection
(a) shall be effective until the first day of
January immediately following the date
upon which the initial registration is filed.
Each lobbyist shall file a new registration
under subsection (a) Within thirty days after
the first dee of January of each year, except
that a person whose registration has expired
and who has ceased to be a lobbyist shall
register under subsection (a) not later than
fifteen days after again becoming a lobbyist.
RECORDS
SEC. 5. Each lobbyist and each person
whom the lobbyist retains as a legislative
agent shall maintain records relating to the
registrations and reports required to be filed
under this Act as the Comptroller General
determines by regulation are necessary for
the effective implementation of this Act.
Such financial records shall be kept in ac-
cordance with generally accepted accounting
principles. ,111 records required to be main-
tained by snis section shall be preserved for
a period of five years.
REPORTS BY LOBBYISTS
SEC. 6. e) Each organization shall, not
later than thirty days after-the close of each
quarterly period in which it is a lobbyist
pursuant to section 3(a), file a report with
the Comptroller General covering the orga-
nization's lobbying activities during the
quarterly period. Each report shall identify
the lobbyist, and shall contain the additional
information required by the remainder of
this section.
(b) In each instance. where the lobbyist
retains a legislative agent to engage in lobby-
ing in the manner described in section 3(a)
(1), the report shall identify the legislative
agent and shall also include the following
information with respect to each issue which
was the subject of one or more lobbying com-
munications by the legislative agent,?
(1) a description of each such issue;
(2) the amount of income the lobbyist
paid the legislative agent during the period
In connection with each such issue;
(3) an identification of each officer, di-
rector, or employee of the legislative agent,
and of any other person, who received income
from the legislative agent, other than per-
sonal travel expenses, to engage in one Or
more lobbying communications during the
period on behalf of the lobbyist, and a de-
scription of each issue with respect to which
the officer, director, employee or other per-
son engaged in such lobbying. In the case of
any stulti person who engaged in lobbying
communications with respect to more than
ten issues, the lobbyist shall be required by
this paragraph to describe only those ten is-
sues which such person estimates accounted
for the greatest proportion of the lobbying
communications in which he engaged.
(c) In each instance where the organize-
ti .n is a lobbyist pursuant to section 3(a) (2) ,
the report shall also include the following
ii formation?
(1) a description of each issue which was
the subject of one Or more lobbying core-
r( anications by its paid officers, paid direc-
t( ss, or paid employees;
(2) an identification of each paid officer,
p id director, or paid employee of the lobby-
is ? who made one or more oral lobbying com-
a inications on behalf of the organization,
t ci a description of the issues with respect
t. which such lobbying communications were
n ade. In the case of any such person-who en-
geged in oral lobbying communications with
respect to more than ten issues, the lobbyist
seall be required by this paragraph to de-
e -ribs only those ten issues which such per-
sen estimates accounted for the greatest pro-
p srtion of the oral lobbying communications
in which he engaged. This paragraph shall
portion of the oral lobbying communications
hich a paid officer, paid director, or paid
e -aployee of the lobbyist engaged in as a di-
r set consequence of a solicitation described
ei subsection (d);
(3) an identification of any chief executive
cfficer, or any principal operating officer, of
toe lobbyist, or of an affiliated organization,
v ho made twenty-five or more oral lobbying
c emmunications on behalf of the lobbyist.,
and a description of each issue with respect
to which such lobbying communications were
r mde. 'This paragraph shall not apply to any
I sdividual identified by the lobbyist pursu-
e tet to paragraph (2). In the case of any such
r erson who engaged in oral lobbying commu-
nications with respect to more than ten is-
sues, the lobbyist shall be required by this
aragraph to describe only those ten issues
z vrhich such person estimates accounted for
he greatest proportion of the oral lobbying
ommunieations in which he engaged.
(4) an estimate of the total expenses in-
( erred by the lobbyist during the period in
connection with all the issues with respect
o which the organization engaged in lobby-
ing, including an estimate of the total por-
1 on expended on lobbying communioations,
nd the total portion expended on lobbying
isslicitations.
(d) The report shall also contain the fol-
owing information about any solicitation
na.de by a lobbyist during the period, either
directly or through a legislative agent, which
-eferred to the same issue or Issues and which
as intended to reach, or could reasonably
re expected to reach, in identical or similar
-orm, five hundred or more persons; twenty-
eve or more officers or directors, or one hun-
ired or more employees, of the lobbyist,
other than officers, directors, or employees
identified pursuant to subsection (e) of this
section; or twelve or more affiliates?
(1) either a description of each issue with
respect to which such solicitation was made,
-or a representative sample of the lobbying
solicitation;
(2) a general description of the oral or
written means employed to make such lobby-
mg solicitation, including the identification
of any legislative agent through whom the
solicitation VMS made, and an indication
whether other persons were requested by the
lobbyist to in turn solicit;
(3) an estimate of the total number of
eersons, including an estimate of the number
If affiliates and an estimate of tne number
of officers, directors, or employfees of the
Lobbyist, directly solicited by the lobbyist;
an estimate of the- number of States in which
persons were directly solicited; and an identi-
fication of any State which received, or was
intended to receive, 10 per centum or more
of the total number of written solicitations
made by the lobbyist if such State received.
er was intended to receive, five hundred or
more written solicitations;
(4) the direct expenses incurred by the
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
June 15, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECOR D ? SENATE
lobbyist in making any lobbying solicitation
where such expenses exceeded $7,500; and
(5) in any case in which the lobbyist re-
quests, urges, or requires one or more af-
filiates to in turn solicit, either?
(A) the identification of any such af-
filiate and, in any case in which the affiliate
Is a voluntary membership organization,
either the approximate number of persons
who are members of the affiliate, or an esti-
mate of the number of persons the lobbyist
expects the affiliate to solicit; or
(B) an indication of each State in which
one or more of such affiliates is located, the
total number of such affiliates in each State,
and, in any case in which the affiliate is a
voluntary membership organization, either
the approximate number of persons who are
members of all such affiliates in each State,
or an estimate of the total number of persona
the lobbyist expects all such affiliates in each
State to solicit.
REPORT OF GIFTS
SEC. 7. (a) Each report filed pursuant to
section 6 shall include a list of any gifts,
loans, or honorariums described in subsec-
tion (b) or subsection (c) which are made
directly or indirectly to any individual Mem-
ber, officer, or employee of the Congress, or
the executive branch. Such list shall include
an identification of the individuals making
and receiving each such gift, loan, or hon-
orarium and a description of the gift, loan,
or honorarium and its amount or value, the
case of a gift described in subsection (d) the
or honorarium except that in the case of a
gift described in subsection (d) the recip-
ients need not be named individually, but
may be described by appropriate categories."
(b) The requirements of this section shall
apply?
(1) to any gift or loan of money, or any
honorarium, made during the quarterly pe-
riod by the lobbyist, by any officer, director,
or employee of the lobbyist, or by any legis-
lative agent on behalf of the lobbyist, which
exceeds $10 in amount;
(2) to any gift or loan of any goods, serv-
Ives, or any other thing of value made dur-
ing the quarterly period, by the lobbyist, or
by a legislative agent on behalf of the lobby-
ist, which exceeds $10 in amount;
(2) to any gift or loan of any goods, serv-
ices, or any other thing of value made dur-
ing the quarterly period, by the lobbyist, or
by,a legislative agent on behalf of the lobby-
ist, including food, lodging, transportation
or entertainment, which exceeds $10 in value;
(3) to any gift or loan of any goods, serv-
ices, or any other thing of value made dur-
ing the quarterly period by any officer, direc-
tor, or employee of the lobbyist or by a
legislative agent on behalf of the lobbyist,
which exceeds $10 in value and which the of-
ficer, director, employee, or legislative agent
has taken or will take, in whole or in part,
as a deduction under section 162 or 212 of the
Internal Revenue Code;
where the aggregate value of all the gifts,
loans, or honorariums described in para-
graphs (1), (2), and (8) made by the lob-
byist, or by the officers, directors, employees,
or legislative agents of the lobbyist, to any
Individual Member, officer, or employee of
Congress or the executive branch exceeds $50
in amount or value.
(c) The requirements of this section shall
also apply to any gift or loan of any goods,
services, or any other thing of value, includ-
ing food, lodging, transportation, or enter-
tainment, made during the quarterly period
by an officer, director or employee of the lob-
byist, or by a legislative agent on behalf of
the lobbyist, which exceeds $100 in value.
(d) The requirements of this section shall
also apply to any reception, dinner, or other
similar event paid for, in whole or-in part,
by the lobbyist for Members, officers, or em-
ployees of Congress, where the total cost of
the event exceeds $500.
(e) This section shall not apply to any loan
made on terms and conditions that are no
more favorable than available generally, or
to any gift or loan to any individual who
Is an immediate member of the family of
the donor or lender, or to any contribution
to a candidate as defined in section 431(e)
of title 2, United States Code.
PROCEDURES FOR PREPARING REGISTRATIONS
AND REPORTS
SEC. 8. (a) The Comptroller General shall
withhold from public disclosure, upon peti-
tion by any person any information other-
wise required to be disclosed to the public
pursuant to this Act, upon a showing that
disclosure of the information may reasonably
be expected to lead to the harassment of any
person, or lead to threats or reprisals against
any person.
(b) If the expenses or income which a
lobbyist must report under fepption 6 or sec-
tion 7 are included in an item partly attrib-
utable to other purposes, such expenses or
Income may be reported, in conformity with
regulations issued by the Comptroller Gen-
eral, by a good faith allocation which sets
forth with reasonable accuracy that portion
of the item expended or received for the
lobbying activity concerned, and the basis on
which the allocation is made.
(c) Wherever a lobbyist is required under
section 6 to describe an issue before Congress
or the executive branch the description shall
Include. where applicable, the bill or other
identifying number, and, in the case of any
Issue involving communications with the
executive branch, the agency with which the
lobbyist communicated, and shall be made in
such detail as shall disclose the general sub-
ject matter which is of interest to the lobby-
ist and the general position of the lobbyist
on such matter.
(d) Each registration filed pursuant to sec-
tion 4 and each report filed pursuant to sec-
tion 6 shall be signed by an officer or direc-
tor of the organization who shall certify that
the information certified there'll is accurate
and complete to the best of his knowledge
and belief.
(e) Each person whom a lobbyist retains as
a legislative agent, and each officer, director
and employee of a lobbyist, shall furnish to
the lobbyist such information as is necessary
to enable the lobbyist to comply with the
provisions of sections 4, 5, 6, and 7.
DUTIES OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
Src. 9. It shall be the duty of the Comp-
troller General?
(1) to develop a filing, coding, and cross-
indexing system to carry out the purposes
of this Act, which shall contain an index
of all persons identified in reports or registra-
tions filed under this Act, including each
legislative agent and each lobbyist that re-
tained such legislative agent; and, in co-
operation with the Federal Election Com-
mission, to develop a cross-indexing system
of persons identified in registrations and
reports filed by lobbyists under this Act with
persons identified in information filed under
section 434 of title 2, United States Code;
(2) except in the case of any information
any person has requested be withheld from
public disclosure pursuant to section 8(a),
to make copies of registrations and reports
filed with him under this Act available for
public inspection and copying, commencing
as soon as practicable, but not later than
the end of the second day following the day
of receipt, and to permit copying of any such
registration or report by hand or by copying
machine or, at the request of any person, to
furnish a copy of any such registration or
report upon payment of a fee which shall
be limited to reasonable standard charges
for the direct cost of a document search and
duplication. Documents shall be furnished
without charge or at a reduced charge where
the Comptroller General determines that
S 9367
waiver or reduction of the fee is in the public
interest;
(3) to preserve the originals of the regis-
trations and reports for a period of not less
than five years from the day of receipt;
(4) to compile and summarize, with re-
spect to each quarterly period, the informa-
tion contained in the registrations and re-
ports in a manner which facilitates the dis-
closure of lobbying activities. To the extent
the Comptroller General determines that it
Is meaningful and practicable to do so, the
compilation and summary shall include in-
formation on?
(A) all lobbying activities pertaining to a
particular issue; and
(B) the total lobbying activities of lob-
byists who share an economic, business, or
Other common interest;
(5) to make the information compiled and
summarized under paragraph (4) available
to the public within sixty days after the close
of each quarterly period, and to publish such
information in the Federal Register at the
earliest practicable opportunity;
(6) to employ his powers under this Act
to ensure compliance with the Act; -
(7) to conduct investigations in compli-
ance with the provisions of chapter 5 of title
'5, United.States Code, with respect to any
violations of this Act; ?
(8) not later than ninety days after the
enactment of this Act and at any time there-
after, to propose such rules, regulations, and
forms, in compliance with the provisions of
chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, as
the Comptroller General determines are nec-
essary to carry out the provisions of this Act
in the most effective and efficient manner
possible, and to prevent the evasion of the
requirements of this Act; and
(9) To furnish assistance, to the extent
practicable, to any person who requests as-
sistance in the development of appropriate
accounting proCedures and practices to meet
the recordkeeping and reporting require-
ments of this Act.
ADVISORY oPtNioNS
SEC. 10. (a) Upon written request to the
Comptroller General by any person, the
Comptroller General, after consultation with
the Attorney General, shall render an advis-
ory opinion, in writing, within a reasonable
time with respect to the applicability of the
recordkeeping, registration, or reporting re-
quirements of this Act to any specific set of -
facts involving such person.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, any person with respect to whoin an
advisory opinion is rendered under subsec-
tion (a) who acts in good faith in accordance
with the provisions and findings of such ad-
visory opinion shall be presumed to be in
compliance with the provisions of this Act to
which such advisory opinion relates. Any
such advisory opinion may be modified or
revoked, but any modification or revocation
shall be effective only with respect to action
taken or things done after such person has
been notified, in writing, of. such Modifica-
tion or revocation.
(c) Any request made under subsection
(a) , and any advisory opinion rendered by
the Comptroller General, shall be made pub-
lic by the Comptroller General in such form
as the Comptroller General deems appropri-
ate, except that upon request of any person
seeking the advisory opinion, the identity of
_such person shall not be disclosed in any in-
formation made public by the Comptroller
General pursuant to this subsection. Unless
the Comptroller General determines that
such request must be answered immediately,
he shall, before rendering an advisory opin-
ion, provide any interested person with an
opportunity to submit written comments to
the Comptroller General within such period
of time as he shall provide.
(d) Any person Who receives an advisory
opinion under this section adverse to his in-
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
S 9368 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE June 15, 1976
terests may file a declaratory judgment action
in the United States district court where that
person resides or maintains his principal
place of business.
ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 11. (a) The Comptroller General shall
Investigate violations ,of this Act. Any such
investigation shall be conducted expedi-
tiously, and in compliance with subsection 9
lit of this Act.
(b) If, as a result of an investigation under
subsection (a), the Comptroller General de-
:ermines that the acts or practices of any
person constitute a civil violation of this
Art, he shalt endeavor to correct the matter
by informal methods of conference and con-
ciliation and, if such methods are unsuccess-
ful, he shall refer the matter to the Attorney
General.
( c) The Comptroller shall refer apparent
criminal violations of this Act to the At-
torney General.
(d) The Attorney General, on behalf of the
-United States, may institute a criminal ac-
Lion in the district court of the United States
for the district where any violation of this
,act occurs, or a civil action in the district
court of the United States for the district in
which the person violating this Act is found,
resides, or transacts business. In the case of
any civil action, relief may include a per-
manent or temporary injunction, restraining
order, or any other appropriate order.
(e). In any case in which the Comptroller
General reiers a civil or criminal violation
to the Attorney General, the Attorney Gen-
eon shall act upon such referral in as expedi-
tious manner as possible, and shall respond
by report to the Comptroller General with re-
spect to any action taken by the Attorney
General regarding such violation. A report
shall be transmitted no later than sixty days
after the date the Comptroller General re-
fers such violation, and at the close of every
ninety-day period thereafter, until there is
final disposition of the case. The Comptroller
General may from time to time prepare and
publish report on the status of such referrals.
INCIDENTAL POWERS OF THE COMPTROLLER
1.sNERAL
SEC. 12, ra) Where necessary for the proper
execution of his duties and functions under
this Act, the Comptroller General shall have
he power, pursuant to rules issued by the
Comptroller General?
(1) to require by subpena any person (a)
to permit representatives of the Comp-
troller General to examine records required
to be maintained by this Act; (b) to require
the attendance and testimony of witnesses;
and (c) to require the production of docu-
mentary evidence relating to the execution
of his duties and functions;
(2) to administer oaths or affirmations;
(3) to obtain through written interroga-
tories the answers to questions, which an-
swers shall be made within such a reasonable
period of time and under oath or otherwise
as the Comptrqjler General may order;
(4) in any proceeding or investigation, to
order testimony to be taken by deposition
before any person who is designated by the
Comptroller General and has the power to
administer oaths and. in such instances, to
compel testimony and the production of
evidence in the same manner as authorized
under paragraph (1);
(5) to pay witnesses the same fees and
mileage as are paid in like circumstances in
the courts of the United States.
(b) In cases of refusal to obey a sniepena
or order issued by the Comptroller General
under subsection (a), any United States dis-
trict court within the jurisdiction of which
any inquiry is carried on may, on a peti-
tion on behalf of the Comptroller General,
issue an order requiring compliance there-
with.
(c) Wheneaer the Comptroller General re-
quests the Attorney General to bring a
civil action ender subsection 11(d) or sub-
section 12 (la , and the Attorney General
fails to bring such an action within sixty or
ten days, respectively, of the date that the
Comptroller General formally notifies the
Attorney General of his intention to bring
suit through his own attorneys, the Comp-
troller Generel may thereafter bring such
suit in his own name through his own
attorneys.
SANCTIONS
SEC. 1)3. (so Any person who fails to com-
ply with section 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 of this Act
shall be sub;ect to a civil penalty of not
more than $10,000.
(b) No information contained in any
registration ar report filed under this Act
shall be sold or utilized by any person for
the purpose of soliciting contributions or
for any commercial purpose. Any person who
fails to comely with this subsection shall be
subject to a civil penalty of not more than
$10,000.
(c) In any action brought under this sec-
tion, the United States district courts are
empowered to grant mandatory injunctions
and such other and further equitable relief
as they deem appropriate to require the de-
fendant to comply fully and retroactively
with subsection (b) of this section and with
the registration, reporting, and recordkeep-
ing requirements of this Act and any order
issued under it. In determining the amount
of civil penalty in any action under this Act,
the court shall take Into account the degree
of culpability, any history of prior failure
to comply 'meth section 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or sub-
section (b) of this section, and such other
matters as justice may require.
(d) Any person required to, file a registra-
tion under section 4, keep any record under
section 5, file any report under sections 6, 7,
or 8, or furnish any information under sec-
tion 8(e), who knowingly and willfully?
(1) fails to file such registration, keep
such record, file such report, or furnish such
information or
(2) in connection with any such registra-
tion, record or report, or with the furnish-
ing of any mch information, falsifies, con-
ceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or
device a material fact, or makes any false,
fictitious, or fraudulent statements or rep-
resentation., or makes or uses any false writ-
ing or document knowing the same to con-
tain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or entry.
shall be fined not more than e10,000 or im-
prisoned not- more than five years, or both.
REPORTS ;1Y THIS COMPTROLLER GENERAL
SEC. 11, The Comptroller General shall
transmit a report to the President of the
United States and to each House of the Con-
gress no loner than March 31 of each year.
Each such report shall contain a detailed
statement with respect to the activities of
the Comptroller General in carrying out his
duties and functions under this Act, to-
gether with recommendations for such legis-
lation or ether action as the Comptroller
General considers appropriate.
GENERAL DEFINITIONS
SEC. 15. As used in this Act, the term--
(1) "affiliates" includes organizations or
other groups of person which are associated
with each other through any type of formal
relationship, such as through ownership, the
election of officers or directors, through fran-
chise agreements, through common fund-
ing, or through common adherence to a
charter or organizational bylaws, whether
or not one such person controls the policies
or actions ef the other. The term shall not
include an informal or ad hoc alliance or
coalition. For purposes of this Act, a com-
munication Or solicitation addressed to any
inc :Indust in his capacity as an officer, di-
recnor, or employee of an affiliate shall be
con ildered a communication or solicitation
a& tressed to the affiliate;
12) "Comptroller General" means the
Co eptroller General of the United States;
3) "Congress" means (a) any Member,
off eer, or employee of Congress; (b) the Sen-
ate or the House of Representatives; (c)
an committee of the Senate or House of
Representatives, including any standing,
Bp :eat, or select committee of the Senate
or the House of Representatives, any pine
cohmittee of the Congress. any subcommit-
tee of any such committee or joint commit-
ter and any conference committee of the
Cougress; (d) any office of the Senate or the
use of Representatives; (e) any office of
th Congress; and (f) the Office of Technol-
og Assessment, including tine Technology
As .essment Board;
4) "director" means, with respect to an
or anization other than a partnership, an
in lividual who is a member of a body con-
ta, ning fewer members than the organize-
th ri itself which constitutes the governing
locerd of such organization, and, with re-
spact to a partnership, an individual who is
a Partner;
5) `kiirect expenses" means expenses such
RE the cost of mailing, printing, advertising,
te.ephones, consultant fees, or the like in-
el ided in an item which is attributable to
a lobbying electivity, and which is not attrib-
In able, to any substantial extent, to any
at levity other than lobbying. The term also
m-ans expenses included in an item partly
attributable to activities other than lobby-
inn where such item may, with reasonable
preciseness and ease, be directly allocated in
pert to lobbying, except that this sentence
sisal not apply to a regular publication of
a voluntary membership organization pub-
Hr lied in substantial part for purposes un-
re fated to lobbying;
(6) "employee" includes an individual
pi rforming personal services as an expert or
ee :tsu;ltant under contract with the Govern-
tr,nt
17) "executive branch" includes any agency
at defined in section 652(e) of title 5, United
Sates Code, and any officer or employee of
Si ch agency, except such term shall not
II elude the General Accounting Office;
(8) "expenses" includes?
(A) a payment, distribution, loan, advance,
d posit, or gift of money or anything of value
n ade, disbursed, or furnished, and
(B) a promise, contract, or agreement,
Whether or not legally enforceable, to make,
dnburse, or furnish any item referred to in
S' ,bparagraph (A);
(9) "Identification" includes, in the ease of
as individual, the name of the individual
aid his occupation, business address, and
position held in the lobbying organization;
and, in the case of an organization, the name
or the organization and its address, principal
place of business, nature of its business or
activities, chief executive officer, and direc-
t:Ts;
(10) "income" includes?
(A) a gift, donation, contribution, pay-
ment, loan, advance, service, salary, or other
teing of value received, and
(B) a contract, promise, or agreement,
N 'tether or not legally enforceable, to receive
any item referred to in subparagraph (A);
(11) "influence" means to affect, or at-
tempt to affect, the disposition of any issue,
whether by initiating, promoting, opposing.
effectuating, delaying, altering, emending,
withdrawing from consideration, or other-
wise;
(12) "issue before the Congress" means
tlie totality of all matters, both substantive
and procedural, relating to any pending or
proposed bill, resolution, report, nomination,
treaty, hearing, investigation, HY Other elm-
. liar matter in Congress, including any action
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
June 15, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
or proposed action by a Member, officer, or
employee of the Congress to influence, or
attempt to influence, any action or proposed
action by any officer or employee of the exec-
utive branch;
(13) '"legislative agent" means any person
who receives income from a lobbyist to en-
gage in lobbying for the lobbyist, other than
income received as an officer, director, or
employee of the lobbyist. Any reference to
such term shall include the officers, directors,
or employees of a legislative agent. The term
shall not include any person who only pre-
pares material for the use of another person
who in turn engages in lobbying in his own
name;
(14) "lobbying" means engaging in lobby-
ing communications, or lobbying solicita-
tions, or both;
(15) "Member, officer, or employee of the
Congress" means a Member of the Senate or
the House of Representatives, a Delegate to
the House of Representatives, the Resident
Commissioner from Puerto Rico, and an offi-
cer or employee of the Senate or the House of
Representatives or of any Member, commit-
tee, or office of the Congress;
(16) "organization" includes a corpora-
tion, company, foundation, association, labor
organization, firm, partnership, society, joint
stock company, group of organizations, or
group of individuals, except that it shall not
Include any organization which does not have
one or more paid officers, paid directors, or
paid employees;
(17) "paid officers, paid director, or paid
employee" means an officer, director, or em-
ployee who receives income for his services,
other than personal travel expenses, at a rate
in excess of $100 a week. An officer, director,
or employee who is not employed on a full-
time basis is included within this definition
if the effective hourly rate at which such
individual is compensated exceeds the effec-
tive hourly rate of a full-time employee who
receives income at a rate in excess of $100
a week;
(18) "person" includes an individual and
an organization, whether or not it 'has paid
officers, paid directors, or paid employees;
(19) "personal travel expenses" means ex-
penses for travel but only if (a) the amount
paid or received as reimbursement for such
expenses does not exceed the actual cost of
the transportation involved plus a per diem
allowance for other actual expenses in an
amount not in excess of the maximum ap-
plicable allowance payable under section
5702(c) (1) of title 5, United States Code,
for Government employees, and (h) such al-
lowance is received for no more than ten
days in any quarterly period;
(20) "voluntary membership organization"
means an organization composed of persons
who are members thereof on a voluntary
basis, and who, as a condition of member-
ship,, pay regular dues, subscribe to one or
more publications, or make contributions
to such organization.
REPEAL OP FEDERAL REGULATION OF LOBBYING
ACT
SEC. 16. (a) The Federal Regulation of
Lobbying Act (60 Stat. 839; 2 U.S.C. 261 et
seq.) is repealed.
(b) All documents, papers, and other in-
formation in the custody or control of the
Clerk of the House of Representatives or the
Secretary of the Senate obtained or prepared
pursuant to the provisions of the Federal
Regulation of Lobbying Act are hereby trans-
ferred to the custody and control of the
Comptroller General. The Senate and the
House of Representatives consent to the
transfer of such documents, papers, or other
information.
EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS
SEC. 17. (a) An organization shall not be
denied an exemption under section 501(a)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as an
organization described in section 501(c) of
such Code, and shall not be denied status as
an organization described in sections 170(c)
(2), 2055(a) (2), 2106(a) (2), and 2522 of such
Code, solely because such ergan4ation com-
plies with the requirements of sections 4, 5,
6, 7, and 8 of this Act.
(b) The registration, reporting, and record-
keeping requirements of the Act shall not
relieve any person from the registration, re-
porting, recordkeeping, or similar obligations
of any other Act.
SEPARABILITY
SEC. 18. If any provision of this Act, or the
application thereof to any person or circum-
stance, is held invalid, the validity of the
remainder of the Act and the application of
such provision to other persons and circum-
stances shall not be affected thereby.
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
SEC. 19. There are authorized to be appro-
priated such sums as may be necessary to
carry out this Act.
EFFECTIVE DATES
SEC. 20. (a) Except as provided in subsec-
tion (b), the provisions of this Act shall take
effect on the first day of the first calendar
quarter which begins more than one hun-
dred and eighty days after enactment of this
Act.
(b) The provisions of this Act requiring
the issuance of regulations to implement this
Act shall become effective upon enactment.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, I move
to reconsider the vote by which the bill
was passed.
Mr. PERCY. I move to lay that motion
on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
The title was amended so as to read:
A bill to provide more effective disclosure
to Congress and the public of certain lobby-
ing activities to influence issues before the
Congress, and for other purposes.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Secretary of
the Senate be authorized to make cleri-
cal corrections in the engrossment of
S. 2477.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, I would
like to take this opportunity to commend
greatly Senator METCALF on his substan-
tial and valuable contributions to this
bill. His dedication to passage of a sound
lobbying disclosure bill and to the con-
stitutional rights of Americans has been
apparent throughout consideration of
this measure. His desire to make this the
best possible piece of legislation deserves
high praise by the Senate and by the
American public. Thanks to his continu-
ing efforts, the Senate has passed new
lobbying disclosure legislation of which
it can be proud.
I would also like to thank a number of
other Senators who have contributed
significantly to this legislation. These
Include the Senator from Illinois (Mr.
PERCY) and the Senator from New York
(Mr. JAviTs), both of whom, as always,
worked diligently, as minority members
of the committee, in a highly bipartisan
manner to achieve passage of this legis-
lation.
It also includes Senator MUSKIE who
made a very important contribution to
the bill by introducing his compromise
amendment this morning with Senator
JAVITS. Thanks also to Senators CLARK,
S 9369
KENNEDY, and STAFFORD for their con-
tribution.
Thanks to the contribution of these
Senators, the Congress can pass, for the
first time in 30 years, comprehensive
lobbying reform legislation.
Mr. President, praise must also go to
the staff who worked so diligently on
this bill. Dick Wegman, Paul Hoff, Mari-
lyn Haniss, Paul Rosenthal, Connie
Evans, John Childers, Brian Conboy,
Jim Davidson, Vic Mareki, and Carey
Parker all made very valuable contribu-
tions. My thanks, too, to Andy Loewi,
Tom Sussman, Claudia Ingram, Lyle
Ryter, Don Tacheron, and Wyn Turner
for their excellent work.
MARITIME APPROPRIATION AU-
THORIZATION ACT OF FISCAL
YEAR 1977
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to consider Calendar No.
791.
The PRESIDING OteriCER. The clerk
will state the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 11481) to authorize appro-
priations for the fiscal year 1977 for certain
maritime programs of the Department of
Commerce and for other purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider the
bill which had been reported from the
Committee on Commerce with amend-
ments as follows:
On page 1, beginning in line 3, insert:
That this Act may be cited as the "Mari-
time Appropriation Authorization Act of
Fiscal Year 1977".
On page 1, in line 5, delete "That" and
insert In lieu thereof "Sec. 2.".
On page 1, in line 5, delete "hereby".
On page 1, in line 9, delete "(a)" and in-
sert in lieu thereof "(1) For".
On page 2, in line 1, after the word "sub-
sidy," insert "not to exceed".
On page 2, in line 3, strike out "(b)" and
insert in lieu thereof "(2) For".
On page 2, in line 4, strike out "$19,500,-
000" 'and insert in lieu thereof "not to ex-
ceed $22,500,000".
On page 2, in line 6, strike out "(c)"
and insert in lieu thereof "(3) For".
On page 2, in line 6, after the word "ex-
penses," insert "not to exceed".
On page 2, in line 8, strike out "(d)" and
Insert in lieu thereof "(4) For".
On page 2, in line 9, after the words "New
York," insert "not to exceed".
On page 2, in line 11, strike out "(c)" and
insert in lieu thereof "(5) For".
On page 2, in line 12, after the word
"schools," insert "not to exceed".
On page 2, beginning at line 13, strike
out:
SEC. 2. In addition to the amounts au-
thorized by section 1 of this Act, there are
authorized to be appropriated for the fise-al
year 1977 such additional supplemental
amounts for the activities for which appro-
priations are authorized under section 1 of
this Act as may be necessary for increases
in salary, pay, retirement, or other em-
ployee benefits authorized by law, and for
increased costs for public utilities, food serv-
ice, and other expenses of the Merchant
Marine Academy at Kings Point, New York.
And insert in lieu thereof:
SEC. 3. There are authorized to be ap-
propriated for the fiscal year 1977, In addi-
tion to the amounts authorized by section 2 ;
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
Approved For Release 2001/08/30: CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2
S 9370 CONGRESSEONAL RECORD?SENA rE June 15, 1976
of this Act, such additional supplemental
amounts, for the activities for which ap-
propriations are authorized under section
2 of this Act, as may be necessary for in-
creases in salary, pay, retirement, or other
employee benefits authorized by law, and
for increased costs for public utilities, food
service, and other expenses of the Merchant
Marine Academy at Kings Point, New York.
Mr. CHURCH addressed the Chair.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, may we
have order, please.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the
Senators take their seats. Will the Sen-
ate be in order.
RELATIONS WITH ITALY
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, Senator
PASTORE'S floor statement on June 11,
1976, rightly emphasizes the impor-
tance of democratic government in Italy
to the Italians, to NATO, and to the
United States. His concern, shared by
Congressman PETER RODINO, that un-
founded charges against the President
of Italy might tip the vote in favor of
the Communist Party in the upcom-
ing election, should be treated very seri-
ously by all of us who wish to see free
government survive in that country.
Senator PASTORE cited allegations and
speculation in the foreign press that
President Leone was the recipient, or
proposed recipient, of funds from the
Lockheed Corp. for the purpose of assist-
ing that corporation to sell its aircraft
In Italy.
Now, Senator PERCY, who is the rank-
ing Republican member--
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, may we
please have order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
Foxe). The Senator is correct. Will the
staff please leave the Chamber if they
are not here at the request of a Senator.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, the dis-
tinguished Senator from Illinois (Mr.
PERCY) , who is the ranking member of
the Senate Foreign Relations Subcom-
mittee on Multinational Corporations,
and I, as the chairman of the subcom-
mittee, conferred with members of our
staff following Senator PASTORE'S state-
ment on the floor last week.
We did so, in order to determine the
state of the evidence before the subcom-
mittee so that speculation respecting any
possible role that might have been played
by the President of Italy could be either
confirmed or laid to rest.
A letter addressed to Senator PAsroas,
signed jointly by the two of us, has just
been written for inclusion in the RECORD.
The letter summarizes the finding that
there is no evidence whatsoever before
the subcommittee to indicate that Presi-
dent Leone, directly or indirectly, re-
ceived or was intended to receive, any
funds from the Lockheed Corp.
Mr. President, I am happy to make
this statement. I think that it needed to
be made. I compliment the distinguished
senior Senator from Rhode Island for
calling the matter to our attention.
I ask unanimous consent that the text
of the letter may be printed in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
JUNE 15, 1976.
Hon. JOHN 0. PASTORE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: In your Senate floor state-
ment of June 11. 1976, you rightly empha-
sized the importance of democratic: govern-
ment in Italy to the Italians, NATO and
this country. We are completely in agreement
with this statement.
You have also brought to our attention
allegations and speculation in the foreign
press that President Leone was the recipient
or proposed recipient of funds from the Lock-
heed Corporation for the purpose of assist-
ing that corporation to sell its aircraft in
Italy.
As the Chairman and Ranking Minority
Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Sub-
committee on Multinational Corporations
which investigated the Lockheed matter in
Italy and elsewhere, we wish to state that the
Subcommittee has no evidence whatsoever
indicating that President Leone, directly or
indirectly, received or was intended to re-
ceive any funds from the Lockheed Corpora-
tion.
Sincerely,
PRANK CHURCH.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Multina-
nal tonal Corporations.
CHARLES H. PERCY,
Ranking Member.
Mr. CHURCH. I yield to Senator
PERCY for such remarks as he would like
to make
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I thank
my distinguished colleague. We have
worked together on the multinational
subcommittee in a totally impartial, non-
partisan manner.
The Senator from Illinois was not on
the floor of the Senate at the time when,
on June 11, Senator PASTORE of Rhode
Island made his comments.
The Senator from Illinois was notified
a few minutes after those comments were
made, sent for a transcript of the com-
ments and read with shock and dismay
that some party, some place, had inferred
that the Subcommittee on Multinational
Corporations had testimony or evidence
that might possibly have involved Presi-
dent Leone.
The Senator from Illinois conferred
with staff members, including the chief
of staff, Dr. Levinson. The Senator from
Illinois went over his own recollection
and his own notes of all the testimony
that had been presented and all the
evidence the Senator from Illinois had
seen.
The Senator from Illinois simply
wishes to pant out, without any equiv-
ocation whatsoever, that the subcom-
mittee has no evidence whatsoever indi-
cating that President Leone was impli-
cated directly or indirectly in connection
with funds from Lockheed Corp.
Furthermore, the Senator from Illi-
nois would like to say this to the Sena-
tor from Rhode Island.
Early in my business experience I was
asked by the Department of State in
1952 to take a Mutual Security Agency
mission to Italy. The Senator from Illi-
nois deferred when he learned all the
cost would be paid by the U.S. Govern-
ment. Knowing the Italian people, I did
not feel that we, going as experts, paid
for by the U.S. Government, imposing
themselves upon them, would be as well
received as if we went over at the invita-
tion of the Italian Government and the
Italian labor and business community.
So the State Department inquired as
to whether the delegation to be headed
by the then president of Bell & Howell
Co. would be received and expenses paid
by such Italian institutions as Compen-
dustria, IRI by banking and labor people,
and an immediate positive response came
back.
I spent 6 weeks at that time?one of
many trips to Italy, but this was the
most intensive?meeting with manage-
ment and labor, and at that time every
conceivable destructive element was
being brought to bear by Communist
forces in Italy to wreck the Italian
economy, to create disharmony and dis-
sension.
I saw first-hand the results of the
tactics used by the Communists in Italy
to break up that country and immobilize
it from the economic recovery program
It had underway.
The Senator from Illinois recognizes
some of these same tactics now and was
not really surprised when it was in-
ferred that the Lockheed situation was
taken so that inferences could be drawn
from it.
But clearly, we can state this un-
equivocally and on the record, there is
no evidence whatsoever, and anyone
who uses that really uses a tactic to de-
ceive intelligent and enlightened people
who, by their own insight, will know
what is best for Italy and, certainly,
that I hope will recognize that continu-
ation in power of those who are dedi-
cated to the democratic process is the
only way Italy can continue in freedom
with the economic program that hat
been so strongly evidenced in recent
decades.
I thank our distinguished colleague for
bringing this inference to our attention.
Mr. PASTORE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Idaho has the floor.
Mr. CHURCH. I yield to the Senator
from Rhode Island.
The PRESIDING OvraCER. The Sen-
ator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PASTORE. May we have order?
Mr. President, first of all, I thank and
congratulate the Senator from Idaho
and the Senator from Illinois for their
deep understanding of what the problem
really is.
I repeat what I said early in the
month, that my primary concern in this
matter, Mr. President, is as an Amer-
ican?as an American who has a very
sentimental respect for the land and ac-
tivity of his own parents, and that is un-
derstandable as well.
We have on June 20, which is only
next Sunday, a 2-day period of elections
in Italy.
The outcome of that election could
very well spell out the problems and the
tribulations in the future of the free
world.
As I said before, Italy is a linchpin in
the Mediterranean. We are having our
troubles on the eastern side of the Medi-
terranean, particularly in the Middle
East. We have our own 6th Fleet that
is based in the Mediterranean on the
western side with headquarters in
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150045-2