Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, last week I introduced legislation on this floor to deal with the very topic that the Senator from Wyoming came to the floor earlier this afternoon to introduce, an amendment to the lobby reform bill that is now pending before the Senate. The issue is the Federal Advocacy Reform Act of 1995, and to be able to deal with it in the amendment form tied to this is most appropriate. For a few moments this afternoon I would like to talk briefly about the scope of this amendment and why I think it is so important for us to consider in the context of Federal lobbying. People are correctly focused on lobbyists and gifts to legislators as the Senate convenes today to debate these important topics. But I think we also need to worry about Government's gifts to lobbyists. Some of my colleagues would say, ``Senator, what are you talking about?'' But the Senator from Wyoming, Al Simpson, this afternoon very clearly laid out the growing phenomenon in this country of more and more Federal tax dollars going in the form of contracts and grants, and in some instances outright gifts, to advocacy groups which then allows them to use the tax base, the tax dollars of this country, to argue their maybe very narrow point of view. The question is, is this in the best interests of our country? Should we allow these kinds of things to go on? It is not a new question that we ask. Mr. President, 75 years ago Senators stood on this floor and clearly argued that Federal tax dollars should not be used for the purpose of advocacy for a narrow or single purpose. But Federal tax dollars should at least be spread for the common good and they should be cautiously used, but in all cases the common good or the broad base of the American public's interests ought to be at mind. Over the last good number of years, we have watched grow to a point now where over $70 billion annually in the form of grants go out to a broad cross-section of interests across this country, and in many instances, then, we find those tax dollars right back here on the doorstep of the U.S. Capitol, being advocacy dollars for sometimes a very narrow, specific point of view. I think it is now time for this Senate, as we debate the broader question of lobbying, to argue, is that the right thing to do? With nearly a $5 trillion debt, a $200 billion deficit, and the very real concern that this year for the first time this Congress is going to establish increasingly narrow and tighter public priorities as to where our dollars get spent, is it not time we do the same in this area and with these categories? Our associates and friends in the House are approaching it from a different point of view. Amendments will be offered before the appropriations process over there that will deal with more than the 501(c)(4) category inside the Internal Revenue Code that the Senator from Wyoming and I are discussing this afternoon. They will talk about the ``not for profits'' and ``for profits,'' the 501(c)(3)'s and all of those that fall under the broad category of section 501 of the IRS Code. But, today, our amendment is very clear and it is narrow. It says that, for those not-for-profit advocacy groups, who choose to be, for their purpose, advocating a point of view, that they should be disallowed from receiving Federal dollars. It is very straightforward and very simple in its approach. When I introduced S. 1056 last week, Senator Simpson worked with me in the cosponsorship of that, along with my colleague from Idaho, Dirk Kempthorne, and Senator Coverdell, Senator Gregg, Senator Nickles, Senator Lott, Senator Kyl, Senator Grams, and Senator Faircloth, and it was only but for a few moments on Friday that I worked that issue. Obviously it is one of great concern and I think very popular, and it ought to be debated here on the floor and tied to this important legislation we are dealing with this afternoon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a position paper developed by the Heritage Foundation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. This paper spells out a broad cross-section of groups in this country that receive as much as $2 and $3 million a year in tax dollars, under grants, directly to them, to fund a variety of activities. Many of those interests engage in direct lobbying here, in paid advertising, in every method possible under their right of free speech to cause the Congress of the United States to vote in a certain way. It is time, I believe, that we make it very clear to those groups that they have every right to exist and that their right to free speech is not infringed upon. But let me suggest that the right of free speech is not tied directly to the right to receive a Federal grant so you can have free speech. While some may argue that they have the right to do certain things--and I would not dispute that--we, as legislators, without question have the right to determine where the tax dollar goes. That is what I am asking that the Senate decide this afternoon and I think that is what the Senator from Wyoming is asking in the amendment he has offered, in a very narrow section of the IRS Code, that we say that the not-for-profit advocacy groups not be allowed to receive money in the Federal form of grant or contract or loan that in any way they can use for the purpose of advocacy or for the purpose of lobbying. I hope my colleagues will join with the Senator from Wyoming and myself and others in the support of this amendment as we incorporate it in this important legislation, as we work to clarify the whole concern about lobbying in our country, so that the American taxpayer clearly understands our relationship with special interests and the right of all special interests to come to the Congress of the United States to argue their point of view. I strongly support that. But I do believe it is important that in every way we make it clear and simple to understand how we are approached through the public process. Mr. President, let me close with this quote from Thomas Jefferson. To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. Even then Thomas Jefferson was recognizing that no person's dollar should be used to argue a point of view that he or she disagreed with. Mr. President, in closing, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Simpson-Craig amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. It is, and I would so do.

Mr. CRAIG. A not-for-profit advocacy group.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG. All money is fungible, and if there is not a clear, tight bookkeeping system, as there is in a 501(c)(3), which the IRS says very clearly how much of its assets or what percentage of it it can spend in lobbying up to a universal cap of $1 million, then we went over and created a 501(c)(4) which said you can be tax-exempt and you can have unlimited advocacy. What we have seen over the years is not only do they have unlimited advocacy, and, yes, there is a rather open bookkeeping system and, yes, there is a prohibition against using Federal dollars, tax dollars for the purpose of lobbying, all of the money moves inside the organization and it is extremely fungible. We are saying, if you want to retain your 501(c)(4) for lobbying, you can and you should and you are tax-exempt. But if you want to do the grant business, go create something else for that purpose so there is a clear line so the taxpayers of this country can know and know very well that there is not the fungibility that is going on here, not in the hundreds of thousands of those organizations but in a substantial number that have taken advantage of a tax-exempt status. I do not think the Senator and I, in granting that tax-exempt status, want to allow them to take advantage. Now, we do not want to deny them the opportunity to serve their public and their membership, and they can do that by shifting their status for certain purposes.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator from Michigan for making that clarifying point. Recognizing that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG. If the Senator from Michigan will yield, I changed and added the word ``activities'' to ``lobbying.'' I think the Senator has made an important point, and I wish the full amendment, as modified, to be read into the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the President. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. I send the modification to the desk and ask that it be so modified.

Mr. CRAIG. That would be correct.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAIG. As the maker of the second-degree, let me send a correction of that amendment to the desk. It is a clerical correction.

Mr. CRAIG. I want to take this brief moment to thank the Senator from Wyoming for his leadership in this area. As I mentioned in my comments, this is an issue we have debated now for over 75 years in one form or another, on one occasion or another, and the fundamental concern of Senators long before us was that Federal tax dollars should never be used for the purpose of lobbying; that we should never restrict the right of the citizen, or the group, or the organization to be an advocate before their Government, but that the Government should not be promoting, by the use of those dollars, their right, or their role, or their activity as an advocacy group, that they could under another category receive Federal dollars and perform services so defined by the grant of, or the use of, the Federal dollar or contract. But they could not use those or turn those dollars for the purpose of advocating what might be a very narrow position and not a majority position or a mainstream position of the American people. The Senator from Wyoming has, in the last good many months, been a strong and outspoken leader on this issue; I think rightfully so. I think the fact he has brought before the American public that literally billions of dollars are now being used for these purposes--and they should not be-- has been well taken. I am pleased that he came forth with the amendment. It helps us clarify the use of these dollars, and I think the American taxpayer will applaud his effort. I thank him for it.

Mr. CRAIG. That is correct.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Simpson amendment be in order for the purpose of a second-degree amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I so send that second-degree amendment to the desk.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I regret that I must come to the floor today to introduce this legislation. But some extreme preservation groups apparently know no bounds in their zealotry to stop timber harvest on national forests. They leave me no choice but to put a stop to their insane acts. A preservation group in Idaho has just announced that they have spiked trees scheduled to be cut in an active timber sale. This is the last, desperate act of radicals who did not get their way with the Forest Service or in court. To gain their objectives, they are willing to jeopardize the lives of men and women working in the woods and in the sawmill. The possibility of a head rig exploding as it hits a spike bothers them not at all. There should be no controversy over this timber sale. The U.S. Congress specifically guaranteed that this particular Cove-Mallard area of the Nez Perce National Forest was to be used for multiple-use purposes. On that basis, the Forest Service completed their forest plan and the appropriate NEPA documents for timber harvest. The radicals did not like that, so they appealed the NEPA decision. Their appeal was denied. The radicals did not like being denied so they filed suit claiming violations of NEPA and the National Forest Management Act. The court disagreed. It found that the Forest Service had properly applied all the environmental laws in awarding the timber sale contracts in Cove- Mallard. So, logging began in Cove-Mallard. Most of all, the radicals do not like logging, so they have taken this last, desperate act to force their wishes on all the rest of us. They have spiked trees in the Cove-Mallard timber sale. And they brag about it. They brag that they have used ceramic spikes which cannot be found by metal detectors. They brag they have spiked the trees far up the stem of the tree so as to hide them and assure they cannot be disposed of easily when found. This tree-spiking incident just proves that some preservation groups will not take no for an answer--even when that ``no'' comes from the Congress and from the courts. They feel their mission is beyond the law. Well, it is not. My legislation will exact a heavy price from those who break the law. It will amend Public Law 100-690 to add strong penalties for the disruption, expense, and damage of tree spiking. I hope my colleagues will join me in condemning this outrageous act. I ask their support to move this legislation very quickly as a signal that Congress will simply not tolerate this kind of blackmail.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am proud to join today with my friend, the senior Senator from Wyoming, Alan Simpson, and several other colleagues, in introducing the Federal Advocacy Reform Act of 1995. In reality, this bill is a Taxpayers' declaration of independence from the special interests. This is not an issue of left-versus-right: It's about principles that apply across the board: Public money should be spent on the public interest, and not on the political agendas of special interests. The Federal Government should not give special interests money to pay for lobbying for more money, or for political advocacy. Our effort is about ensuring Government integrity and responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Taxpayers should not be compelled to fund special interest lobbying that is against their interests. Many groups who claim to speak for grass roots members or large groups of Americans actually use Federal dollars inappropriately to amplify the voices of a few. Next week, the Senate is supposed to take up gift and lobbying reform bills. People are correctly focused on lobbyists' gifts to legislators; but we also need to worry about the Government's gifts to lobbyists. Senator Simpson and I plan to pursue an amendment like today's bill at that time, next week, when the Senate considers lobbying reform. Mr. President, our bill is real lobbying reform. It will protect the taxpayers' pocketbooks from the abuse that has gone on too long for the benefit of narrow, special interests. Today, in the House of Representatives, the Appropriations Committee was scheduled to consider an amendment on this same general topic, written by Congressmen Ernie Istook, Dave McIntosh, and Bob Ehrlich. Although our specific approaches may differ, our goals are the same. I commend their work and look forward to watching both bodies progress in our consideration of this issue.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I will be happy to.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the amendment of the Senator from Texas. I hope that she and the Senators from Michigan and Delaware can work out the differences because I think it is an extremely important amendment. When I look at what has gone out there in the past and is currently going on, I pose this question to you, Mr. President: Can you imagine living in a country where the laws are not posted or published-- anywhere, in some instances--but you can still get in trouble for violating them? That is kind of the feeling of a lot of our people out in the private sector trying to make a living, especially those in the business community and especially the small business community that does not have the hundreds of thousands of dollars of resources to keep a stable of attorneys around telling them what to do and how to do it. Sometimes they find themselves exactly in that situation. They find themselves in a world where those who enforce the laws tell you it is OK to do something and then turn around and punish you for doing it. That is some of what the Senator from Delaware just spoke to. But in the same instance, if you have invested a lot of money and time and you thought in good faith you were doing it only to be told you are not and then to be fined, I think in most instances the average citizen in our country who has reacted very openly about these issues would say that is just wrong. Most Americans, I believe, would find that kind of system to be intolerable, outrageous, and in all fairness I agree with them. That is why I am a cosponsor of this amendment. Yet, as unbelievable as that description may be--Mr. President, we find today that that is in part the regulatory system we have--it is a mystery to me how anyone could most possibly defend that status quo. Yet, we find Senators on the floor saying, Wait, everything is OK. Well, everything is not OK if we spend $600 billion nonproductive dollars in our economy every year in this situation, and yet good-faith citizens find themselves subject to penalties and subject to fine. It is inconceivable that the current system actually would allow agencies to decide after the fact that an action or a failure to act should be penalized. If we were talking about criminal law--and that became a brief discussion a moment ago--it would be considered flat-out unconstitutional. Well, if it is unconstitutional in criminal law, why should not it be unconstitutional here? That is because for three decades we have been caught up in the attitude that the regulatory agencies of our Government know better how the world out beyond the beltway ought to be instead of the private citizen who is trying to provide the goods and services for society and operate in good faith, who has the right to choose and make reasonable and sound decisions. So I think if it is unconstitutional in criminal law, it ought to be unconstitutional here, and that is why we ought to fix it. And I think that is why the Senator from Texas is clearly headed in the right direction. I compliment her for her energies and her effort in her amendment. Her amendment is nothing more than I think, as I mentioned a moment ago, common sense and fair play. It just says that people should be put on notice as to what actions are required or prohibited of them. That ought to be clear and straightforward. Those who get approval before they act from an agency authorized to regulate or speak on policy in a particular area should not be punished for relying on that advice. The simple question then is, Well, then, where do we go? If I have heard that once, I have heard it a hundred times, Mr. President, in my town meetings from small business people saying, What do we do then? Do we just simply go out of business because we cannot get the right direction, or we cannot find a way to be in compliance with some obscure rule or regulation, that a Federal regulator now comes in and says, Here is the $10,000 fine for doing something wrong, when they in fact may have been advised that the way they were going to do it and then did it was right? That is an intolerable world. This amendment does not interfere with an agency's ability to revise its rules or to interpret those rules. It just requires penalties to be imposed for future violations as opposed to past violations. Mr. President, regulations are not supposed to be a goal in themselves. They are supposed to be a way of reaching important goals. Let me repeat that because that is exactly where the small business community, the backbone of the American economy, finds themselves. They find themselves always moving toward the regulation. That is the goal. It ought not to be the goal. It should be the way you get to a productive economy, in the right and proper, socially acceptable level of performance. If we make the laws and regulatory process a trap for the unwary, nobody is served, and the tragedy of nobody being served is that then nobody wants to play. And in this instance, what we are talking about is the creation of jobs, the strengthening and the building of an economy. When nobody wants to play because they find themselves prohibited or the very limited failure to perform is so violent that it could put them out of business, then something is substantially wrong. It does not get us to our goals because people do not even know what is required of them. It discourages them from even trying to find a way to work with the law, to work with the enforcing agency. One of those important concepts is embodied in our law and our Constitution, a concept that we all fight to adhere to here. That is called due process. Really, what the Hutchison amendment talks about is the simple concept of due process. That is just another way of defining fairness. Mr. President, we need this reform. Let us send a strong message of support for fairness and due process with what I hope is an amendment that we could accept unanimously, and that the Senators now involved in it might work out their differences so we can as a Senate say to the American people and to the producers out there, We have heard you, we are responding to you, we are going to create a government that is a good deal more friendly, which respects your right as the producer and the taxpayer, and will work with you in good faith as a partner instead of a cop that comes through the front door and says, Here is the fine, pay up, you are in violation for something we told you to do because now we have decided you did it wrong. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me reclaim my time. I would be happy to yield for a comment by the Senator from Texas.