[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 36 (Friday, March 25, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                         LOBBY DISCLOSURE BILL

 Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, yesterday the House of 
Representatives approved its version of the lobby disclosure bill, 
including provisions designed to prohibit lobbyists from providing 
gifts to Members of Congress.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, the House bill is seriously flawed. 
Most importantly, it includes loopholes that will allow special 
interests to continue to provide Members with vacation trips to the 
Caribbean, and free meals with lobbyists at expensive restaurants. 
These and other loopholes should be closed before the bill is sent to 
the President.
  Mr. President, I have introduced legislation, cosponsored by Senators 
Wellstone and Feingold, which would close the loopholes in the House 
bill and ban virtually all gifts from lobbyists and their clients. Our 
bill, S. 1935, is scheduled to come before the Senate no later than May 
4. My hope is that the Senate will approve our legislation before the 
conference on the lobby disclosure bill.
  At its most basic level, the twin goals of our bill are simple: 
First, to help restore public confidence in the Congress, and, second, 
to reduce the ability of lobbyists and special interests to buy access 
and exert influence on Capitol Hill.
  Mr. President, Americans have always been deeply cynical about their 
Government. Today that cynicism is evident to all of us, along with 
their anger. They see Members as captives of special interests, 
unconcerned about ordinary people. Many feel that Congress is not 
serving the public well because Members are out to lunch--at expensive 
restaurants and resorts, with the tab picked by special interests.
  Mr. President, I know many of my colleagues believe that these 
perceptions are inaccurate, or at least overstated. But no one can deny 
that those perceptions exist and are broadly held by the American 
people.
  They are also understandable. After all, let us say you are a 
basketball fan. You pay hundreds of dollars to fly to the NCAA Final 
Four to see your favorite team compete. And then you find out that the 
referees just came back from a luxury trip to the Caribbean--paid for 
by the opposing team.
  Now, those referees might insist that their free trip will not 
influence their work. They may claim to be fine, ethical people who 
care about the good of the game. They may say that their judgments will 
not be colored by the gifts they received.
  And not a fan in the country will believe them.
  Well, Mr. President, that is how most Americans feel when they see 
Members of Congress cast their votes after they have been wined and 
dined by special interest lobbyists. They think the deck is stacked 
against them. They do not think it is right. And they do not respect a 
system that operates that way.
  Mr. President, fair or not, as long as the public believes that 
Congress is beholden to special interests, our credibility, and our 
ability to lead, is undercut.
  Democracy simply cannot function in an atmosphere of distrust. After 
all, when citizens view everything the Congress does in the worst 
possible light, they are similarly skeptical about the legislation we 
propose. That makes it extremely difficult to build public support. And 
without public support, it becomes almost impossible to address major 
social problems in a meaningful way.
  In other words, Mr. President, restoring public confidence in the 
Congress is not just important to the institution. It is critical for 
our country and our future.
  That brings me to the second purpose of this legislation.
  Mr. President, the need to ban lobbyists' gifts is based on more than 
the need to restore public confidence in the Congress. We also need to 
address the disproportionate power of special interests in our 
political system.
  Now, Mr. President, I suspect that many of my colleagues are 
thinking: come on Frank, you and I know that Senators are not selling 
votes for a free meal.
  And that is true.
  But that is not the point.
  The point is this: when lobbyists take a Senator or key staff member 
out to dinner, they are not just buying a meal. They are buying access. 
And access is power.
  Ordinary citizens do not have that access.
  They cannot just take their Senator to a quiet dinner at an expensive 
restaurant and explain what it is like to be unemployed.
  They cannot take their Congressman to a ball game to discuss problems 
they have making ends meet or educating their kids.
  And they certainly cannot spend a relaxing weekend at a tropical 
resort, playing golf with key legislators while reviewing their 
concerns and anxieties about the future.
  Meanwhile, lobbyists can do all these things. And while they are at 
that restaurant, or that ball game, or that resort, they can discuss a 
new tax break, or some other favor that their clients want.
  If any Member doubts the value of this kind of access, just ask a 
lobbyist or their corporate clients. Only the most disingenuous will 
claim that they provide these exotic trips out of the goodness of their 
heart. They pay because it gets results.
  They pay to buy clout.
  Similar thinking is involved when lobbyists give Members tickets to a 
show or sporting event, or other gifts. Often, the tickets buy access 
to Members at the event itself. But if not, they buy good will. And 
good will also is power. It can mean the difference between getting 
your calls returned, or your letter taken seriously. And that can 
translate into millions, even billions of dollars--at the expense of 
ordinary Americans who have no lobbyists to represent them.
  Now I know that these kinds of gifts and favors are not unique to 
Congress. They are the common coin of exchange in a variety of 
different areas. Which, again, demonstrates that people think they have 
an impact.
  I know I did when I was a CEO in the private sector. My company 
strictly forbade purchasing agents from accepting gifts from suppliers. 
There was the potential for undue influence, and the stakes were high. 
So I look steps to minimize the possibility of abuse.
  The same concerns apply to Congress, where the stakes are infinitely 
greater. And now we have to take steps to minimize abuses here as well.
  Before I go further, Mr. President, let me say this.
  I know a lot of my colleagues are unhappy with me for proposing this 
legislation. And that may be putting it mildly. So I want to emphasize 
a few things.
  I did not introduce this bill to tear down the Congress. To the 
contrary, I want to build it up and strengthen it.
  Nor am I offering this legislation to inpugn the integrity of any 
Member of Congress. The fact is, Members of this body are dedicated 
public servants who work hard and are genuinely committed to serving 
the public interest. That is not widely appreciated, but it is true. 
And I think our bill would only help make that clear.
  Nor am I claiming that I am some kind of a saint who thinks he is 
holier than thou. Listen, in the past most of the Members of this body, 
myself included, have lived by the rules and accepted certain items. I 
do not claim otherwise.
  But times have changed. Public frustration has reached enormous 
proportions. And it seems to me that we will never restore public faith 
in this institution until we make some meaningful changes in the way we 
do business.
  So I want my colleagues to see this as a constructive, not a 
destructive, proposal. I offer it in that spirit. And I really believe 
it can make an enormous positive difference in the way we are viewed, 
and the way our work is received by the American people.
  Mr. President, let me take a few minutes and explain exactly what our 
bill does and does not do.
  First, the bill establishes a general rule. That rule is that no 
lobbyist or client of a lobbyist may provide any item of value to a 
Member of Congress or congressional employee.
  That includes free meals. Free gold watches. Free trips to the 
Caribbean. Anything of value.
  Similarly, the bill provides that a lobbyist or a client may not 
provide any item of value to a third party on behalf of a Member or 
staffer, such as a charitable contribution. Nor may a lobbyist or 
client provide a gift to an organization that is maintained or 
controlled by a Member or staffer.
  Those, in a nutshell, are the general rules.
  However, there are several exceptions. The exceptions are designed to 
ensure that the legislation is reasonable, and does not interfere with 
the ability of Members of Congress to perform legitimate 
representational functions.
  For example, the bill allows lobbyists and clients to provide travel-
related expenses for a trip that is directly related to the official 
duties of a Member.
  That could include a trip for a meeting, a speaking engagement, or a 
factfinding trip.
  But what it would not include--and what would be banned by our bill--
are trips that are substantially recreational. Golf trips, tennis 
trips, beach vacations, and so forth. If the activities of a trip are 
substantially recreational, then travel-related expenses could not be 
provided by a lobbyist or client.
  Similarly, the proposal would prohibit lobbyists or clients from 
paying for recreational activities, even on a permitted trip. So if a 
lobbyist pays for a Member to go to a public policy conference, the 
lobbyist could not also pay for the Member to go to a ball game or a 
play in the evenings. Of course, Members would be free to participate 
in such events. They would just have to pay their own way.
  For a trip to qualify for the exception from the ban, details about 
the trip would have to be published in advance in the Congressional 
Record, unless that is impossible because, for example, the trip is 
arranged while the Congress is out of session.
  The legislation also includes an exception to the general gift ban 
for meals provided by clients who sponsor broadly attended events, such 
as conferences and conventions, and meetings of organizations, such as 
a luncheon meeting of a VFW lodge or citizens group.
  Another exception is provided for gifts that are clearly motivated by 
a family relationship or personal friendship, so long as gifts from 
friends to Members are disclosed.
  And there is an exception for greeting cards, personalized plaques, 
and other items of little intrinsic value.
  Mr. President, there are a few other minor exceptions, and I will not 
go into all of them here. But all would be clarified in regulations. 
And the legislation would not go into effect for 1 year.
  On balance, Mr. President, this is a strong, credible, and reasonable 
proposal. And we think it is time to act on it.
  Mr. President, I would like to introduce into the Record material 
prepared by Common Cause that explains some of the key differences 
between our bill and the House bill.
  The material follows:

  Summary of S. 1935, the Lautenberg-Wellstone-Feingold Bill, To Ban 
 Lobbyists and Others From Providing Gifts to Members of Congress and 
                              Their Staffs


     General Prohibition on Gifts and Other Benefits from Lobbyists

       Lobbyists and their clients would be prohibited from 
     providing (with business or personal funds) any gift or other 
     benefit to a Member of Congress or congressional employee 
     (including spouses and immediate family members). The ban on 
     clients would apply to gifts paid for by organizations that 
     hire or retain lobbyists or by top officials of such 
     organizations. The ban would also apply to gifts given to 
     organizations maintained or controlled by Members or staff, 
     or given to third parties on behalf of Members, such as 
     charitable contributions.
       The bill would also ban anyone from paying for travel-
     related expenditures for recreational trips, such as golf, 
     tennis and ski trips. In addition, lobbyists would be 
     prohibited from paying for any recreational activities or 
     entertainment costs for Members and staff while on a 
     permitted trip.


                     Gifts required to be Disclosed

       In some limited circumstances, lobbyists and their clients 
     would be allowed to continue to provide certain financial 
     benefits to Members and staff. However, they would have to 
     itemize and disclose these benefits on a Member-by-Member 
     basis.
       1. Certain Permitted Travel-Related Expenditures.--
     Lobbyists and their clients could provide travel-related 
     expenditures in connection with meetings, speaking 
     engagements, fact-finding trips and similar events but only 
     if the trip was directly related to a Member or staff's 
     official duties and if details about the trip were published 
     in advance in the Congressional Record. Such expenditures 
     would also have to be disclosed in the report filed by a 
     lobbyist.
       2. Gifts to Members Motivated by a Personal Friendship.--A 
     lobbyist could provide a gift or other benefit to a Member on 
     the basis of a personal friendship under certain limited 
     circumstances. The personal friendship exemption would not 
     apply to any gift for which the lobbyist obtains a tax 
     deduction or reimbursement (including using an expense 
     account of an employee or client, or charging fees to clients 
     for the purpose of reimbursement for the purchase of gifts). 
     However, any gifts provided to Members on the basis of the 
     personal friendship exemption would have to be disclosed by 
     the lobbyist.


                Gifts Exempt from the Ban and Disclosure

       1. Gifts to Members and staff motivated by a family 
     relationship.
       2. Gifts to staff motivated by a personal friendship as 
     defined narrowly in the bill.
       3. Items of little intrinsic value such as a greeting card 
     or personalized plaque, certificate or trophy.
       4. Informational materials such as books and videos.
       5. Modest refreshments such as coffee, soft drinks or 
     doughnuts offered other than as part of a meal.
       6. Home state products used for promotional purposes.
       7. Political contributions otherwise reported to the FEC.
       8. Honorary degrees.


           Exemption for Food and Materials at Certain Events

       Clients (but not lobbyists) could provide food and 
     materials to Members and staff at the following types of 
     events:
       1. Broadly attended events.--Conventions, conferences, 
     symposia, receptions and similar events.
       2. Smaller events.--Bona fide meetings of organizations, 
     provided that the value of the food does not exceed $20.
       Neither of these exemptions would apply to expenses for 
     travel or lodging; entertainment collateral to an event; 
     meals other than those in a group setting to which all 
     attendees are invited; a concert, play, motion picture, 
     sporting event or similar public entertainment event; a 
     conference, retreat or similar event for or on behalf of 
     Members and/or staff that is sponsored by an official 
     congressional organization; or an event that is hosted or 
     cohosted with, or in honor of, a Member of Congress or staff.


                            other provisions

       1. Notification to Members and staff.--Lobbyists would have 
     to notify recipients of any expenditure required to be 
     disclosed in their lobby reports within three weeks of the 
     expenditure. Lobbyists could not include in their report any 
     item that has been returned within 30 days of receipt.
       2. Penalties.--Violators would be subject to penalties in 
     accordance with S. 349, the Lobbying Disclosure Act, as 
     approved by the Senate, which provides for fines of up to 
     $200,000 for serious offenses.
       3. Regulations.--The President or his designee would be 
     directed to promulgate final regulations to implement the 
     provisions no later than one year after the date of 
     enactment.
       4. Study.--A study would be conducted after 18 months to 
     evaluate the bill and to identify any significant problems 
     which may have arisen in its implementation. The study could 
     also include recommendations for statutory changes.
       5. Effective Date.--The bill would be effective one year 
     after the date of enactment.

                          ____________________