[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]

 
          STRENGTHEN THE LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT IN CONFERENCE

 Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, several weeks ago Senator 
Lautenberg and I announced our intention to offer an amendment on the 
Senate floor soon that would impose tough new restrictions on gifts 
from lobbyists and their clients.
  Following a week of discussions on timing and procedure with the 
Senate Democratic leadership, a unanimous-consent agreement was reached 
which provided for Senate floor consideration of our proposal, or a 
committee-reported alternative, by May 4, 1994. Since our goal all 
along has been to get a straightforward vote on our legislation as soon 
as possible, we agreed to introduce it as a separate bill (S. 1935) on 
March 16, to be considered under the expedited timetable above.
  Yesterday, the House passed overwhelmingly its version of the 
Lobbying Disclosure Act after months of contentious discussion about 
various of its provisions. While the bill does ban certain gifts and 
other financial benefits from lobbyists, there are still a number of 
significant loopholes in it which need to be closed. Our bill is 
designed to close those loopholes, and we are hopeful that the Senate 
will have a chance to act on it before a House-Senate conference on the 
Lobbying Disclosure Act. I was encouraged to read in the papers today 
that certain key House conferees, appointed yesterday, expect that the 
bill will be strengthened in conference. I will work to ensure that 
result.
  I ask unanimous consent that a brief comparison of the House and 
Senate gift provisions of S. 349, a copy of a ``Dear Colleague'' letter 
circulated yesterday by myself, Senator Feingold, and Senator 
Lautenberg, and two recent editorials from the New York Times on the 
legislation, be included in the Record along with my statement.
  I am hopeful that the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee will 
approve and report to the floor legislation similar to S. 1935; I 
intend to continue to work with Subcommittee Chairman Levin and 
Chairman Glenn to ensure enactment of the most thoroughgoing reform 
legislation possible.
  I believe that the Senate should have acted on this issue last year, 
as it voted virtually unanimously to do in May, 1993. Now that the 
House has acted on its version, the Senate should express its will on 
the important policy implications of the gift ban--on the substance of 
which it has never voted--before the conference committee completes its 
work on this important measure.
  My goal has always been to impose a tough and comprehensive ban on 
gifts and other financial benefits from lobbyists and their clients, 
and to require strict disclosure of those few benefits which are not 
covered by the ban. I urge my colleagues to join in this important 
political reform effort by cosponsoring S. 1935.
  The material follows:

                    [From Common Cause, March 1994]

 Lautenberg/Wellstone Gift Reform Legislation--Strengthening the Gift 
   Reform Provisions in H.R. 823, as Reported by the House Judiciary 
                              Subcommittee


                               I. travel

       Problem with H.R. 823: Allows lobbyists to continue to pay 
     for Members' travel for golf and tennis vacation trips; 
     allows lobbyists to pay for travel of spouses and others.
       Lautenberg/Wellstone: Prohibits travel-related 
     reimbursements from anyone for recreational trips such as 
     golf, tennis, skiing and similar trips; prohibits 
     reimbursement from a lobbyist for any other trip that is not 
     publicly disclosed in advance in the Congressional Record; 
     prohibits reimbursements for recreational activities while on 
     those trips that are allowed; prohibits reimbursements for 
     expenses for Members' spouses and family members.


                      ii. meals and entertainment

       Problem with H.R. 823: Allows executives or other employees 
     of a registered organization which employs or hires a 
     lobbyist to use the organization's money to pay for meals and 
     entertainment for Members and their staffs. For example, a 
     vice president of a corporation registered under the new 
     lobby disclosure law could make undisclosed expenditures of 
     the corporation's funds for meals and entertainment for a 
     Member of Congress and could do so even if the corporation's 
     registered lobbyist took part in the event.
       Lautenberg/Wellstone: Bans lobbyists and their clients from 
     providing meals and entertainment, with an exemption allowing 
     clients to provide food at broadly attended events or at 
     meetings of organizations subject to a $20 cap on the cost of 
     food.


                     iii. charitable contributions

       Problems with H.R. 823: Does not require disclosure by 
     lobbyists of the recipient organization receiving charitable 
     contributions given on behalf of Members unless that 
     organization is controlled or maintained by a Member.
       Lautenberg/Wellstone: Prohibits lobbyists from giving 
     charitable contributions to entities maintained or controlled 
     by a Member or to any entity on behalf of a Member; requires 
     lobbyists to disclose any charitable contribution solicited 
     by congressional staff (which is allowed only if the 
     recipient organization is not maintained or controlled by a 
     Member).


       iv. gifts given to members on basis of personal friendship

       Problem with H.R. 823: Lobbyists have publicly indicated 
     the personal friendship exemption could be used as a means to 
     continue to provide gifts and other financial benefits to 
     Members and to do so without disclosing them.
       Lautenberg/Wellstone: Clarifies that a gift or other 
     financial benefit given by a lobbyist to a Member or staff 
     does not meet the test for the personal friendship exemption 
     if a lobbyist uses a firm's expense account to pay for the 
     gift or if a lobbyist charges fees to the client for the 
     propose of compensating him/herself for the cost of an item.
       Requires disclosure by a lobbyist of any gift or other 
     financial benefit that is given to a Member on the basis of a 
     claim of personal friendship.


                     v. other strengthening changes

       Prohibits lobbyists from financing congressional retreats 
     or conferences, or events hosted or cohosted by or in honor 
     of Members;
       Prohibits lobbyists from contributing to the legal defense 
     funds of Members;
       Prohibits lobbyists and clients from using the funds of a 
     PAC with whom they are affiliated to pay for Members' food 
     and attendance at events.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, March 22, 1994.
       Dear Colleague: We have introduced legislation, S. 1935, to 
     prohibit lobbyists and their clients from providing gifts, 
     meals and recreational trips to Members of Congress and 
     congressional employees. The bill will be considered by the 
     full Senate no later than May 4, and we would welcome your 
     cosponsorship.
       Of course, none of us believes that Members are selling 
     their votes. However, free meals, free vacations and other 
     gifts often do ensure access--access to Members that 
     generally is not available to ordinary Americans.
       Polls continue to demonstrate clearly that public trust in 
     Congress is at an historic low, and the demand for political 
     reform is very high. In part, this is because many Americans 
     believe that special interests have a firm grip on the 
     legislative process, and therefore on the products of that 
     process. Helping to restore the trust and confidence of 
     Americans in the legislative process is the primary goal of 
     this effort.
       Our bill would put an end to most meals, gifts, and 
     recreational trips provided by lobbyists or their clients. 
     However, we include reasonable exceptions designed to ensure 
     that the restrictions are not overly burdensome on 
     organizations that hire lobbyists, and to ensure that Members 
     can continue to meet their representational obligations. For 
     example, organizations that hire lobbyists still could 
     provide meals at broadly-attended events such as legislative 
     conferences, banquets, and receptions. In addition, there is 
     an exemption from the gift ban for lobbyists and clients who 
     are family members or personal friends of Members or staff. 
     Other exceptions are noted in the attached summary.
       Last May, the Senate went firmly on record in favor of 
     tightening the rules in this area by the end of 1993. It's 
     long past time to act.
       We hope you will support the bill. If you have any 
     questions, or would like to cosponsor, please let us know, or 
     have your staff contact Bruce King (Sen. Lautenberg) at 
     x49712, or Colin McGinnis (Sen. Wellstone) at x45641.
           Sincerely,
     Paul Wellstone.
     Frank R. Lautenberg.
     Russell D. Feingold.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Mar. 8, 1994]

                           An Honest Gift Ban

       At the urging of Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, 
     the Senate approved a resolution last May committing the 
     chamber to strict new curbs, by the end of 1993, on gift-
     giving by lobbyists to members of Congress. The deadline 
     passed, but last week Mr. Lautenberg served notice that he 
     was ready to push the matter. That is a promising development 
     for Congressional ethics reform.
       Mr. Lautenberg and another strong critic of the unseemly 
     financial ties between lobbyists and lawmaker, Senator Paul 
     Wellstone of Minnesota, made public an amendment they will 
     offer to bar the free meals, resort vacations and other life 
     style enhancers that powerful interests now bestow on 
     members, hoping to buy legislative advantage.
       The faint-hearted among their colleagues may not be 
     pleased. But Messrs. Lautenberg and Wellstone have done a 
     real public service by putting forward an honest measure that 
     could move Congress to a higher moral plane.
       The measure exposes the major weaknesses in the House's 
     pending gift ban bill, sponsored by Representative John 
     Bryant of Texas. The problem with that bill, as the 
     accompanying chart suggests, is that it is too9 permissive to 
     do much good.
       The reason for the House's timidity is depressingly clear. 
     Many House members have grown accustomed to a life on the 
     dole, and recoil at the idea of giving up their lobbyist-
     financed golf and tennis outings. House Democrats, who do not 
     normally go out of their way to satisfy the Republican 
     minority, now have Representative Vic Fazio of California 
     conferring with the minority whip, Newt Gingrich, to try to 
     agree on new gift limits.* * *
       What both sides seem to be looking for is bipartisan cover 
     for not seem to be looking for is bipartisan cover for not 
     strengthening the Bryant bill.
       By moving their measure swiftly in the Senate, Senators 
     Lautenberg and Wellstone will make it much tougher for House 
     leaders to pull a fast one by passing the weaker Bryant bill 
     and claiming a victory for reform. Much as many lawmakers 
     would like to deny it, the public stakes are high. ``When 
     lobbyists take a senator to dinner, they're not just buying a 
     meal, they're buying access,'' observes Mr. Lautenberg. ``And 
     access is power.''
                                  ____


                         The Golf Club Survives

       Senator Orrin Hatch has some good news. Tennis, he 
     announced in a recent letter to Congressional colleagues, has 
     been added to the list of activities at the Utah 
     Congressional Golf Challenge, an annual sporting event to 
     which Mr. Hatch plays host in his home state.
       Like other such junkets taken in the guise of helping 
     charity or Congressional business, this is a chance for 
     lawmakers to enjoy an expenses-paid vacation at a luxury 
     resort courtesy of big corporate sponsors, whose lobbyists 
     and executives get to play right alongside the House and 
     Senate members. These corporations, of course, care less 
     about golf and tennis than forging personal ties that can 
     help with legislation.
       Mr. Hatch's tournament was not mentioned yesterday when the 
     House debated gift-giving to members of Congress, which is 
     too bad. The popular outing points to a critical flaw in the 
     new gift restrictions pushed through by House Democrats who 
     are now loudly proclaiming a victory for ethics.
       Some victory. The bill, crafted by John Bryant of Texas to 
     placate the peripatetic and bipartisan House Golf and Tennis 
     Caucus, and shepherded to a lopsided victory by Vic Fazio of 
     California, would not prohibit Mr. Hatch's sporting junket. A 
     loophole-marred provision would bar lobbyists from picking up 
     the tab for lawmakers' meals and entertainment. But the 
     corporate executives who hire the lobbyists could continue to 
     bestow these benefits without the embarrassment of 
     disclosure.
       It speaks volumes about the state of Congressional ethics 
     that House Republicans, most of whom ended up voting for 
     yesterday's gift measure, initially balked at accepting even 
     these deficient changes. Democratic leaders, meanwhile, 
     happily latched onto that reluctance as an excuse for not 
     strengthening the Bryant bill.
       Realistically, the hope for strong gift reform now rests 
     with the Senate. A tough gift ban measure recently proposed 
     by Senators Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Paul Wellstone 
     of Minnesota provides a real chance to change Congress's 
     lobbyist-subsidized life style. It would forthrightly ban 
     gifts of recreational travel, meals and other dubious 
     financial benefits bestowed by lobbyists and the companies 
     who employ them in an effort to influence legislation.
       The Lautenberg proposal is now before the Senate's 
     Governmental Affairs Committee, which, under an agreement 
     with the Senate majority leader, George Mitchell, has until 
     April 27 to act on the issue. Floor consideration is assured 
     no later than May 4. The Senate's Democratic leadership 
     should wait until the Senate's gift provisions are acted upon 
     before scheduling a conference with the House.
       Prompt action by the Senate on an honest gift reform bill 
     would expose the House bill for the inadequate response it 
     is. It could also force club- and racket-wielding lawmakers, 
     kicking and screaming, onto higher ethical ground.

                          ____________________