[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 2 (Thursday, January 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S459-S469]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  [[Page S460]] Mr. REID. Will the Chair advise what the parliamentary 
status of the Senate is at this time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is advised that debate is open on 
S. 2.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I am here today to recognize the importance of this 
legislation that is being debated, S. 2. I think it is commendable that 
it is one of the first items that is being taken up. But I also want to 
remind the Senate and those people that are listening to the debate on 
the Senate floor today that the legislative branch appropriations bill 
of 1992 required the establishment of a bipartisan task force to deal 
with Senate coverage.
  That was signed into law, and Senators Mitchell and Dole, the 
majority and minority leaders of the Senate in 1993, appointed Senators 
Reid and Stevens to cochair this commission and make a report to the 
Senate leaders about Senate coverage and what could and could not be 
done.
  Madam President, there were weeks of time spent working on a report 
that was submitted to the majority and minority leaders in October of 
last year. This report consumed a great deal of staff Member time being 
prepared. The Senate staff of the Rules Committee, minority and 
majority, the Appropriations Committee majority and minority staff, 
together with significant help from the Congressional Research Service, 
counsel for the Senate, and the American Bar Association worked with us 
in coming up with this staff report.
  I am satisfied that the work done by the task force has helped arrive 
at a point where we now have this bill. If you look at the task force 
executive summary, you will find that we were charged according to law 
with reviewing all existing statutes under which the Senate is covered, 
reviewing Senate rules to determine whether the Senate is effectively 
complying with other statutes that could be applied to the Senate and 
recommending the extent to which and the manner in which these statutes 
should be applied to the Senate. That was our charge.
  We had to recognize, Madam President, that this unique legislative 
institution established by our Founding Fathers over 200 years ago sets 
forth certain unusual requirements that we had to be aware of, that the 
Senate has a special constitutional role; the separation of powers 
doctrine and Members' immunity for speech or debate under article I, 
section 6, of the Constitution.
  We took all those things into consideration. We had to make sure that 
under the Constitution by which we are all directed, which we all 
respect, whatever we came up with secured the individual liberty of the 
separate but equal branches of Government, each capable of protecting 
their independence from outside interference and coercion.
  That is an important concept; that we had to make sure the 
legislative branch of Government maintained independence and was not 
interfered with by the executive branch of Government. And that is 
replete through the task force executive summary and the report itself.
  I am happy to report, Madam President, that the legislation which was 
considered on this floor last year and which is now being debated today 
does a real good job, I believe, of maintaining the independence of the 
legislative branch of Government. It certainly does an outstanding job 
of protecting the legislative branch of Government from interference by 
the executive branch of Government.
  I would like to commend the parties who have worked so hard on this 
legislation over the year or more.
  I know that the ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, 
the former chairman of the committee, Senator Glenn, has literally 
worked on this for years. This is one of the first things that he 
talked about when he came to the U.S. Senate.
  Senator Grassley, who is a member of the task force, has been 
diligent in his efforts to make sure that we are at the point we now 
are. Senator Grassley participated in the task force. He was easy to 
work with and was very diligent in what he wanted to accomplish. And I 
repeat, Madam President, I think this legislation maintains the 
independence of the legislative branch of Government.
  What I fought from the very beginning of the task force and have 
always complained about here in the Senate is I did not want these laws 
to be applied to the legislative branch of Government and have the 
executive branch of Government enforce the laws. That would have taken 
away our independence. I think that the movers of this legislation have 
done a good job of maintaining that independence.
  I would also like to commend the cochair of the task force that was 
created by law, and that is Senator Stevens. Senator Stevens is a 
person who really understands and believes in the integrity of this 
institution. He wants to maintain the independence of the legislative 
branch of Government. So working on the task force with him--all of 
those who have worked with Senator Stevens know when he believes in 
something he never holds back an opinion or a feeling that he has. He 
did not with the task force. We had a number of very heated discussions 
with Senator Stevens and his staff. I believe --and Senator Stevens of 
course would have to speak for himself--that the report we came up with 
is as good as it is because of the input of Senator Stevens, the 
cochair.
  We recommended that the Senate should adopt a resolution which 
extends to employees of the Senate offices the rights and protections 
necessary to ensure their health and safety, including fair wages and 
hours and a workplace free of discrimination. This legislation we 
worked on last year, and the legislation that is now before this body 
takes care of that.
  Second, the task force believes the current structure of the Senate 
in which each office is separately administered by an elected Senator, 
committee officer, or official should be preserved. I believe that is 
done as best as can be, under the confines of the current law.
  The task force believes that the nonlegislative instrumentalities in 
the legislative branch, which would include the Architect of the 
Capitol, the General Accounting Office, Government Printing office, the 
Library of Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, and the U.S. 
Botanic Gardens should be covered by the same standards in regard to 
civil rights, OSHA, and the Fair Labor Standards Act as are executive 
branch agencies.
  So, Madam President, I am here to state that the task force completed 
its task. I believe we did a good job in reporting our findings to the 
Senate minority and majority leaders. And I am here to indicate that I 
support this legislation. I think it is imperfect, but I think 
certainly it sends a message to the American public that we are willing 
to have the same laws apply to us that apply to the American business 
community throughout America.
  I would say that we should recognize that this will come with cost. 
It will cost. The taxpayers will not save money on this one. This will 
cost the taxpayers more money. But in the long run, perhaps, when we as 
Members of Congress find out the difficulty of having some of these 
laws apply to us, maybe in the long run we will be more cautious in 
applying laws to the American workplace and the American business 
community.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, before I call up my amendment, amendment 
No. 3 that is at the desk, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a 
cosponsor to S. 2.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Michigan yield for a unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. LEVIN. I will.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Nevada be added as 
a cosponsor to this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            amendment no. 3

   (Purpose: To provide for the reform of the disclosure of lobbying 
 activities intended to influence the Federal Government and for gift 
                                reform)

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

       [[Page S461]] The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for 
     himself, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. McCain, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Feingold, 
     and Mr. Lautenberg, proposes an amendment numbered 3.

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, this amendment is cosponsored by Senators 
Wellstone, McCain, Glenn, Feingold, and Lautenberg. This amendment 
would do two things. First, it would express the sense of the Senate 
that we should pass a bill reforming our lobbying registration and 
disclosure laws as soon as possible this year. Second, it would add to 
the bill before us the tough new congressional gift rules that were 
included in last year's conference report on gift reform and lobby 
reform, a conference report that was not voted on for reasons not 
related to the gift ban which would be added by this amendment.
  I offer this amendment because the bill before us is not the only 
unfinished business from the last Congress with regard to the issue of 
congressional accountability. The bill before us, S. 2, is a good 
measure which had wide bipartisan support in the last Congress and it 
has obvious bipartisan support in this Congress. But it is hard to see 
how we can say that we have made the Congress accountable when we 
continue to allow special interests to pay for free recreational 
travel, free golf tournaments, free dinners, free football, basketball, 
and concert tickets, and on and on.
  Like the Congressional Accountability Act itself that is before us, 
S. 2, this lobbying disclosure and gift reform bill was almost enacted 
last year. Cloture fell a few votes short, for reasons unrelated to the 
gift ban, in the final days of the Congress. Speaker Gingrich's 
Contract With America fails to take on the three toughest political 
reform issues facing us: Campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, and 
reform of congressional gift rules. Those measures, those three 
measures, which are not addressed in Speaker Gingrich's contract--
campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, and reform of the 
Congressional gift rules--address the fundamental question of the 
relationship between the Congress and the special interests, the 
lobbyists who make campaign contributions to us and offer us gifts or 
other special favors.
  Because those three reforms would change the way business is done in 
this city, they have the most opposition and will be the toughest to 
enact. For the same reasons, however, they are perhaps the most 
important measures for us to take on and enact.
  When this issue was debated last October, a number of colleagues 
raised a number of substantive concerns relative to the lobbying reform 
portion of that bill. And I emphasize, that is not to be enacted by 
this amendment. That is only referred to in sense-of-the Senate 
language in this amendment, urging us to adopt lobbying disclosure 
reform this year. The purpose of the lobbying disclosure reform is to 
close the loopholes that have existed now for 40 years in existing 
lobbying disclosure laws that are supposed to require paid lobbyists to 
disclose who is paying them how much to lobby Congress on what issues, 
but are ignored by probably two-thirds of the paid lobbyists in this 
town because of various loopholes that exist.
  For instance, in one of the laws, lawyer lobbyists are not covered. 
Other lobbyists are covered. But if you are a lawyer and you are a 
lobbyist you are not covered. That kind of loophole has to be closed. 
There has been an effort to close these loopholes for 40 years. They 
are not easy to close for obvious reasons. Powerful interests want to 
keep those loopholes open. But there were substantive arguments raised. 
I did not agree with the arguments. But they were raised.
  So that portion of the bill that relates to lobbying registration is 
not to be enacted under the amendment that I am offering today. That is 
simply the subject of sense-of-the-Senate language saying let us get to 
that this year. Since the substantive issues were raised, they should 
be addressed. But that is very different from the gift ban. And the 
contrast here is very, very stark. It is the gift ban language which 
would be enacted by this amendment. We cannot justify any further delay 
in adopting the gift ban language. We must adopt congressional gift 
reform.
  Senate bill 1935 which contained the gift reforms passed the Senate 
last year on a 95-to-4 vote. When the conference report on Senate bill 
349 was brought to the Senate floor, Republican leadership stated in 
the clearest and strongest possible terms that they had no objection to 
the gift provisions of the bill and opposed cloture only because of the 
concerns about the lobbying disclosure provision. Indeed, on October 6 
of last year 38 Republican Senators cosponsored a resolution to adopt 
the tough, new gift rules that were included in that conference report. 
Those are the rules in the amendment that I am offering today. Those 
are the same rules we will be voting on today or tomorrow when this 
amendment is voted on. Those are the rules which a majority of 
Democrats and a majority of Republicans in October of last year said 
they supported. These are the same rules. So that there is no 
confusion, these are rules which were in a conference report which a 
very large majority of both Democrats and Republicans said they 
favored. The reason that cloture was not invoked, according to persons 
who opposed cloture, had to do solely with lobbying disclosure, not 
with the gift ban which will be voted on.
  For instance, Senator Dole stated at the time:

       I support the gift ban provisions, no lobbyist luncheons, 
     no entertainment, no travel, no contribution to the defense 
     funds, no fruit baskets, no nothing. That is fine with this 
     Senator, and I doubt many Senators were taking that in any 
     event.

  Senator McConnell stated:

       We had a very spirited debate last night about the 
     appropriateness of the rules change with regard to gifts. I 
     think the Senate fully understood what we were about to do 
     because I was engaged in that debate as vice chairman of the 
     Ethics Committee just pointing out some of the regulatory 
     problems here in the Senate with the proposal. But we had a 
     good debate. Everybody understood the issue. We voted on it 
     and it is over. It would be my hope, Mr. President, that we 
     would pass the Senate rule related to gifts to Senators.

  And other Republican Senators made similar statements of their 
commitment to quick enactment of these gift rules, the same rules that 
are in the amendment which I am offering this afternoon. So a vast 
majority of Democrats voted for cloture and Republicans who cosponsored 
a resolution containing these rules said just last October, that vast 
majority on both sides of the aisle, let us at long last enact these 
tough, new gift ban rules.
  Madam President, we simply must enact tough, new gift rules if we are 
going to ensure the credibility of the Congress and we must not delay 
it. There have been reasons to delay this for Congress after Congress. 
I know we are going to be urged to delay it again. We just simply 
should not. We just have to get rid of the junkets, the dinners, and 
the tickets to sporting events and concerts which are supplied by 
special interests. The public is disgusted by them, and we do not need 
them.
  Just as one example, this is a Washington Post article of last June.

       Lawmakers reveal that travel is still a frequent gift of 
     lobbyists. House Members kept up their flying ways on the tab 
     of lobbyists and other private interests last year even as 
     Congress moved to impose new restrictions on what critics 
     denounced as free vacations often in fancy resorts. 
     Destinations popular with the House Members included back-to-
     back charity tournaments during the congressional recess last 
     August and a conference at the Tobacco Institute hosted in 
     Palm Springs.

  Then it goes on to say that the Senate version would have ended it, 
and the gift rules that we have before us in my amendment would end it 
as well.
  The Post goes on:

       The public interest groups have criticized the recreational 
     trips. ``Ultimately the problem is that it is another avenue 
     which interest groups, corporations, and labor unions use to 
     try to influence how Members of Congress will act'', Josh 
     Goldstein, of the Center for Responsive Politics, told the 
     Associated Press. The ability to take the Congress to a nice 
     locale, have them give a little talk but essentially give 
     them a 3- or 4-day vacation where you were their constant 
     companion allows you to develop a friendship, a relationship 
     with them, and that is the key element in lobbying because it 
     is much more difficult to say no to a friend.

  [[Page S462]] That is the kind of article we are going to continue to 
face until we adopt a tough, new gift ban. Some are going to be 
reluctant to make this change. As a matter of fact, the New Republican 
Speaker of the House was quoted in Congress Daily on October 21 as 
saying that he did not see any reason to change the current gift rules. 
Congress Daily reported that Speaker Gingrich, then Congressman 
Gingrich, told Congress Daily that he supported the system already in 
place and quoted him as saying, ``I do not see any reason to change,'' 
quoting then Congressman Gingrich.
  But in contrast to what Speaker Gingrich said last year we have the 
Senate Republican leadership, a vast majority of Republicans in the 
Senate, a vast majority of Democrats in the Senate, who last October 
said they wanted to adopt these new tough gift rules which are in the 
amendment which I am offering today. These are the same rules that a 
majority of both parties in this body just last October said they 
wanted to adopt.
  So the contrast between what the majority of us on both sides of the 
aisle said we wanted to do and what Speaker Gingrich said he was 
satisfied with last October is a very stark contrast indeed.
  (Mr. BENNETT assumed the chair.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as I said earlier, the lobbying reform 
issue, the lobbying disclosure portion of that conference report is not 
incorporated in this amendment that we will be voting on. That issue, 
lobbying disclosure, lobbying registration reform, would be left for 
later this year. It is not part of this amendment. There were 
substantive issues that were raised relative to the lobbying disclosure 
portion of that conference report. Even again, although I did not agree 
with those issues, we do not attempt to incorporate the language of 
lobbying disclosure, lobbying registration reform.
  We have tried for 40 years, and I hope we will continue to try this 
year. It is the sense-of-the-Senate language in this amendment that we 
try to reform those laws this year. But since substantive issues were 
raised about that amendment, that language reforming the lobbying 
disclosure and registration laws is not incorporated in the amendment 
that I now offer. What is incorporated is the gift ban, and it is 
incorporated because when the conference report came before us, a 
majority--a large majority--of both parties, last October, said they 
favored adopting these tough new rules, the same rules that are in the 
amendment that is now pending before this Senate.
  Mr. President, this amendment would put an end to business as usual. 
It would put an end to the so-called recreational trips for Members, 
the so-called charitable golf, tennis, and skiing tournaments. It would 
put an end to the meals paid for by lobbyists. But the tickets to the 
football games and other events paid for by lobbyists, under the 
current congressional gift rules--Members and staff are free to accept 
gifts of up to $250 from anybody, including the lobbyists. Gifts under 
$100 do not even count. We are free to accept an unlimited number of 
gifts of less than $100 in value. That can be football tickets, theater 
tickets, anything you can think of. If it is worth less than $100, we 
can take as many of them as we want and do not have to disclose it. 
Those are the current gift rules. There is no limit on meals. It does 
not matter who pays for it, what the tab is, we can take it. 
Congressional travel under current gift rules is virtually unlimited. 
Members and staff are free to travel to recreational events such as 
golf and ski tournaments at private expense, even at the expense of a 
trade or lobbyist group.
  According to one estimate, private interests provide almost 4,000 
free trips to Members of Congress every 2 years, an average of almost 
nine trips per Member of Congress. If we continue that and delay the 
resolution of this, it is just a continuation of business as usual. It 
is not acceptable.
  The winds of change are here. But three big parts of the change are 
unaddressed in the Gingrich contract--the hardest parts: Gifts to us, 
lobbying disclosure and registration, and campaign finance reform. In 
two of the three of those cases there are significant substantive 
issues which are still pending, which have been raised and are 
unresolved. But in this one, the gift ban, given what was stated last 
October by the leadership in the Senate on both sides of the aisle, and 
by a vast majority of Democrats and Republicans, that they are ready to 
adopt these rules that are in this amendment, we have no justification 
to delay this any longer. The votes were not unanimous when we passed 
the bill adopting this tough new gift ban, but they were a very large 
majority of both sides of the aisle.
  When this bill was on the floor last year, we heard a lot of talk 
about how shrinking congressional gift limits would shut down the 
Kennedy Center and put restaurant employees out of work throughout the 
Washington area. What a horrible indictment of Congress that would be 
if it were true. Can it really be that we accept so many free meals and 
tickets that entire industries in the Washington area are dependent on 
us continuing to take these gifts? That seems inconceivable to me, but 
that is what the opponents of the measure said last year.
  The basic premise of S. 2, the bill before us today, is that we start 
living under the same rules as other Americans. Average citizens do not 
have trade groups and corporations offering them free trips to resorts, 
treating them to fancy restaurants or giving them tickets--not average 
citizens. But we have a higher responsibility, in any event, than does 
the average citizen, because we have the responsibility to ensure 
public confidence in this institution, and that is the issue.
  The issue is public confidence in this institution and whether or not 
when we are seen on these free trips, these recreational trips, and 
when we are given tickets by special interests and lobbyists to 
concerts and to sporting events, and when we are taken out to meals by 
special interests and lobbyists, whether or not that is the perception 
of this body, we then believe that the public will have confidence in 
this institution. One of the reasons it does is because they have seen 
too much of that. They want us to act in the public interest, free of 
an appearance, even, of special interest influence. That perception is 
very difficult to achieve when rules allow the kinds of gifts which our 
current rules do from lobbyists and from others with interest in 
legislation.
  Finally, Mr. President, the most recent public opinion poll that I 
have seen asked the following question of the American public: ``Who do 
you think really controls the Federal Government in Washington?''--and 
they were given a number of options in their answers. ``Who do you 
think really controls the Federal Government, the President, the 
Congress, or lobbyists and special interests?'' Fifty percent of the 
American people said that lobbyists and special interests control the 
Federal Government. Fifty percent. Twenty-two percent said the 
Congress--both Democrats and Republicans. Seven percent said the 
President.
  We have to change that. I think we are on our way to changing it. I 
think the bill in front of us, S. 2, will help put us more closely 
under the same laws as everybody else. This amendment contains rules 
which a vast majority of both sides of the aisle said they supported 
just last October, and it will also help contribute significantly to 
public confidence in this institution.
  I believe it is long overdue and that we cannot justify longer and 
longer and longer delays. There is always an excuse not to act. But I 
think it would be a real copout if we do not adopt these rules now and 
just simply say we are going to delay them for later consideration, 
when there was no substantive issue raised as late as last October by 
the vast majority of Members of both parties in this body. It is hard 
to give up some things, but I do not believe the public is going to 
take the claims of reform seriously until we do the tough things--the 
gift ban, the campaign finance reform, and the lobbying registration 
and disclosure reforms--to close those loopholes which have been so 
egregious for so many decades.
  I thank the cosponsors, Senator Wellstone, Senator Lautenberg, 
Senator Feingold, Senator Glenn, and Senator McCain, for their 
continuing energy and their continuing support. This amendment is the 
product of the work of many, many people on both 
[[Page S463]] sides of the aisle, and it is time now to adopt these 
changes in our gift rules.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. If my colleague from Maine wants to speak now, I would 
be willing to follow him.
  Mr. COHEN. I will take 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that I might follow the 
Senator from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] is recognized.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, first let me commend the Senator from 
Michigan. He and I have worked on the Governmental Affairs Committee, 
and the oversight subcommittee, since coming to the Senate in 1979. I 
regard him as one of the truly dedicated individuals in reforming our 
system both here and in the executive branch. I have the very highest 
regard for him, and I cannot praise him enough in terms of the work 
ethic that he demonstrates day in and day out on the issues that we 
deal with.
  I have been an original cosponsor with the Senator from Michigan on 
both the lobby disclosure and the gift ban bill.
  And I might point out historically what has taken place. Initially, 
we took up the issue of lobby disclosure because we realized that the 
current laws governing lobbyists are a mess. The laws are so ambiguous, 
so riddled with exceptions, so unclear that only a very few of the many 
thousands of lobbyists in this city even bother to register.
  In fact, many who register feel they are doing so at their peril, 
that it is unnecessary for them to do so; they have insufficient 
standards and guidelines. They realize that there is very little, if 
any, enforcement. I am aware of any penalty ever having been levied.
  But we felt at the time that the public was genuinely concerned about 
fundamental questions, very simple questions. Who is paying how much 
money to whom to do what? Those were the simple questions we think are 
on the minds of the American people.
  And I think the Senator from Michigan is correct that many feel that 
their elected officials are no longer in charge of actually governing 
the country; that ``special interests and lobbyists'' are in fact 
calling the tune and dictating what the rules are going to be.
  So I joined with the Senator from Michigan in sponsoring the lobby 
disclosure measure, only to find out that after we had introduced the 
measure, after it had come out of the committee and was coming to the 
floor, it was editorially attacked, as I recall, in one of the leading 
newspapers of this country, saying what a gross oversight on the part 
of the Senator from Michigan and the Governmental Affairs Committee 
that they did not deal with the gift ban issue.
  It was not our intent at that time to link lobbying disclosure with 
the gift ban issue. We were not ignoring the gift ban issue. We simply 
felt lobby disclosure was an appropriate subject matter for us to 
devote our energies to and to make recommendations. And, frankly, we 
thought at the time that we had a comprehensive agreement.
  We found that most of the lobbyists who came in and testified 
actually welcomed a clarification of the existing laws. We took hours 
and hours of testimony. We thought that we actually were making a very 
constructive proposal to all of them so they know there is one set of 
rules, not one for those who lobby for foreign firms or countries, not 
one for domestic interests here at home, but one set of rules and very 
clearly stated. We thought that was in the best interest certainly of 
the country, and also the lobbyists themselves.
  Then the gift ban proposal was raised at the last moment and it was 
implied unfairly that the Senator from Michigan did not want to deal 
with the gift ban issue. At that point, we decided to hold additional 
hearings solely on the gift ban issue. We tried to put together 
legislation addressing both the ban on gifts to Members as well as the 
lobby disclosure. That is how the two originally were linked.
  As the Senator from Michigan indicated, he has now delinked these 
issues, calling for a sense-of-the-Senate resolution to take up 
lobbying disclosure later and to deal only with the gift ban issue for 
now.
  I take issue only with one statement the Senator from Michigan has 
made. He said if we fail to act today, this is a copout.
  I would like to indicate to my friend and colleague, with whom I have 
worked all of these years, that I do not intend to cop out on anything 
during the course of this year. In fact, I was one of the few 
Republicans who stood with him in the final moments of the last 
session, over the objection of many of my fellow Republicans, in going 
forward with the legislation that we had developed.
  But I must say today--and I have indicated this to him privately, and 
I will do so publicly now--that I will not support attaching this 
amendment to the bill under consideration, for a very simple reason. I 
believe that the majority leader deserves the opportunity to work 
closely and in concert with the House for the first time in the unique 
situation that both bodies are now controlled by the Republican party 
to give the Republicans a chance to govern.
  As I recall Senator Dole saying during the campaign in the fall 
months, ``Give us a chance to govern, and if we don't measure up, if we 
don't do the job, throw us out.'' Those are pretty straightforward and 
very tough words.
  What Senator Dole is asking for is a chance to say: Let us take this 
measure up, S. 2; it is not perfect, but it is something that we think 
we can reach agreement on very quickly with the House, that we may be 
able to avoid the need for a conference, and pass a bill quickly that 
will tell the American people we are in fact subjecting ourselves to 
the laws that we subject them to.
  He has also made a pledge to me and to others--and it is a pledge 
that I will repeat here today for myself: Let me tell my friend from 
Michigan, in the event that his amendment is not successful, in the 
event it is tabled, that I pledge to him and to other Members here that 
I intend to support gift ban legislation. I intend to support lobby 
disclosure. I intend to give Senator Dole an opportunity to bring it up 
in a relatively short time. He has not given me a specific timetable, 
but I would say within the next couple of months, I expect we will 
consider this legislation and any amendments that might be offered to 
it--and I suspect there will be amendments. There are people on this 
side that still do not agree with provisions that we supported.
  I will make this representation to my colleagues: That I intend to 
support the legislation. I will not do so today. I will give the 
majority leader an opportunity to carry through what he said he wanted 
to do, and that is a chance to govern. And if we fail to do so properly 
in the eyes of the American people, throw us out.
  So at the appropriate time--and that time to be determined by the 
majority leader; and it is something that I will continue to watch 
carefully and work on with my colleague from Michigan--I will join him 
in offering his legislation. In the event he is unsuccessful in 
bringing this to a vote today, I will join him and vote for both of 
these bills in the future.
  But today, I am urging my colleagues, as one who is an original 
cosponsor of both bills, to give Senator Dole an opportunity to govern, 
to see if we cannot pass this legislation as quickly as possible so we 
can avoid going through a lengthy conference with the House which could 
in fact derail the momentum that exists for taking swift action on the 
Congressional Accountability legislation. Give us an opportunity to 
prove what can be done in a short period of time and then insist that 
we bring these two measures back to the floor for a vote, at which time 
I will be joining with my colleagues from Michigan, Minnesota, 
Wisconsin, and Ohio.
  I thank my colleague from Minnesota for yielding.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, first of all, let me not talk about this issue in 
terms of parties, which is I think part of what is now going on before 
the Senate. Let me talk about this issue as an issue, as an 
[[Page S464]] issue which I think is very important to people.
  When I was campaigning for office back in Minnesota in 1988 and 1989 
and just talking with people in cafes, I was surprised then--and that 
goes back 5 or 6 years--at the extent to which people did not feel well 
represented, the extent to which people felt ripped off, the extent to 
which people felt that politics, especially politics in Washington, was 
a game that a few played but not them, not their families. So I came 
here, Mr. President, requesting a very strong reform orientation. Ever 
since I came to the Senate, this has been my primary focus.
  Mr. President, I came here convinced that whereas, when I was a 
political science teacher I used to talk about some of the reform 
issues as issues that maybe the good government people cared about, 
unfortunately I would say in class, most of the people do not. People 
care fiercely about a political process that has integrity, that is 
open and is accountable to them.
  While we delay, let me just read from an AP story today. ``The 
revolution may have hit Congress on Wednesday, but lobbyists were still 
picking up the tab for the food and drinks. A sumptuous spread covered 
tables''--and I will leave out the committee and names--``in the 
committee's ornate meeting room put on to honor its new Republican 
chairman''--and I will leave out the name. ``Lobbyists from Tenneco, 
Dow Chemical, Southwestern Bell, and Exxon munched and chatted with 
committee members and aides.''
  Those lobbyists went on to describe this as a networking opportunity.
  Mr. President, for the life of me, I do not understand what the delay 
is all about. This is not even a debatable proposition. I say to my 
colleagues, many of whom are in their first term, many of whom are in 
their first year, who came here with a strong reform orientation, I can 
really appreciate their perspective.
  I am fairly new to the Senate. The argument to people is, well, you 
know, I had a chance to vote on banning these trips and these gifts and 
these meals and these tickets--because you know and I know this is an 
unacceptable practice--I had a chance to vote on it, but I voted 
against it. The reason I voted against it is because my party said to 
me that they wanted to put it off, and later on we would get to it.
  This is a matter of how you draw the line between Republicans and 
Democrats. I thought we were operating in a bipartisan fashion, Mr. 
President. I do not think I will get into any pointing of the finger, 
but I could probably do a fairly good content analysis, when we hear 
about being able to govern, of the number of amendments, in just the 
years that I have been here, that have been brought out to a variety of 
different bills, many of them not even germane amendments, by the then 
minority party.
  This amendment meets the germaneness test. This is all about 
congressional accountability. This is called the Congressional 
Accountability Act. There is not one word in this Contract With America 
about lobbying disclosure, about gift ban, or about campaign finance 
reform.
  Last session, at the end of the session, some 37 Republicans voted 
for exactly the language of this amendment, understanding that Senator 
Levin has now a sense-of-the-Senate resolution dealing with lobby 
disclosure: Mr. Dole, for himself; Mr. Simpson; Mr. Nickles; Mr. 
Cochran; Mr. McConnell; Mr. Smith; Mr. D'Amato; Mr. Domenici; Mr. 
Coats; Mr. Lott; Mrs. Hutchison; Mr. Bennett; Mr. Shelby, now 
Republican; Mr. Gregg; Mr. Coverdell; Mr. Durenberger; Mr. Packwood; 
Mr. Gorton; Mr. Kempthorne; Mr. Thurmond; Mrs. Kassebaum; Mr. Brown; 
Mr. Mack; Mr. Warner; Mr. Faircloth; Mr. Gramm; Mr. Hatch; Mr. Burns; 
Mr. Helms; Mr. McCain; Mr. Grassley; Mr. Lugar; Mr. Bond; Mr. Craig; 
Mr. Roth; Mr. Pressler; Mr. Cohen; and Mr. Chafee. It is the exact same 
gift ban provision.
  Mr. President, for those who voted for it before, why is it not as 
compelling an issue today? Since this practice goes on--I just read 
from a story that dealt with the giving of gifts yesterday--why is this 
not a compelling reform issue today? For those in the Senate who were 
not here last session but who ran for office on such a strong reform 
agenda and said they wanted to change business as usual in Washington, 
why would you vote no? Why would you vote no? I guess you could make 
the argument, well, later on we will get to it. The only thing I can 
say, and I have been hearing that argument ever since I came to the 
Senate: Delay and delay and delay. Maybe later on, we will get to it.
  I can assure you that if we lose the vote today, we will keep 
pressing on this issue and we will hold everyone accountable. But if an 
amendment makes sense, if an amendment to a piece of legislation is a 
part of governing, the Senate is an amendment body. I do not quite 
understand the argument that we will not take any amendments. I mean, 
the Senate is an amendment body. That is the way most of us operate as 
legislators in the Senate. We bring amendments to the floor.
  This particular amendment, without a doubt, is certainly germane. It 
is all about accountability. We are being told by some of our 
colleagues that they will not support the very gift ban that they 
supported before. Why? Why? Why the delay? Is this all about progress? 
Is this all about who is running the Senate?
  Because, Mr. President, people in the country are the ones who run 
the Senate. People in the country want to see the reform. People in the 
country have said over and over and over again, ``Nobody comes up to 
us.'' My neighbors in Northfield, if they had a chance to talk to 
Senators, would say: No one comes up to us and says, ``Listen, would 
you like to take a trip, wherever?'' Or, ``Are you interested in going 
to some athletic event?'' Or, ``We would like to take you out to 
dinner.'' People do not have lobbyists coming up to them. Regular 
people do not have lobbyists or other special interests or other folks 
coming up to them to make an offer. Who are we trying to kid?
  This is a real problem, a compelling issue. It is a compelling issue 
today. There is no reason why any Senator should vote against this. 
There is a reason on substantive grounds. But it has overwhelming 
support, including from almost all of our colleagues on the other side, 
unless this is just a case of power and prerogative. What a shame that 
would be. If a good idea comes from this side of the aisle, and it is 
relevant to an important piece of legislation which deals with 
congressional accountability, I ask my colleagues, why do you vote 
against it? How ironic it would be, Mr. President, if on this piece of 
legislation, called the Congressional Accountability Act, we exempt 
ourselves from the very rules that the executive branch lives by, which 
is precisely what this amendment attempts to rectify. Why the delay?
  Mr. President, Roll Call, on Monday, October 17, 1994--and I will try 
to be very careful about not using names--has a very interesting and 
revealing piece called ``How Lobbyists Put Meals, Gifts to Work.'' This 
memo, obtained by Roll Call, says one prominent D.C. firm lays out 1994 
strategy, including meals, campaign contributions, and participation in 
leadership races. It is Timothy Burger's piece:

       During the protracted debate over new lobbying and gift 
     rules which went down to stunning defeat in the waning days 
     of the second session, Members argued violently over the 
     influence of lobbyist-paid meals and campaign contributions.

  Now, a Big Mac will not buy influence from anybody. ``I am sure 
$15,000 will not buy influence from anybody,'' Representative Dan 
Burton, Republican, Indiana, said on the floor. Retiring House minority 
leader Bob Michel said, ``Here we are, demeaning ourselves, saying, 
`Please stop me before I accept another cup of coffee and a Danish, and 
I am sure he was sincere about that because he is known to be that kind 
of Representative.
  The article goes on to say, ``Despite such protests, meals and 
contributions are fixtures in the lobbying world, and internal 
documents from a prominent Washington lobbying firm demonstrate just 
how central they are to conducting business.''
  I will not name lobbying firms and name different Representatives. 
And so on and so forth.
  But it is very revealing.
  Mr. President, again, 37 Republicans supported precisely the language 
of this amendment which puts an end to 
[[Page S465]] this egregious, unacceptable, unconscionable policy of 
accepting gifts from lobbyists and other special interests. It is 
wrong. We should not do it.
  Each and every one of us, and I know each and every one of us, does 
fit within this framework who cares about this institution, each and 
every one of us who wants to see some increase in public confidence and 
trust and each and every one of us--and I bet I am speaking for every 
single colleague on this point who is tired of the bashing and the 
denigration of public service and who is tired of this indiscriminate 
attack on everybody in public service and who understands that this is 
not good for representative democracy. And it is not, Mr. President. If 
that is the case, then there is simply no reason why you would vote 
against this.
  Do not vote against this on a party basis. Do not vote against this 
on the issue of prerogative. Do not vote against this again delaying. 
Do not be obstructionistic about this. Move forward on it. For those of 
you who were here before, you voted for it once, vote for it again, and 
for those of you who are new--and I know you have a strong reform 
orientation--there is no reason in the world why you should not support 
this amendment.
  Finally--and I know Senator Feingold wants to speak--finally, Mr. 
President, let me just say that if we really want to change the 
political culture in Washington and if we want to talk reform out of 
one side of our mouth, then we are going to have to act on what we say 
in terms of how we vote and what we do.
  I will just say to my colleagues, as painful as this issue is and as 
disliked as this reform effort is by some, this is the right thing to 
do and we can no longer be accepting these gifts and expect people to 
respect this process, much less respect each and every one of us.
  I will have more to say about this, Mr. President, as we get into the 
thick of the debate, and I assume that we will have a debate about this 
because I think it is an extremely important issue that goes to the 
heart of whether or not the political process in this country is going 
to work well and is going to be honest and is going to be open and is 
going to be accountable to citizens.
  For now, I will conclude my remarks and yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, thank you. I certainly appreciate the 
leadership of the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Minnesota 
on this issue. Listening to them talk about this so early in the 
session gives me heart that we are going to get going on a reform 
agenda that is so important right away in the 104th Congress.
  Let me also say I enjoyed listening to so many new Senators today 
give their first speeches on this important piece of legislation. Just 
2 years ago, I had the honor and pleasure to give such a speech. I just 
want to take this chance to wish each of the 11 new Senators well, and 
I look forward to working with them.
  Mr. President, as the first week of the 104th Congress, this is also 
a time when I think it is natural and appropriate for us to try to 
interpret what the elections were all about on November 8. That is 
something that all of us have been doing for the last couple of months, 
trying to draw some lessons from those elections. It is an appropriate 
thing to do because, of course, we are here to exercise in part our own 
judgment, but most importantly, we are here to reflect the goals and 
aspirations of the people who elected us.
  So when we come here in the first week, there are a lot of theories 
about what happened. Some people say this was an election where people 
just decided they wanted to have the country run by Republicans. That 
is not a completely irrational interpretation of the election results.
  Others would say they want conservatives to run the country rather 
than liberals. Some just think it is an anti-incumbent feeling, that it 
is just time to have different people in there, they just want change 
and maybe they will do the same thing in 2 years.
  Others take a look at the election results and suggest some very 
specific legislative policies were endorsed by the people, best 
symbolized by the Republican contract, which I do not happen to think 
was endorsed by the American people. I am not sure they were aware of 
it. Certainly, that is one thing people are suggesting--welfare reform, 
term limits, school prayer. Others say that the people called for a 
middle-class tax cut. I strongly disagree with that. I do not think the 
people wanted that at all. But these are among the things being 
debated, and they are fair grounds for debate.
  The one thing I am pretty confident we can almost all agree upon is 
that the people of this country think that Congress itself needs some 
reform. We may disagree on the kinds of specific reform, but the one 
message that I think was loud and clear is that this institution needs 
some changes before the American people can feel very good about it 
again. In fact, that is why I am very pleased and I give the new 
majority a lot of credit for leading with this bill, and I think many 
Democrats helped initiate the idea of congressional compliance; that we 
should not be able to live by different rules than the ones we have 
made for everybody else.
  I hold many town meetings back in my home State, and this one is just 
an obvious one. People constantly say, ``Why in the world don't you 
live by the same rules you make for us?'' Unfortunately, what it is for 
many people is a feeling that maybe we are being hypocritical by 
passing these laws and finding some reasons why they should not apply 
to us but apply to all their employers.
  There are other obvious reforms: Revolving door legislation, the 
frequent flier legislation discussed, I think campaign finance reform 
is something that almost all Americans realize needs to happen, 
lobbying disclosure, and the like.
  To me and so many of my constituents, one of the most important, 
easily the most obvious, reform is the reason I rise today, and that is 
as a cosponsor of the amendment by the Senator from Michigan, the 
Senator from Minnesota, the Senator from New Jersey, the Senator from 
Ohio and I am delighted to see the Senator from Arizona of the other 
party joining as a cosponsor on that issue. That issue, the subject of 
this amendment, is to finally get a gift ban for Members of Congress.
  I heard the comment made a lot last year, and even this year, even 
this week when we know this is a time of reform, that nobody cares 
about this issue. Some even say the election was proof that this is not 
an issue. The argument goes something like this: ``The Democrats didn't 
win and because the Democrats brought this issue forward, it couldn't 
have been much of an issue.''
  But as the Senator from Minnesota pointed out very well, at least at 
one point in the process last year, this was not just a Democratic 
issue, it was overwhelmingly endorsed by Senators of both parties and 
overwhelmingly endorsed by the House of Representatives.
  In fact, one could also argue that it was the failure to pass the 
gift ban that hurt the Democrats. I do not think that is fair, but 
people may have perceived it as an example of the gridlock that they 
somehow interpreted as having something to do with the Democratic 
majority.
  We know very well that this gift ban was merely a victim, a 
sacrificial lamb in a mass bill-killing at the end of the session. But 
who knows, it may have been one of those factors that led people to 
want to switch teams, and that is exactly what they did.
  There is one thing I am very confident of, and that is if the people 
of this country knew what happened after the gift ban was killed here 
in this room and just outside this room, they would have been very, 
very upset. There was a very loud cheer that rose up in that room out 
there we call the lobby. The lobbyists cheered very, very loudly 
because this bill had been killed.
  What more symbolizes business as usual in Washington than the loud 
cheers that came in that hall when this very simple proposition could 
not pass after it passed overwhelmingly in the U.S. Senate?
  So whatever the role this issue played in the election, I firmly 
believe that the practice of this gift-giving is a significant part of 
the feeling of the 
[[Page S466]] American people that there is something rotten in 
Washington. I believe it is that feeling, that there is something 
rotten in Washington, that had more to do with the results of this 
election than anything else. I think that is what it was about, and I 
think that is why this gift ban, although it may look like a little 
thing, really is part of a much bigger and much more serious issue, and 
that issue is, do the people have faith in their Government anymore?
  It is not much to ask the Senate and the other body to come together 
to do something about it. In fact, it is my own personal observation, 
after having held over 100 town meetings in my State over the last 2 
years, that people actually feel insulted and disgusted by the fact 
that this practice exists. I start talking about it and I cannot even 
get a sentence out about the practice before the whole crowd breaks out 
in spontaneous applause at the idea of this gift ban.
 Believe me, they do not applaud that way for everything I say. This 
one always elicits a very powerful reaction of revulsion that this 
practice is permitted in Washington.

  Now, maybe that happens in Wisconsin because we are awfully proud 
that for 20 years we have had this rule in our State legislature, a 
rule that applied to me for my 10 years as a State senator. It has 
worked very well. Members of our State senate and the assembly are not 
even allowed to take a cup of coffee from a lobbyist. It has been no 
problem for 20 years.
  So maybe it is just that. Maybe it is just the people in Wisconsin 
cannot understand why Washington cannot do it if we can do it. But I 
think it is more than that. I think it just does not fit with what 
people believe the Senate should be engaged in.
  Mr. President, others say that whatever the public's view may be, 
this is not a good thing to be talking about; that it is just a form of 
self-flagellation; that it is trivial. And the more serious Senators 
say that bringing this up, that talking about it hurts this 
institution; that it hurts the Senate to talk about it; that it demeans 
the Senate.
  Mr. President, it is my belief that it is not talking about the gift 
ban that hurts the Senate. It is the practice of allowing gift giving. 
It is the spectacle of having to turn on television in prime time and 
seeing the elaborate portrayals of the tennis and golf tournaments. It 
is the spectacle of, in our office, having received 800 gifts in the 
short 2 years that I have been here. Now, our policy does not allow us 
to keep them, but we have logged them, from a bottle of cognac, to a 6-
inch Waterford crystal, to an alarm clock, and recently I am told, 
although I was back home, a Christmas tree for every office. I do not 
know if it was for the House as well but certainly for the Senate.
  Let us assume for a moment that this is all pure generosity and it is 
well intended. I think it looks silly. I think it is demeaning to the 
Senate. It hurts the dignity of the Senate because it does not show us 
following rules as strictly as the American people believe should be 
observed by their very highest officials.
  But let me just in the last moment, Mr. President, take this one step 
further. It is my view that even if this is just something that looks 
bad and even if it makes us just look silly, if I did not think this 
was a bad practice on the merits itself, then I do not think I would 
have supported this effort to try to attach this to one of the very 
first bills in the 104th Congress. But I do think it is a bad practice. 
I do think it plays its role in changing the outcome of what happens in 
this town.
  I am afraid, Mr. President, I have reached the conclusion that this 
gift-giving is part of a closed circle of special interests in this 
town that does play its role in blocking meaningful change, whether it 
be trying to bring down the deficit, whether it be trying to achieve 
health care for all Americans, or whether it be trying to protect our 
environment.
  I will say I respect all my colleagues. I do not think it has 
anything to do with the value of these gifts. It is because these gifts 
and this practice is part of a culture of special interest money and 
influence which includes campaign finance abuses and revolving doors 
for staff members and Members, and this is a culture that is a barrier 
between the Members of Congress and the people they represent.
  Mr. President, I think it makes the beltway look like more than a 
road. I think it makes the beltway look like a boundary that too many 
Americans believe separates America from another country or another 
province and that would be something they tend to perceive as the 
kingdom of special interest influence known as Washington, DC.
  Let me just conclude by saying that although there were many moments 
that troubled me during the debate last year, the moment that made me 
realize just how important this legislation was, was when the last-
ditch argument was made that we could not do this because a number of 
important Washington, DC, restaurants would lose a lot of business.
  Now, if a lot of Washington, DC, restaurants are going to have 
trouble surviving, that means it is an awfully significant practice. 
And if we have come to that, where something that troubles the American 
people and offends them is less important than making sure that some 
restaurants here have enough lobbyists buying meals for Members of 
Congress, we have really gone too far.
  So that in the first week of the 104th Congress I do not think there 
is any more appropriate amendment than the one we are bringing forward 
today to this bill, and I again thank my colleagues, especially the 
Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Minnesota, for all their 
hard work on this issue. I yield the floor.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to add my full support 
for and to be a cosponsor of the amendment. It is based on legislation 
which, through the hard work of Senator Levin and Senator Cohen and 
several of us working with them, passed the Governmental Affairs 
Committee last year which was still on my watch as chairman. It was on 
a bipartisan basis. Senator Roth also worked with Senator Levin and 
Senator Cohen and myself.
  As the saying say goes, no more free lunches. I am glad to say this 
year we hope this may also apply to Members of Congress. For that 
matter, gone, too, if we pass this amendment, will be the junkets to 
warm and sunny places to escape the chill of the winter wind here in 
Washington. Kiss good-bye to freebie baseball tickets, if they ever 
play baseball in the major leagues again. It does not look very hopeful 
at moment but it may happen, too.
  Say sayonara to first-run plays at the Kennedy Center. You can still 
go. You can attend. It is just that you cannot have somebody pick up 
the tab for you. That is the only difference. You have to pony up 
yourself, like every other American.
  I say we have to give tribute to the American people who made all 
this possible by expressing their concerns about this loud and clear in 
the last election. We have heard many references to November 8 and 
people trying to analyze and superanalyze what happened then. That will 
be saved for another day. But I do not think in any event we can turn a 
deaf ear because we have gotten the message.
  Now, do I subscribe to the notion that Members of Congress can be 
bought or are up for sale for a few tickets or for a few dinners? No, 
absolutely not. I do not. The very thought discredits our labors, the 
very hard work that goes on here, and such thoughts only undermine and 
demean this institution. But it goes without saying that Government's 
faith and credibility have been sorely tested these last few years. And 
if banning gifts and other lobbyist amenities is what it takes to begin 
restoring public trust and integrity, then so be it. Act we must, 
whether we really feel it is having any impact on what we do here or 
not.
  Do I think the gift ban will actually make a difference in how things 
are done around here? Probably not as much as most people really think. 
I do not think most people are bought by a dinner or two, or whatever. 
But the main thing is we want to put everything aboveboard. We want to 
do business the true old-fashioned way by meeting our own constituents 
as well as special interest lobbyists in the ambiance of our own 
offices.
  I meet constituents, I meet lobbyists all the time in my office. They 
do not 
[[Page S467]] need to buy access. They do not need to do me some favor. 
They do not need to send gifts into the office in advance. We schedule 
them, talk about their particular concerns, or sometimes I have been 
known even to take some people to lunch myself and pay the bill myself.
  The point is we all recognize that in this world of politics we are 
not dealing sometimes with what is rationally considered out in the 
business world. We deal with perceptions of what people think, their 
view of us, what the general air is around, how you run an office.
  I think that is the reality of the situation. This institution which 
ought to be revered and respected by all Americans has been subjected 
to scorn and ridicule, part of it because the talk shows or the 
editorialists or somebody writes about the dinners and the freebies and 
the tickets and the so on around here as though they really run 
Washington on that basis. So we have had much scorn and ridicule. We 
have been depicted as out-of-touch Members, being wined and dined by 
special interests and caring not for the Nation or our State but only 
for our own reelection campaigns.
  Now I do not happen to believe that is true for 99 percent of the 
people in the Congress. But the perception, once again, is what we are 
dealing with.
  We certainly deserve much of the blame for having let this happen. So 
it is a big step we take today, one which hopefully will show that we 
are serious about improving this body's reputation and standing with 
the public.
  Having said this, however, I must confess that in my view these 
issues are a really a diversion from the true heart of the matter. If 
we really wanted to attack the notion of special interest access we 
would be dealing more directly with campaign finance reform. If we want 
to talk about what would clean up politics across country it is 
campaign finance reform more than anything else, not whether we limit 
$20 lunches or not.
  In fact, just to illustrate that, I find it just a bit hypocritical 
to say that a Member could be bought for a $20 lunch, yet he can sit 
down with that same lobbyist and ask for a $5,000 PAC contribution and 
get it. We may have to foot the bill for the lunch but it is a small 
price to pay for a hefty campaign check. And it just does not make 
sense to do one without dealing with the other.
  I think, really, if we were dealing with this we would be dealing 
with Federal financing and make some sort of matching funds that would 
cut down some of the costs of campaigning so we do not have to go out 
and be dependent upon lobbyists and big contributors across the country 
for every campaign we run. If we did something like that, provide at 
least partial Federal financing for campaigns, we would do more to 
clean up politics than anything else.
  Let me also just say I regret we are not considering what I truly 
believe would be also some guts of this reform and that is lobbying 
disclosure. We were not even able to take up the conference report on 
that measure toward the end of the last session. The conference report 
came back, as we all recall, and even the motion to proceed to it was 
filibustered. There were supposedly some grassroots problems that were 
had on the other side, basically, with it. The gift part was OK, as far 
as the provisions in that conference report. The gift part of it was 
OK, but the lobbying part of it was opposed by some people.
  What Senator Levin has done is he has cut back on that lobbying 
portion of it as it came back last year in the conference report and 
stuck more tightly just to the gift part of this thing. So it has been 
weakened in some respects. But we could not even get that conference 
report up to be considered late in the last session.
  I think there was a lot of misinformation and I do not know whether 
all the motives were pure or not in what people were trying to do in 
opposing that even coming to the floor. In my judgment, lobbying 
disclosure will probably have a greater impact in rebuilding the 
people's trust in Government than the gift ban. And I look forward to 
the day when everyone will be able to know who is paying what to lobby 
whom on which issue. Sunshine is always the best disinfectant. In some 
cases it may even be a repellent.
  I know the hard work put in on this effort by Senators Levin and 
Cohen in our Governmental Affairs Committee last year. I think we can 
surely address what legitimate concerns have been raised about lobbying 
disclosure and pass this bill expeditiously.
  I would add, we have two different bills that were proposed on this 
congressional coverage. One is just congressional coverage, period. 
That is it. And that is the one that is before us today that is 
proposed to be amended.
  The other one was the one put in by Democratic leadership, by Senator 
Daschle, by our minority leader. And it took basically that same bill, 
congressional coverage, but added lobbying and gift ban to it. That is 
not the bill before us. So the effort now is to take those other 
provisions and add them to this. I must admit I started out thinking 
that perhaps this would complicate things in getting it over to the 
House and getting it passed expeditiously, which I certainly support 
and want to do. But when you look back at the track record and what has 
happened with regard to this legislation, there is not all this need 
for a chance to govern or for great Senate leadership that Senator 
Cohen, my good friend Senator Cohen, alluded to a few moments ago. Let 
us look at the record on this. Play the tape over again.
  In 1994 the House passed the gift ban, not once but twice. So it 
passed the House. It is not a matter of having to have great leadership 
to work out our differences with the House. They passed it twice last 
year. They passed the lobbying part of it, which is not a major part of 
this now. That has been watered down. But they passed this twice last 
year. What happened in the Senate? In May of last year the Senate 
approved S. 1935 that banned gifts to all congressional personnel and 
staff and passed it by a vote of 95 to 4. So here we have two votes 
over in the House, we have a vote here in the Senate on the same thing. 
We had the agreement in conference that was worked out. Yet we could 
not get that up.
  So as far as this idea that the new congressional leadership has to 
have a chance to lead, a chance to govern--to me rings just a bit 
hollow, rings a bit untrue here, because we have already had full 
agreement on these things between the House and the Senate repeatedly. 
And the filibuster last fall is the only reason we did not get the 
conference report through. So I feel the House already has spoken on 
this.
  There are a lot of new Members over in the House. But I do not think 
their views on gift ban and lobbying are going to be that different 
from those of the House the last time around. So this idea that we need 
some great chance to govern or need some new leadership when both sides 
have already agreed and voted repeatedly on the same issue that we are 
talking about, rings just a bit hollow. So I think the House, with the 
past record over there, would be more likely to, if we put this on, put 
on the amendment that Senator Levin is proposing--I would think they 
would be prone to accept it. And hopefully we could get ahead with 
this, rather than having to have a whole separate bill brought up and 
debated once again, have its own series of amendments, I suppose, and 
it just delays it until later in the year when, I repeat once again, 
for the fourth time, I guess, that the House and the Senate have 
already acted repeatedly on the gift bans that he is proposing. So why 
not put it on this and get it through in one bill? Then we can get on 
with other legislation. This year is going to be full of legislation 
anyway.
  The House passed this 306 to 112, I am told here. I did not look that 
up. They passed it overwhelmingly last year. We had overwhelming 
votes--95 to 4 here in the Senate. The House passed it twice. And the 
part that disturbed some people here, the lobbying part of it--OK that 
has been watered down by Senator Levin. So that is now just a sense of 
the Senate.
  So I see no reason why we should not accept this and go ahead. I 
think real leadership here, a chance to govern, would be to include the 
most we can in this package here that has already been agreed to by the 
House and Senate and get on with it so we can save floor time and 
committee time for other more important items as we go through the 
year.
  [[Page S468]] So I support this and want to compliment Senator Levin 
again. He stuck with this. He has really stuck with it, not just 
because it is politically good for him. I know because I talked with 
him. He stuck with it because he believes in it. He thinks it is right 
and I think it is right too.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I will be extremely brief. I understand 
there will be a motion to table shortly, if debate has been completed. 
Let me just say that I am pleased that my friend from Michigan has 
decided not to press the lobbyist disclosure measure at this particular 
time. As he knows, I have been in discussions with the American Civil 
Liberties Union about that bill. It seems to this Senator and to the 
ACLU that in many ways the bill, even in its current incarnation, 
significantly impairs the ability of citizens in this country to 
petition Congress, something they have a constitutional right to do. So 
I think we need to continue to work on that, and I am pleased that the 
Senator from Michigan has chosen not to press that here today.
  With regard to the gift issue, as we all know the gift issue is a 
Senate rule. It can be enacted by the Senate alone, whenever the Senate 
chooses to act. It does not require the concurrence of the House. Back 
in the fall when we were engaged in a dispute, driven principally by 
the flaws in the lobbying portion, I, along with a number of my 
colleagues, proposed moving ahead and passing the gift provision, 
separate and apart from the lobby disclosure provisions.
  It was the prerogative, of course, of the then majority leader, 
Senator Mitchell, to bring up the gift matter since it could not be 
offered as an amendment to the measure before us because of the 
conference report. The conference report had married together the 
changes to the gift rules and the lobby disclosure statutory change. 
And we had a conference report before us. Senator Dole had suggested 
that we would defeat the conference report and be willing to act on the 
Senate rules. Senator Mitchell chose not to call up the Senate rule at 
that time, apparently feeling that it was for whatever reason not a 
good idea to pass the rule all by itself. That was at the end of the 
Congress.
  Here we are at the beginning of the Congress. In fact, the first act 
of the day in the Senate, it would be in my view, could be that there 
would be further refinements made in the gift measure. I do not think 
there is any compelling reason to do it today. It is the beginning of a 
Congress, not the end of one. What is also at stake here, Mr. 
President, quite frankly, is the issue of running the Senate. Senator 
Dole may well decide at a timing of his choosing to bring up a gift ban 
proposal. My view is that, should he decide to do that, we will have 
one that makes sense and revises the current gift rule. We can do that 
wholly apart from what may or may not be going on in the House because 
we can do that obviously with our own rule.
  Mr. President, it is my view that what is really at issue today is 
sort of the control issue. We all would like to see congressional 
accountability pass. It seems to this Senator that the best way to do 
that is to pass it as it is without amendment.
  Even though I will predict that at some point this year we will pass 
a gift rule revision, my prediction is that it will be better than the 
one currently offered in this amendment, better for the Senate and 
better for the public; and that today what we ought to do is pass the 
Congressional Accountability Act, something I think virtually everybody 
here is in favor of it. It is ready to go. We know the House is 
interested in receiving our version.
  So I hope that whenever a motion to table is made that it would be 
approved and that we commit to my friend from Michigan that we will 
continue to work on this. I think it is likely that it would be 
approved sometime soon. I believe we can make it even better than the 
version currently being offered by the Senator from Michigan.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I will take a few 
minutes to discuss my point of view on this piece of legislation. I am 
a cosponsor of the amendment which would prohibit Members of Congress 
from accepting gifts, travel from lobbyists and others.
  Mr. President, if this past election proved anything it is that the 
American people want change. They want Congress to respond first and 
foremost to the needs of ordinary citizens, not special interests, not 
just the wealthy, not just the lobbyists.
  I introduced a piece of legislation, something so similar that this 
is indistinguishable from what I introduced at that time. It was in May 
of 1993. At that time, Mr. President, there were many of us here, many 
here on Capitol Hill that did not appreciate the depth of the public's 
anger. Today I think it is quite obvious that the message was loud and 
the message was clear. And I think that everybody today understands how 
the public feels. And it is time, way past time, as a matter of fact, 
to finally translate that anger into action.
  Mr. President, I do not believe, and few do, that Members of Congress 
are selling their votes for the price of a meal or a free trip to the 
Caribbean. But it is hard to believe that when a lobbyist takes a 
Senator to dinner that they are only buying a meal. What they are 
buying is access, and access is power. Ordinary citizens do not have 
that access. They cannot just take their Senator or this Congress 
person to a quiet dinner at an expensive restaurant and explain what it 
is like to be afraid, to be concerned about the future, to be concerned 
about your job, to be concerned about whether or not your child is 
going to be able to climb the ladder of success, what it is like to be 
employed. Certainly they cannot take Members to resorts in the 
Caribbean or out in the mountains to discuss their personal tax 
problem. But meanwhile lobbyists have been doing these things for 
years. It gives them a distinct edge.
  Mr. President, when Americans see Members of Congress being wined and 
dined by lobbyists, they do not like it. They resent it. They believe 
with that kind of imagery that the deck is stacked against them, and 
they think it is wrong. They do not respect the system that operates 
that way.
  As I said earlier, I do not stand before my colleagues to criticize 
anyone or to question anybody's motives. I am not claiming to be 
particularly holier than thou--but I do think that we need to change 
the way that we do business. This is the time and the place to do it. 
We are, after all, considering a bill that is designed to eliminate 
double standards for the Congress, standards differing from that of the 
average person. And it is a terrible double standard for the executive 
branch to be living under stringent gift rules while Members of 
Congress continue to accept gifts from others.
  I would also point out, Mr. President, that many in the private 
sector are living under the type of tough standard proposed in this 
amendment. The occupant of the chair comes from the business community, 
as I do. As a matter of fact, our paths crossed indirectly in our 
previous lives. I was a CEO of a major corporation before I came to the 
Senate, and I know that the distinguished Senator from Utah also was 
head of a significant corporation.
  In my company we had very strict rules prohibiting purchasing agents 
from accepting gifts from suppliers. I did not think our people were 
dishonest. But I wanted to make sure that there was no temptation, no 
seduction on the part of the supplier to get a special advantage. I 
wanted the products that we bought, the merchandise that we bought, to 
be considered strictly on the basis of quality, ability to deliver and 
the appropriate price, nothing more. Lots of companies have similar 
rules. If these companies can live with these restrictions, I believe 
that it is fair to say that we in this body can also.
  Mr. President, just a few months ago Republicans in this body and in 
the House chose to defeat lobbying reform legislation that included a 
gift ban. At the time, our colleagues claimed that they were supporting 
the gift ban but they were concerned about other provisions in the 
bill. Others suggested that perhaps the motive was partisan to deny 
Democrats credit. I am not going 
[[Page S469]] to comment about anyone's motives last year. It is water 
under the bridge. I made some comments at that time that I think 
perhaps were misunderstood, was taken piecemeal out of the television 
interview.
  But once again, I state very, very clearly that my view is that 
people are not corrupted by a meal or a present or a trip or a golf 
game. But the appearance is not one that the American people believe 
gives them the same fair deal that some on the special inside track 
has.
  I hope my colleagues will agree to support this amendment which 
includes the very same gift ban that they claimed to support last year. 
As a matter of fact, it won 95 to 4, I believe was the count--
overwhelming. The eyes of America are on the new leadership and on this 
Congress. If we cannot bring ourselves to ban gifts from lobbyists it 
will be a sign that for all of the talk of reform we are still back in 
politics as usual. The fact of saying one thing but doing another, the 
fact of putting special interests first and the ordinary citizens last, 
would be a terrible and deeply disturbing message for this Congress to 
send, and we ought not to do that.
  So I hope that my colleagues will join me.
  Let it be voted upon. Let us take the count and see what happens. 
That is what the American people are entitled to know. What do the 
Members of this body really believe when they say they want to change 
things? It is easy. Get a tally of the vote, and it adds up to 100. 
Whichever way the majority rules is what will be done.
  So I would like to see it done with support from both sides of the 
aisle, in the spirit of the new mood of cooperation. I hope it can be 
done. I think it is very important to set the record straight, and you 
do it step by step. This is a very important first step.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I just want to respond to some of the 
comments from my colleague from Kentucky about this amendment, the gift 
ban provisions. My colleague said that he thought it could be improved 
upon, but again I point out that this is precisely the language of the 
proposal introduced by the majority leader and 36 other Republicans. 
Mr. President, I can go through the provisions of this gifts proposal--
and I guess I would like to ask my colleague, what would you want to 
improve on? What do you want in and what do you want out?
  Mr. President, what I have heard on the floor of the Senate in the 
last hour or so really startled me. And I think it is going to be a 
huge problem for our country. The word ``governing'' was used earlier. 
Again, Mr. President, people were talking about meals. It is not just 
meals. There are examples of trade association-paid trips to the 
Bahamas, Hawaii, you name it. We ought to end this practice. But I 
would like people in the country to know--and I was amazed that I heard 
my colleague from Kentucky just say it so clearly. He said, ``This is 
about control.'' That is what this is about? So, colleagues, this is 
not about merit, this is not about reform. When everyone ran for 
office, they talked about reform. I doubt whether very many of my 
colleagues talked about control. That is what this issue is about. Do 
not vote for an amendment that puts an end to a practice that leads 
people in our country to believe that something is wrong with the way 
we conduct business in Washington. Do not respond to what people want 
us to do now. Continue with this practice, as egregious as it is, and 
do it because of control. That is what I heard my colleague say from 
Kentucky, that this is about control.
  I thought it was about merit. I thought this was about reform. I 
thought this was about the Congressional Accountability Act. I thought 
this was about making Senators more accountable. I thought this was 
about good government.
  Mr. President, I may or may not be a little out of line. I am just 
speaking for myself as one Senator from Minnesota, but if the 
definition of control now in the Senate is that, by definition, any 
amendment introduced from our side of the aisle bumps up against 
control and, regardless of merit, will be voted down, that is very 
different from the way in which I thought the Senate operated--at least 
during the time I have been here. If that is what this is all about--
control--then I will have this amendment on gift ban up on the floor 
over and over and over again, and I guess we will be talking about 
control and control and control over and over again.
  I thought that this was a legislative process, a democratic process, 
an amendment body, and Senators voted amendments up or down on the 
basis of their own independence and on the basis of merit, not on the 
basis of control.
  So, Mr. President, I yield the floor for the moment, but I would be 
interested in some response by my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, since I do not think people in the United States of America in 
this past election voted for control. They voted for good change. They 
voted for reform. They voted for reaching beyond our parties. They 
voted for doing the right thing, albeit people have different 
definitions of doing the right thing. They did not vote for control. I 
think this debate now about this amendment has become bigger than the 
amendment. It has a great deal to do with the way we are going to 
conduct ourselves here in the Senate. I would be interested in a 
response from my colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  

                          ____________________