[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 120 (Monday, July 24, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10531-S10534]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   COMPREHENSIVE GIFT BAN LEGISLATION

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is a discussion the Senator and I 
choose to have now, possibly tonight, and then I would imagine through 
tomorrow as well. We will be involved in I think a major debate about 
the gift ban reform effort.
  I thought that the Senator from Wisconsin and I might talk a little 
bit about what is at issue here. I will start out for a few moments, 
and then we will go back and forth. I have some questions which I want 
to put to the Senator, and I think he has some questions he wants to 
put to me as well.
  Mr. President, just to be crystal clear, there is no question in my 
mind that people in the country really, as I have said before, yearn 
for a political process that they can believe in, one that really is 
accountable, that is open, and that has real integrity.
  We have been working on a gift ban. I ask the Senator from Wisconsin 
how long we have been working on this comprehensive gift ban 
legislation with Senator Lautenberg and Senator Levin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. It seems like we have been talking about it for about 2 
years. We sort of came to this in different ways. I got here in the 
Senate, and I just knew that as a State senator from Wisconsin, we had 
a law that said you cannot even accept a cup of coffee from a lobbyist. 
I understood that in the 10 years I was in the State senate. I was a 
little surprised to find out they did otherwise here.
  So we put this in effect for myself and my staff, and then I found 
out independently that the Senator from Minnesota, from another reform-
minded State, was working an overall bill that would apply that to all 
Members of Congress. We obviously crossed paths and thought that would 
make sense as part of a broader effort to try to get the influence of 
big private money a little bit more out of Washington. We got other 
supporters as time went on. That is how it really started.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me go on to say to my colleague 
that we have become close friends. We come from a similar part of the 
country, and we come from reform-minded States.
  It is interesting. I became interested in this initiative because 
shortly after I had been elected, I was on a plane. A guy came up to 
me, without using any names, by the way. I will not for a moment say 
there was anything about the conversation that I would call corrupt. 
But he came up to me and asked me whether I liked athletics. I said, 
``I love 

[[Page S10532]]
athletics. My children and I have been involved in athletics, and 
Sheila and I just love it.'' He said, ``Senator, we would be very 
pleased for you to have tickets. We represent a certain industry, and 
we have tickets for all sorts of different games,'' and everything 
else. I thanked him. Then I sat down and started thinking to myself. I 
was a college teacher for 20 years. I had been on this plane, you know, 
a few times and nobody had ever come up to me and asked that point. I 
thought, What is it that has changed? It must be the institutional 
position.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. If the Senator will yield, I had a similar experience 
when I first became a member of the Wisconsin State Senate. Nobody had 
ever come up to me on the State capitol ground and said, ``Senator, do 
you like lobster?'' About a week after being a member of the State 
senate, one of the lobbyists came up, put his arm around me, and said, 
``We are just delighted to have you here, Senator. Do you and your wife 
enjoy lobster tail?'' It took me about a minute to realize what was 
going on. Being from Wisconsin, that was illegal. It is not, though, at 
the Federal level. But it sort of dawns on you that suddenly people are 
a little more interested in socializing and buying you dinner possibly 
because you have been elected to public office.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me go on and engage in a discussion 
with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, about what is at 
issue here. S. 101 is the comprehensive gift ban measure.
  By the way, Mr. President, 88 Senators--the Senator from Tennessee 
would be excluded because he was not in the Senate or the House last 
Congress--but 88 Senators voted for exactly S. 101, this comprehensive 
gift ban initiative.
  Again, I say to my colleague, it is extremely important in terms of 
the public, in terms of our connection with the people we represent, 
that people hold strong with this position. One of features of S. 101 
on the gift ban is that we simply say when it comes to lobbying--let us 
just talk about that--there are just no gifts, period. We have a $20 
minimum.
  The McConnell initiative allows lobbyists to give Members an 
unlimited number of gifts up to $100 each. As it turns out, I thought 
at one point in time that this meant every day a lobbyist could take 
the Senator from Wisconsin or the Senator from Tennessee or the Senator 
from Minnesota out for a meal here in Washington, dinner in Washington, 
or a ticket to an Orioles game, or whatever the case might be, and that 
every single day, as long as it was up to $100, it could be done in 
perpetuity because there is not even an aggregate limit.
  Now, as it turns out, it is per occasion--breakfast, lunch, dinner, 
much less all sorts of things per occasion. Lobbyists can give us gifts 
as long as it is under $100, and there is no aggregate limit.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I would like to quantify that example. Under the 
strictest interpretation of the McConnell proposal, the one that would 
change S. 101, even if you interpreted it to mean that you could only 
give $100 a day of food and wine and so on, it would mean that every 
lobbyist and every individual could give each Member of Congress 
$36,500 of those kinds of things. And is not the Senator really saying 
that is not even what it means, that it is worth more than that, more 
than $100 a day per person for everyone in the universe, for every 
Member of the Congress?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. The $100 adds up to $36,500 a year.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Per person.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. So actually we do not even have a $36,500 limit.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. That is the strictest interpretation.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is the strictest interpretation of what we have 
in the McConnell-Dole initiative.
  I say to my colleague from Wisconsin that I would view this not as a 
great step forward but a great leap backward.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I agree. If the Senator will yield, you can argue that 
this is just slightly tougher than current law that says that if a gift 
is over $100, or a meal is over $100 and it is less than $250, I guess 
you can accept it but you are banned from over $250. But the 
contributions under $100 do not count. They do not count toward that. 
This puts into the law forever a permission, a right, if you will, to 
take anything up to $100 a day from everyone.
  So it really is worse because it formalizes potentially in a statute 
as opposed to a resolution, depending on how it comes out, this 
practice as something that is permitted and maybe even encouraged in 
Washington.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. So this alternative McConnell-Dole proposal, in the 
name of reform, in many ways essentially solidifies, if you will, the 
culture of politics as we know it right now in the Nation's Capital.
  Let me go on and ask my colleague a couple of other questions.
  By the way, I would say this alternative proposal that we have takes 
us a long way from I think what the majority leader on October 15 of 
last year said, which was that ``no lobbyists' lunches, no 
entertainment, no travel, no contributions to legal defense funds, no 
fruit baskets, no nothing.''
  This proposal that we now get from the other side certainly takes us 
a long way from that.
  The second part of this proposal would allow privately financed 
vacation trips in the form of charity golf, tennis and ski events to be 
accepted by Members from lobbyists, as I think we could accept that for 
ourselves, our spouses, our family.
  I would ask my colleague. This is the alternative proposal. Does he 
see this as reform or does he see this as having that sort of, if you 
will, look of reform but, again, an open-ended proposition where we 
have lobbyists and special interests paying for skiing, paying for 
tennis, or paying for vacations for ourselves and our families?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. If the Senator will yield, I think he correctly 
identified the other day that there are two provisions in this 
McConnell proposal that really gut the bill from having the name 
``reform'' properly attached to it.
  You can call anything you want reform--welfare reform or health care 
reform. Unless it changes things positively, it is not that.
  Really, these two provisions, the one the Senator talked about in 
terms of $100 a day and the allowing of charitable trips to be 
determined not by an across-the-board rule or any real standards but 
just by the Senate Ethics Committee, which is, of course, controlled 
and in fact is constituted by Members of the Senate, it means you are 
really not taking away any sort of strict rule that says we are not 
going to allow that at all.
  So I think the combination of those two provisions makes it 
impossible to call this reform but at best window dressing, and I think 
the American public would be very distressed to learn what is still 
permitted under either the travel portion or the meals and gift 
provisions.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Wisconsin 
that if we want to as Senators support different charities, I think it 
is important we be there at these events. I think there is a way in 
which Senators, Democrats, and Republicans alike, have an important 
role to play. But the point is we should do that on our own expense. If 
we care enough about those charities, then we pay our own way.
  I think that is the point. We do not need to have lobbyists paying 
our way, in which case then it becomes another big loophole. It seems 
to me, I say to my colleague from Wisconsin--I would be interested in 
his reaction--and I said this earlier in the Chamber, I am not 
interested in across-the-board denigration of public service. I believe 
in public service. So does my colleague from Wisconsin. So do 
Republicans and Democrats alike.
  It seems to me we ought to let go of these special favors, these 
perks, these gifts. We ought to let go of it. If you want people to 
believe in us, if you want people to believe in the outcome of this 
process, if you want people to have more confidence in the Senate and 
in the House and in politics in Washington, DC, then let go of these 
gifts. Would my colleague agree with me?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I agree. I cannot believe that this great institution 
wants to continue to have its reputation and its history really being 
besmirched by some of these ``Prime Time'' programs and others that are 
able to take what perhaps is an isolated instance in the 

[[Page S10533]]
case of certain Members of Congress and show them playing tennis with 
lobbyists and just cast doubt on the whole institution. There have been 
enough problems already. I really have to believe that this institution 
will rise up and say we do not want this.
  In fact, I say to the Senator from Minnesota, even the lobbyists do 
not really want this in a lot of cases. I flew out here this morning 
and two or three of the prominent lobbyists from Wisconsin said, ``We 
hope you win on this thing.'' They are tired of this expectation that 
if one telecommunications giant takes somebody out to dinner, does not 
the other one have to. So they want to be free of this. They want to be 
professionals, most of them, as well.
  If we just have a per se rule as in Wisconsin--lobbyists cannot do 
it; legislators cannot do it--it frees everyone from this sort of murky 
question of should I really do that even though it does not look very 
good and seems inappropriate? It is very important for everyone 
involved. I think in most cases people have the best intentions here. 
We need the per se rule and should not leave it up to the Senate Ethics 
Committee to say this charity or that trip makes sense or does not.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senator from Wisconsin makes an 
interesting point. I am a little embarrassed that I did not make this 
point earlier, which is that you talk to many of the lobbyists and they 
say they would be pleased to see this pass. So in a way, this 
comprehensive gift ban proposal--I said comprehensive, S. 101 we have 
been working on. I did not say the alternative, the McConnell-Dole 
alternative, which frankly does not pass the credibility test. It is 
not comprehensive. It is not strict and it does not put an end to this 
practice. I think people will be very angry with it, and therefore I 
hope actually in the next 2 days we will have reached some agreement 
that all of us can pass something of which we are proud. Otherwise, it 
would be a gigantic debate.
  If I could just make one additional point, I think this comprehensive 
gift ban proposal is important, first of all, for the public so they 
can have more confidence in our process, for all of us, Democrats and 
Republicans alike, and for the lobbyists. And I say to my colleague 
from Wisconsin, for me the issue has never been the wrongdoing of an 
individual office holder. I am glad the Senator put it the way he did. 
I am not interested in some of these exposes--this, that and the other 
--which I think kind of miss the mark. I do not see--and I hope I am 
right--the wrongdoing of a lot of individual office holders, but I 
think there is a more serious problem and it is systemic.
  What this is all about, this comprehensive gift ban proposal is all 
about, is the fact that some people have too much access. They have too 
much say over what we do in the Senate and too many people in Wisconsin 
and Minnesota and Tennessee and Michigan are left out of the loop. 
People do not like that. They do not feel well represented. They do not 
like the idea that certain lobbyists and special interests that those 
lobbyists represent have so much clout here and they are left out.
  That is another reason why I think we have to pass a tough 
comprehensive gift ban reform. Would my colleague agree that there is 
campaign finance, there is lobbying disclosure, and there is gift ban--
all of these reform measures are almost more important than each of 
them singularly?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would agree. I like to call it the 
circle of special influence in Washington. There are different links in 
the chain: the gift problem, the campaign finance problem, and the 
problem of the revolving door, where Members of Congress or their staff 
members work here and then go to work for special interests and 
lobbying back right away.
  It is only one part of it, the gift ban. But one of the things that 
bothers me about this gift issue that the Senator mentions is the fact 
that this involves the access issue. There is a serious problem for any 
Member of the Senate. The Senator and I represent millions of people. 
It is so hard to equitably balance distributing your own time for your 
constituents. It is obviously difficult to meet with them individually. 
If there is something out there, whether it be trips or meals, that 
involves a substantial amount of extra time for certain people because 
they happen to provide these certain things, that distorts our ability 
to equitably spend time with constituents.
  I think it is embarrassing to even have to come out on the floor and 
talk about this. It seems to me to be so simple that we should just ban 
it. It is not that we have not wanted to dispose of it. I can assure 
you the Senator from Minnesota and I and the Senator from Michigan 
would like nothing better than to have this over with. We do not want 
opportunity after opportunity to debate this. But there has been a real 
effort, frankly, under both Republican and Democrat leadership, to move 
this issue off to the side. We want it resolved.
  I would like to just have to no longer be able to point out to people 
that in my office we have received in the last 2\1/2\ years--and this 
is sort of the small part of this, but it is the really silly part of 
it--1,072 gifts, from inexpensive calendars to coffee mugs, T-shirts, 
motor oil, spark plugs, cast iron bookends, a Japanese mask, fruit 
baskets, cakes, cheese, pecans, sausage, eggs, steaks, almonds, onions, 
garlic, honey, bread, peaches, sweet potatoes, sugar, chocolate, candy 
bars, tea, coffee, dates, barley mustard, wine, Girl Scout cookies, and 
three lollipops.
  Do people not have better things to do than to prepare these little 
packages for Members of the Senate and the House so they can say that 
they, too, have handed out some goodies to the Senators' offices? We 
have serious business to do here. For our staff members to be bothered 
with 1,072 of these little well-intentioned gifts is just another 
example how this process does not make sense. And if we just banned it, 
we would be able to focus more clearly on what we should really be 
doing, which is the work of the people who elected us.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, we have about used up our time. Let me 
just close this way. The New York Times--I do not know if my colleague 
saw this--on Saturday had an editorial called ``Republican Gift 
Fraud.'' And quite frankly--and we have not even begun to look at the 
Republican proposal, or at least the McConnell proposal--there are 
enough loopholes in here to drive huge trucks through. I think it is 
very dangerous to call something reform which in fact maintains this 
current practice of enabling lobbyists and other professional interests 
to give us gifts, gifts that we receive and take.
  I do not think that will do a thing to restore public confidence in 
the process, and in fact I think people will be furious to not see this 
practice ended.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. If the Senator will yield, I just want to say that I 
remember--the Senator and I talked about this--the biggest cheer we 
heard in the lobby out here in the reception area last year was the 
moment when the gift ban was defeated. There was a cheer that went up 
in the room apparently from some of the interests that were involved in 
this. I can assure you, based on the points made about the McConnell 
amendment, if that passes, it will again be a victory for those who 
want to continue the current system. It cannot possibly be called 
reform, as the Senator from Minnesota has pointed out.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I agree. Let me conclude with an editorial today. Mr. 
President, I ask unanimous consent that this editorial be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                        Prove It's Not for Sale

       Once again, supporters of ethics reforms see the U.S. 
     Senate trying to save an endangered species: the 
     congressional freebie. This week the Senate is bound to act 
     on the long-diverted lobbyist gift ban sponsored by five 
     persistent senators, including Paul Wellstone of Minnesota 
     and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin.
       This gift ban measure should pass as is. In fact it has 
     passed previously, only to be put aside in the service of 
     political goals and to mollify senators who believe that free 
     football tickets and golf vacations come with the job.
       For all the talk over the last few years about reforms in 
     how Congress conducts itself, it is obvious that the 
     assumption of special privilege is the province of neither a 
     Republican- nor Democratic-led federal legislature. The 
     assumption of personal privilege for lawmakers is so embedded 
     in the institution's culture that giving up perks ordinary 
     citizens do not enjoy has become as 

[[Page S10534]]
     tough as balancing the federal budget. Making the matter more difficult 
     is the fact that senators know they have to be ``for ethics 
     reform.'' So the politics of freebies involves diversion and 
     dilution. The anti-reform dynamic aims to stop a 
     comprehensive ban by pushing one that meets appearances of 
     reform without reducing the flow of trips and free meals.
       Also designed to weigh against a comprehensive gift ban is 
     one of the parliamentarian's oldest tricks: send a 
     controversial issue to a committee to be chewed up. The 
     Senate's bipartisan task force on lobbying reform has the 
     potential to assure that the sugary river of senatorial gifts 
     is drawn down one hummingbird-sized sip at a time.
       The comprehensive gift ban may cramp some senators' style, 
     but it is an important step in restoring public confidence. 
     The current climate about politics and its practitioners says 
     the Senate must prove it is not for sale, one member at a 
     time, to special interests that provide seats on the 50-yard 
     line and a winter break in the tropics.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is from the St. Paul Pioneer 
Press, a paper that both of us in Wisconsin and Minnesota receive. The 
last paragraph reads as follows:

       The comprehensive gift ban may cramp some Senators' style, 
     but it is an important step in restoring public confidence. 
     The current climate about politics and its practitioners says 
     the Senate must prove it is not for sale, one Member at a 
     time, to special interests that provide seats on the 50-yard 
     line and winter break in the tropics.

  That is stated quite directly. I think the Pioneer Press speaks for 
the vast majority of people in the country. Some of it may be 
perception. I do not always assume because people take gifts that that 
leads to some sort of awful private deals that take place between 
lobbyists and Senators. I do not make that assumption at all.
  But I say to my colleagues, it is time to let go of these perks. It 
is time to let go of these privileges. It is time to no longer take 
these gifts. It is time to no longer have lobbyists pay for vacations 
for ourselves and our spouses, and we ought to end this. It is time to 
restore some confidence on the part of the people we represent in this 
political process.
  A lot of our colleagues think that we are the only ones interested in 
these issues. That is not true. People in the country care fiercely 
about this. I hope in the next couple of days that there will be 
lobbying disclosure reform, gift ban reform--maybe there will be give 
and take, I say to my colleague. Maybe we will come together around 
some initiatives that will not be everything we want, but I do not 
think either one of us or any of us who have worked on gift ban are 
going to accept a proposal that does not meet the test of representing 
significant reform.
  Then eventually--and I thank my colleague for his work on this--we 
will get to campaign finance reform. When we reform this political 
process, we will be dealing with the root issue, and the root issue is 
many, many people in the United States of America have lost confidence 
in the Nation's Capitol. They do not believe this Capitol belongs to 
them. By God, we have to make sure it does--we have to make sure not 
only they believe it, but that that is the case, this Capitol belongs 
to them. This is only one step in that direction, but it is an 
important one. I hope all of our colleagues will support comprehensive 
gift ban reform.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________