[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 121 (Tuesday, July 25, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10585-S10594]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                 CONGRESSIONAL GIFT REFORM ACT OF 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President we are now, I take it, back on the bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are now considering S. 1061.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  First of all, let me thank my colleagues for their real fine work on 
this legislation. Senator Levin has done such fine work with Senator 
Cohen on the lobbying reform, and Senator Feingold, and Senator 
Lautenberg, Senator Baucus, Senator McCain, and others.
  I was listening to my colleague from Michigan. Let me, at the 
beginning, emphasize some of the points he made. This has been a really 
long journey in the Senate. I say to the Chair, who is a friend, that 
actually back in Minnesota, when I talk to people in cafes, they do not 
even understand what the debate is about. To them, it is kind of not 
even a debatable proposition. Lobbyists and others do not come up to 
citizens in Colorado and Minnesota and say, ``Look, we would like to 
take you out to dinner. We would be willing to pay for a trip you might 
take to Vail.'' Not to pick on Colorado; it could be Florida, or 
anywhere. ``And bring your spouse.'' And so on and so forth.
  Most people do not have people coming up to them and making these 
kinds of offers. I think the citizens in our country just think it is 
inappropriate for us to be on the receiving end of these gifts. And 
they are right. We should just let this go.
  For me, this journey started in May 1993, over 2 years ago, with an 
amendment I had on lobbying disclosure where lobbyists would have to 
disclose the gifts they were giving to individual Senators. That 
amendment was agreed to. Then we went on to this kind of broader debate 
about the gift ban.
  It has been a real struggle. I have never quite understood the 
resistance of all too many of my colleagues. Although, in the last 
analysis, on each vote, I want to make it clear, we have had very 
strong support. Actually, S. 1061--88 current Members of the Senate 
have essentially already voted for precisely the comprehensive gift ban 
legislation that we have before the Senate today. So I expect it will 
engender the 

[[Page S 10586]]
same strong support on the floor of the Senate as we go forward.
  Mr. President, Senators Feingold and Lautenberg and I in the last 
Congress had to threaten to attach gift ban to another piece of 
legislation to finally get a consent agreement to have it eventually 
brought up; finally we had it on the floor. This has been a much 
scrutinized, much debated piece of legislation. Ultimately, as Senator 
Levin stated, at the very end we had lobbying reform and gift ban 
reform in the form of a conference report that came over here that was 
filibustered at the end of the last Congress.
  Then we started off this Congress. At the very beginning, again, I 
think Senators Feingold, Lautenberg, and myself, we had an amendment on 
the Congressional Accountability Act. It was our feeling this was very 
much about accountability. That was defeated. We wanted to include gift 
ban reform. That was defeated on the Congressional Accountability Act. 
The majority leader said we would take it up later; I think by the end 
of May. I came out with a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, essentially 
repeating what the majority leader had said, that we take it up by the 
end of May. That was defeated. I could never understand the ``no'' vote 
on that.
  Now, here we are at the end of July. This legislation has garnered 
the support of a broad range of reform minded groups: United We Stand, 
Common Cause, Public Citizens, and others. I think the reason for this 
is that people in the country really want to see some changes in the 
way we conduct our business here in the Nation's capital. People in the 
country, I have said this before on the floor of the Senate, want to 
believe in our political process. And people in the country are, I 
think, far more serious about reform than some of us are.
  As I observed several weeks ago on this floor, some of my majority 
colleagues, frozen like deer in the headlights, have refused to move 
forward on the gift ban. There has just been unbelievable resistance to 
a very simple proposition. And the only way in which we have been able 
to do it is through a tremendous amount of pressure.
  I ask this question, and I am going to ask this question over and 
over again for as long as this debate takes. Why are too many of my 
colleagues enthusiastic about slashing free or reduced-price lunches 
for children but at the same time they wither when it comes to 
eliminating free lunches for Members of the Congress?
  Let me repeat that. Why are so many of my colleagues, or hopefully 
just a few of my colleagues, who are leading this effort at resistance, 
so willing to cut or slash free or reduced-price school lunches for 
children but they wither when it comes to eliminating the free lunches 
for Members of Congress? I think this represents truly some distorted 
priorities.
  Let me just read from some editorials in some of the newspapers about 
this piece of legislation, what is called the McConnell-Dole 
alternative, to give you and colleagues and people in the country some 
sense about how this issue is being discussed in the country.
  The New York Times wrote that the McConnell proposal would, 
``perpetuate much of the old system under the guise of reform.''
  The Washington Post said that the McConnell proposal ``would be 
substantially more permissive about those charity trips and expensive 
free meals. Without an aggregate limit, a lobbyist could theoretically 
take a Senator out for $75 dinners, night after night, and not be 
subject to any limits at all. You might as well not pretend to have a 
gift ban.''
  I am, of course, referring to a substitute that is going to be laid 
down which, in the guise of reform, really represents the opposite of 
reform.
  The Kansas City Star wrote that ``the gravy train would stay on the 
track under a ploy of Senator Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican. 
McConnell would limit a meal or gift to $100 but the long-time foe of 
gift bans conveniently neglects to restrict the numbers of gifts. That 
means spending would go on and on. Senator McConnell's legislation 
would appear to be sound. They are not''--these are not my words--``his 
phony, bogus gift ban would have no appreciable impact on the current 
corrupt system.''
  Mr. President, there are just some titles: ``Good and Bad Lobbying.''
  ``Capitol Still Sports `For Sale' Sign. Senators Showing True Colors. 
Republican Gift Fraud.''
  ``Stop the Freeloads.''
  ``Beware of Mischief in Senate Ethics Bill.''
  ``Airtight Ban Needed.''
  ``Don't Weaken the Gift Ban.''
  And, from the Pioneer Press, St. Paul Pioneer Press, in Minnesota, 
``Prove It's Not For Sale.''
  Mr. President, there is no doubt that these kinds of gifts, and other 
favors from lobbyists, have contributed to American's deepening 
distrust of Government.
  They give the appearance of special access influence and influence, 
and they erode public confidence in Congress as an institution and in 
each Member individually as a representative of his or her 
constituents. That I think is the issue. This giving of gifts by 
lobbyists and special interests, this receiving of gifts by Senators, 
erodes public confidence in this institution and public confidence in 
each of us as representatives of the people back home in our States. We 
should let go of it.
  Mr. President, we have seen delay after delay after delay. Now, the 
question I ask my colleagues is whether or not they are going to 
essentially embrace some hollow reforms as substitutes for the real 
thing. Are we going to have colleagues talking about reform out of one 
side of their mouth while on the other side they oppose it? Will we 
have colleagues who will support hollow reform as a substitute for the 
real thing?
  For example, do my colleagues again intend, as some did last year, to 
try to gut the provisions on charitable vacation travel to golf and 
tennis hot spots like Vail, Aspen, Florida, or the Bahamas where 
Members and their families are wined and dined at the expense of 
lobbyists and major contributors? Are we going to keep that provision 
and then say we passed reform? I hope not. But I expect that such an 
attempt will be made on the floor. We fought that fight last year and 
we won. And I certainly hope that we will win again.
  Mr. President, are we going to see a measure that purports to be 
reform which says--the Senator from Wisconsin and I have discussed 
this--that actually we can take gifts up to $100 from anybody, 
lobbyists included, actually not even per day but per occasion with no 
aggregate limit with no disclosure? So breakfast, lunch and dinner? We 
could be receiving free lunches, free breakfasts, free dinners, tickets 
to--I do not call them the Redskins game--the Washington team game, or 
to the Orioles game or to concerts or trips? Anything that is under 
$100 we could receive in perpetuity from a lobbyist with no aggregate 
limit and no disclosure requirement.
  I say to my colleague. What, again, does that add up to, if you were 
doing $100 a day?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I hope I am right. Mr. President, in answer to the 
Senator's question, I think it adds up to $36,500 per lobbyist per 
Member of Congress every year. And it could not even exclude the 
lobbyist. So the potential is truly unlimited. But I think the minimum 
figure is $36,500 from one lobbyist and one Member of Congress.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes, $36,500 from one lobbyist a year. That is the 
conservative definition; it could be much more. There might even be 
efforts to cut that by half. Then it would only be $18,000 from one 
lobbyist per year, although, if you add in the number of occasions 
where that lobbyist can give us a gift during the day, it could be 
double that or triple that; no aggregate limit. And that is called gift 
reform?
  Mr. President, the gift ban legislation has in a way taken on a life 
of its own. It has become a symbol of incumbents' stubborn resistance 
to changing the way lobbyists operate in Washington. I cannot believe 
it has taken over 2 years. I have been involved in this from almost the 
very beginning. I think this resistance and these alternative proposals 
in the guise of reform, which do not pass any credibility test at all, 
which are going to infuriate people if Senators end up voting for this 
and claim that they have made significant changes--this is a symbol of 
incumbents' stubborn resistance to changing the way Washington 
operates. 

[[Page S 10587]]

  Mr. President, is it going to be business as usual? Do opponents 
intend to try to change the gift ban to allow Members of Congress to 
continue to establish foundations or other similar entities to which 
lobbyists will be allowed to contribute in order to curry their favor? 
That is in the McConnell alternative. So we have no limit on gifts, up 
to $100 in perpetuity, with no disclosure, $36,500 a year, but actually 
it can be much more for one lobbyist. And, in addition, charitable 
travel is included. If you are for a charity and you believe in that 
charity, then we should all go but we should pay our own way. It is 
just not appropriate to have a lobbyist or other special interest 
paying our way to wherever for ourselves and our spouse for golf or 
tennis, for a nice vacation trip over a long weekend. It is not 
appropriate. We should just let go of this.
  Then there is a provision in this alternative, the McConnell-Dole 
alternative, that purports to be reform that says we can continue to 
establish our own foundations, our own entities and then ask lobbyists 
to contribute to those foundations that we control to possibly curry 
our favor. That is hollow reform. That is not real reform. Or will we 
continue to allow lobbyists to contribute to legal defense funds with 
all of the accompanying conflict problems that this raises? That is not 
reform. That is hollow reform. That is in the McConnell-Dole 
alternative. Or will we allow Members of Congress to continue to direct 
lobbyists to make charitable contributions to their favorite charity, 
the same lobbyists who are asking them for access for legislative 
favors for themselves or clients? I hope not. That is in the McConnell-
Dole alternative. That is not reform. That is hollow reform.
  Mr. President, I really do think that this piece of legislation puts 
all of us to the test. It puts all of us to the test. It puts all of us 
to the test in several fundamental ways. The No. 1 priority, by golly, 
if Senators are willing to vote to reduce free lunches for children in 
this country, Senators ought to think about their priorities and, by 
golly, we ought to end all free lunches for Senators. Actually, what we 
should do is end the free lunches for Senators and Representatives and 
certainly not end the free lunches for children who need that 
nutrition.
  Second of all, it would be better not to pass any piece of 
legislation than to pass a piece of legislation which purports to be 
reform with enough loopholes for the largest trucks in America to drive 
right through, many of which I have identified.
  Third of all, since we have been at this for 2 years, I think gift 
ban does have a life of its own. And this McConnell-Dole alternative 
represents the same resistance by Washington to the kind of change that 
people in this country are really demanding. The Contract With America 
had nothing about any of these reform measures.
  Mr. President, it is time. We will pass today the lobbying reform, 
and this week we are going to pass a strong gift ban reform. Then 
eventually we are going to move on to campaign finance reform. When we 
do that, I think we will have passed some measures that we can be proud 
of and people in the country can be proud of. But, Mr. President, the 
alternative or substitute, the McConnell-Dole, which is going to be 
laid down later on does not represent a step forward but it represents 
a great leap backward. We need to move forward.
  This piece of legislation that we have introduced today, S. 1061, 
represents a strong, tight, comprehensive gift ban reform. And that is 
what the Senate ought to pass. We owe people in this country, we owe it 
to the people we represent, to do no less.
  Mr. President, again, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin, and 
Senator McCain, who has been very engaged in this, Senator Lautenberg, 
and Senator Levin from the word go, and Senator Cohen. I also know that 
Senator Baucus has joined in this effort. I think we will have 
Republicans and Democrats alike involved in this. But we will have a 
very sharp debate, and we will identify what it means to move forward 
with a reform effort that we can be proud of which is credible, which 
meets the standards that I think people in the country want us to live 
up to as opposed to some alternative that has the word ``reform'' and 
that is sort of made for politicians where you use the word ``reform'' 
and you claim you are moving forward while all at the same time you are 
cleverly designing a piece of legislation that essentially maintains 
and perpetuates the very practice the people in this country want us to 
eliminate. That we cannot let happen--today, tomorrow, the next day or 
this week. We have to pass tight, comprehensive, tough gift ban reform. 
That is what people expect.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, and especially the 
Senator from Minnesota, in supporting a tough, meaningful and loophole-
free gift ban bill. That is what S. 1061 is all about. I urge the 
Senate to reject the empty reform proposal put forward by the junior 
Senator from Kentucky, Senator McConnell.
  We have been at this issue for some time, Mr. President. You think 
you have said it every way you can. And it is obvious that we ought to 
deal with this and get rid of it. But the Senator from Minnesota just 
came up with what I would have to say is just about the best 
formulation of what is going on here which I have heard.
  Those are the very same people who feel comfortable going after 
school lunches, who feel very comfortable going after many of the 
things that are important for low-income people in this society, the 
same people who will go to the wall to protect these lavish lunches and 
dinners that have become part of the Washington culture. I cannot think 
of a better formulation, and yes, I say to the Senator, I wish I would 
have thought of it myself.
  That says it all. That is what it appears, Mr. President, this 104th 
Congress is becoming all about--choices but very bad choices, blocking 
real reform and saying that things like school lunches have to be 
eliminated in the name of deficit reduction.
  Mr. President, to review again, because the Senator from Minnesota 
and I need to keep pointing out to people that this is not something we 
thought up yesterday, this has been a long, hard struggle about 
something that should have been dealt with in about 5 minutes it is so 
clear; that Members of Congress should be paid their salary and that is 
all they should get. They should not get all kinds of freebies on the 
side.
  I will tell you, back home it is a real simple concept. It has 
nothing to do with party. There is no Republican coming up to me in 
Wisconsin and saying, ``Hey, Russ, you really got to preserve that gift 
thing. It is an important part of the way Washington works.''
  Nobody has said that to me in Wisconsin in the last 2\1/2\ years. And 
it has been just over a year since the Senate, Mr. President, passed a 
tough gift ban bill by a margin of 95 to 4. What is wrong? Almost every 
Member of this body has already voted for the bill the Senator from 
Minnesota was just talking about. You would think that when a bill 
passes by such a large margin, it would not be all that difficult for 
that bill to become a law.
  After experiencing this for a couple of years, I am not naive enough 
to believe that proposed legislation which will have such a profound 
effect on the manner in which this institution operates with such a 
restraining effect on the special interests would sail through Congress 
with little or no trouble.
  What I find particularly regrettable is that when this process began 
I did not think the practice was as widespread as I do think now. The 
resistance makes me wonder, makes me think that it is just not a 
question of perception but there may be more reality to it; otherwise, 
why would people fight so hard to prevent what was already a 95-to-4 
vote to be redone in the 104th Congress. It makes me wonder. It makes 
me wonder just how much of this is really going on. And there is no way 
for me to quantify it, but it certainly makes me wonder.
  The fact is this body has gone on record repeatedly over the past 
year in favor of gift reforms proposed by myself, the Senator from 
Minnesota, and the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg].
  Last May, this body soundly rejected a gift proposal--I will not call 
it a gift ban because it was not--a gift proposal 

[[Page S 10588]]
similar to the one currently offered by the junior Senator from 
Kentucky. So everybody, Mr. President, must be wondering why are we 
having this debate now. In May of last year, as I said, we had a 95-to-
4 vote in the Senate on this legislation. In the fall, 36 Republican 
Senators, led by the Senator who is now the distinguished majority 
leader, Senator Dole, cosponsored, actually cosponsored, Mr. President, 
a resolution containing the exact gift provisions put forth in the 
Wellstone-Feingold-Lautenberg proposal. Mr. President, the exact same 
provisions, not the McConnell proposal but the exact same provisions of 
the Wellstone proposal, were cosponsored by 36 Republican Senators, yet 
for some reason there are some Members of this body who feel we need to 
repeat the debate we had last spring when an alternative gift proposal 
was put forth that is remarkably similar to the proposal before us 
today.
  The proposal last year, the so-called McConnell-Johnston proposal, 
was soundly defeated. The McConnell-Johnston proposal was defeated 59 
to 39, and yet here we are today having the same debate all over again.
  One of the clear messages that came out of last year's election to 
me, Mr. President, is that the public is tired of the way business is 
done in Washington. And everybody says that, but I think that is true. 
They have to define exactly what aspects of what goes on in Washington 
people do not like, but it is not terribly difficult to figure it out, 
yet real reform, like campaign finance reform or gift ban legislation, 
seems to constantly be put on the back burner.
  I am absolutely confident that campaign finance reform and gift ban 
are among the things almost every American would describe as what is 
needed for reform. So if November 8 was about reform, and I think it 
was, these should be on the front burner, not constantly being blocked 
procedurally.
  Some say that the very first bill we passed this Congress in the 
Senate, a bill which forced Congress to live under the laws it passes, 
was an important reform bill, and I agree with the premise of that 
bill, and I voted for it. We should have to abide by the rules we make 
for everybody else, but in no way should we pretend that the American 
people have somehow had their faith restored in this institution 
because of that one rather minor, although worthwhile, piece of 
legislation.
  Other people say we have reformed Congress by pointing to the 
reduction and elimination of many of the public perks available to 
Members of Congress. And they say we have cleaned up Washington; we do 
not need the gift ban. Fortunately, there has been progress in that 
area--no more free haircuts or free stationery or no more free 
gymnasium. People come up to me and say, ``When are you going to get 
rid of that free gym and the free haircuts?'' And I say, ``Well, it has 
been done.'' It should have been done a long time ago. But what they 
know and what really disappoints people, they constantly are 
disappointed to find that lobbyists can still send Members of Congress 
on free vacation trips to the Bahamas.
  Last year, I had the chance to say that I think free gifts really is 
the mother of all perks. It is the big one. Those free trips to the 
Bahamas are an awful lot more in value than the free haircuts which we 
have eliminated. The lobbyists can still treat Members to expensive 
meals at some of Washington's finest restaurants, and the lobbyists can 
still send the flatbed carts loaded with gifts and goodies all around 
Capitol Hill, and they are continuing to do it.
  So what I have noticed--it is an interesting distinction--is that 
there seems to be a great deal of interest in going after public perks. 
Members of both parties are willing to go after public perks, things 
like the haircuts and the free stationery, the congressional pensions, 
health care--these are things that certainly can be described as perks, 
and that are provided by public dollars, taxpayers' dollars. But the 
same people who are in the front row to attack these public perks have 
what I can only describe as a steadfast apprehension to deal with the 
private perks, the hidden private interest, special interest perks that 
come from the lobbyists and the special interest community. Those we do 
not touch. Those are not even mentioned in the Republican Contract With 
America, as the distinguished Senator from Minnesota has pointed out.
  In other words, the perks that are essentially provided by the 
Government and the American people are bad, but the attitude is that 
the perks provided by the special interests are somehow benign, not a 
problem, just the way things are done in Washington. That is the 
message coming from Congress if we do not deal with the gift ban and if 
we do not deal with the really big issue, as the Senator from Minnesota 
has pointed out, which would be next, and that is campaign financing.
  It is distressing to open up the newspaper or turn on the TV and see 
repeated stories of the cozy relationship between the lobbyists and the 
legislators. The level of special access that the lobbyists are 
receiving continues to undermine the confidence of the American people 
in their Government. It really does further the belief of the average 
working American that that person has little or no voice in Washington, 
DC.
  Let me mention, for example, just one item that appeared in a 
national journal publication. It appeared on May 5, 1995. This column 
briefly describes a retreat hosted by the American Bankers Association 
for congressional staffers and their spouses at a West Virginia resort. 
This retreat occurred on the weekend before the House Banking Committee 
was to vote on legislation backed by the American Bankers Association. 
The article notes that during the weekend retreat there would be 
morning discussions about bank modernization issues but the afternoons 
would be open for the staffers to ``indulge in golf, horseback riding, 
swimming, and other recreational activities that the posh Homestead 
offered.''
  Now, when our constituents vote for us, and vote for us knowing what 
the salary is, they do not know about these fringe benefits that are 
provided. And here, Mr. President, just a few days before a 
congressional committee is to vote on a particular bill, the staff 
members from that committee are invited to an all-expense paid resort 
weekend by the lobbying association backing that particular bill. This 
is a disturbing practice. It sends a clear and strong message to the 
American people that this institution is at least perceived to be under 
the control of those who have the money and access to influence the 
political process. So to me it is clear that we have a very serious 
problem here. The issue before us today then is how we can best solve 
that problem and address the very cynical and skeptical feelings the 
American people sometimes hold for this institution.
  I think we are all familiar with the gift ban approach embodied in S. 
101. The sponsors of that legislation, including myself and the Senator 
from Minnesota and the Senator from Michigan, believe in a gift ban--a 
gift ban. No gifts from lobbyists period. No more free meals from 
lobbyists at fancy restaurants, no more free vacations paid for by 
lobbyists at sun spots around the world. This is not a gift ban we are 
trying to put in place. The McConnell proposal is a lesson in how best 
to dodge this issue. It ducks; it weaves; it does everything but ban 
gifts. In fact, Mr. President, what I think it does, if we have the 
wrong vote out here today or tomorrow, is enshrine gift giving in 
Washington and forever say that it is perfectly acceptable for Members 
of Congress to accept an unlimited number of gifts from lobbyists.
  Let me repeat that. Under the McConnell proposal, lobbyists could 
give legislators as many gifts as they can possibly afford. How can 
anyone come out on the Senate floor and suggest that allowing an 
unlimited number of gifts--and it is unlimited--can be accurately 
portrayed as a gift ban or can accurately be portrayed as reform?
  It is the polar opposite of reform. It is a total giving in to the 
current system.
  Last year, Mr. President, when our gift ban and lobbying reform 
legislation was defeated only by a filibuster from the other side, we 
actually could hear the lobbyists gathered outside the Senate Chamber 
cheering in victory. But that is nothing, because if the McConnell 
proposal goes through, I think we are going to hear the sound of 
champagne corks popping outside this 

[[Page S 10589]]
Chamber, because it will be a permanent enshrining of the gift-giving 
practice. That is, because under the McConnell proposal, the following 
could still happen.
  Just one example, the Senator from Minnesota was pointing out the 
total dollar value of what one lobbyist can do in 1 year for a Member 
of the Senate. We came up with the $36,500 figure. Let me give an 
example of how a lobbyist's week might go if he or she wanted to show a 
legislator a good time before a key vote.
  They could take a Senator out for Chateaubriand and good wine on 
Monday. They could take him or her down to the Orioles game on Tuesday 
with box seats. Then on Wednesday a good concert, maybe over at the 
Kennedy Center. Then Thursday, a nice bottle of cognac could arrive at 
the Senator's office from the same lobbyist. And then to top it off, on 
the weekend, just before the vote the following Tuesday, a little trip 
to the Virgin Islands for the whole family, and that is all legal under 
the McConnell reform proposal, totally legal.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield? After listening to him lay out 
this week, is the Senator sure he wants to stay with his position? It 
sounds pretty good.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I do want to stay with my position. I am used to it. I 
think that is the whole point. The public perks that have been 
eliminated, things like haircuts and the free gym, those things sound 
pretty good. But when you lay out what we are talking about--which is 
not just theoretical, this does happen, as I gave the example of the 
American Bankers Association--it sounds real good. When you are talking 
about people who already receive $133,000 in salary a year, which a lot 
of Americans think is pretty high----
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Then you are really talking about an exceptional 
practice. I yield to the Senator from Michigan for a question.
  Mr. LEVIN. Actually, the McConnell substitute is even weaker, believe 
it or not, than my friend from Wisconsin says, because it is not $100 
per day, it is $100 a gift.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. The Senator is correct. What the Senator from Minnesota 
and I have been doing, because we are so staggered as to how much can 
be done in a day, we are giving the minimum interpretation. I think the 
Senator is right, it is not a minimum interpretation; it could be 
several instances in a day. I have to sort of do the higher math. I 
guess what we are talking about, if you can do it for breakfast, lunch, 
and dinner, I guess what we are talking about is $100,000 a year.
  Mr. LEVIN. I guess there is probably no way to give the total 
calculation, because it is $100 per gift. Presumably you could have 
lunch, dinner, and tickets. If you really want to calculate it, one 
would have to figure out how many gifts of $99 might be realistically 
possible in a day.
  It is even a weaker approach, if that is possible, than the one that 
has been described, because that $100 gift, which does not count, does 
not even count toward the maximum, is a limit per gift which does not 
count and not a daily amount. I know the Senator knows that.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I do, and I appreciate the Senator from Michigan making 
the point. What he is telling us is the ability to give meals and wine 
in one given day probably outstrips the ability to consume of any 
Member of Congress. They could not possibly consume in one day the 
potential amount that is allowed under the so-called McConnell 
amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for one more question?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if the Senator from Wisconsin will yield for 
a question.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield to the Senator from Minnesota and then the 
Senator from Alaska for questions.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Just to be clear, I know the Senator wants to go on 
with other features. Just so we can clarify this point, going to what 
the Senator from Michigan asked the Senator from Wisconsin, the 
problem, as I understand it, is that--we are just talking about one 
provision in the McConnell-Dole substitute --is that Senators can 
receive from lobbyists up to $100, not per day, but per gift. There is 
no aggregate limit. So this is in perpetuity; correct?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. That is my understanding.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. So the minimum from one lobbyist per year could be 
35----
  Mr. FEINGOLD. $36,500.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes, $36,500; but that is a conservative estimate. 
Playing this out----
  Mr. FEINGOLD. If I may interrupt the Senator from Minnesota, I think 
it is clear the Senator from Michigan is right, that is not even a 
conservative estimate. It is just a way to try to explain it, because 
it clearly allows, based on the reading of the way it is drafted right 
now, more than one time a day.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. One other question I have is, there is no disclosure 
and there is not even any disclosure requirement, is my understanding.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. That is my understanding.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Might I ask the Senator from Michigan, is that 
correct? The other question I had was, above and beyond it is not per 
day but per gift, my understanding is there is not any disclosure 
requirement either.
  Mr. LEVIN. For gifts under $100, that is my understanding.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. There is no aggregate limit, and there is no 
disclosure requirement?
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct, as far as I know.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Michigan. I just want to 
point that out in terms of what we might call hollow reform versus real 
reform.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I said I would yield to the Senator from 
Alaska for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Kyl]. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I intend to speak at the appropriate 
time when my friend from Wisconsin has completed his statement, with 
the Chair's permission. But I would like to ask a question. I have been 
sitting here for the last 15 minutes or so, and I heard time and time 
again about this free haircut business.
  The Senator from Alaska has been in this body for 15 years. I am not 
aware of what the procedure was prior to 15 years ago. I would 
appreciate it if the Senator from Wisconsin could enlighten me on just 
where those free haircuts allegedly have occurred over the last 15 
years, because this Senator is certainly not knowledgeable. I go down 
and pay $17 for a haircut about every 2\1/2\ to 3 weeks. Could my 
friend from Wisconsin identify where these free haircuts occur and are 
available to Members of this body? I would get trimmed all the time.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I have no idea. I raised the issue of free haircuts 
because people always told me there were free haircuts. Mr. President, 
is the Senator asking me a question?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are trying to document accurately 
the circumstances, and I heard about these free haircuts all morning, 
but I know of none and my friend from Wisconsin evidently knows of 
none. So I encourage my colleagues to take a free haircut with a grain 
of salt because we can get trimmed on the edges, but if we do not 
portray accurately what this gift ban is all about, why, then I think 
we are misleading ourselves, as well as being misled on the issue 
itself. If we are going to talk about free haircuts----
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I have the floor, and I am prepared to respond. You are 
being misled now by the Senator from Alaska, because I came out here 
and pointed out there were a number of public perks I was told existed. 
I do not know if they exist. I am not out here talking about the 
haircuts as something I am working on today. I thought that was taken 
care of. I got here 2\1/2\ years ago. I never found out where the 
Senate barber is. I could not get there if I had to. I have my own 
place where I go and pay just as the Senator from Alaska does.
  I am not out here yelling and screaming about the public perks. If 
there are free haircuts, they should be eliminated. If there are not 
free haircuts, fine. That is not what I have been talking about. 

[[Page S 10590]]

  In fact, I made the point that the public and others in this 
institution are talking about the public perks and some of them, as the 
Senator from Alaska points out, do not even exist. People say to me, 
``Did you know you have that free gym over there in the Senate?'' I 
say, ``Well, by the time I got to the Senate, they already had a charge 
for that.'' I do not know if it is $35 or $40. I do not happen to be 
involved.
  But I think the Senator actually is right, that we have to be 
accurate. I have not asserted that any of these things actually exist 
on the public side. If they do, they should be eliminated. But I have 
made it my practice here to identify the private perks which I do 
believe go on. I have pointed out several examples, such as the Bankers 
Association trip before the vote. We can document those. In fact, we 
can document the fact that in our office--and I can document this item 
for item--we have received 1,072 gifts in our office in the last 2\1/2\ 
years.
  So, if there are free haircuts here, they should be eliminated; if 
there is not, fine. That is not the issue today. I have not asserted I 
can prove that there are free haircuts. This is a red herring. The 
issue here is what about the private perks. If there are more public 
perks out there, let us go after them.
  The Senator from Alaska is right, it is our responsibility to first 
document that such a thing exists, and I will be happy to join with him 
to identify items of that kind.
  Mr. President, under the McConnell proposal, charitable travel would 
have to be approved by the Senate Ethics Committee. It would not be 
just a completely free system as it is now.
  Under our proposal, recreational travel is simply prohibited, but 
under the McConnell proposal, such travel is permitted if a Senator 
could get a stamp of approval from the Ethics Committee.
  The Ethics Committee is an in-house committee made up of whom? Made 
up of Senators who themselves may want to partake in the same trip or a 
trip like it.
  Now, without suggesting that members of the Ethics Committee would 
not exercise restraint in granting such approval, we should ask 
ourselves how this will look to the American public.
  Under the McConnell proposal, we are giving ourselves, through the 
Ethics Committee, the ability to decide whether a certain trip is okay 
or not.
  Mr. President, if this is not thumbing your nose at the American 
people, I do not know what is. To all those Americans that have lost 
faith in their Government and have developed a fundamental distrust of 
their political system, we are supposed to tell them that the key to 
banning these sorts of junkets is to have the Senators who go on the 
trips tell other Senators whether this one is a good one or a bad one.
  I do not want to have to try and explain that one back home. I do not 
think that will go over, Mr. President. We have heard a lot of 
interesting arguments against our gift ban proposal last year. We heard 
that the Ethics Committee was going to have to triple its staff--triple 
its staff--they said, to deal with this problem, and that the whole 
system would fall prey to bureaucratic gridlock.
  We heard an unbelievable argument. We should not pass the gift ban 
because it would be bad for business for all the Washington restaurants 
and theaters. I saw the restaurant owners up in the gallery looking 
pretty worried. We heard an argument that our legislation was going to 
make crooks out of a lot of honest people.
  Mr. President, I have said it several times before but will have to 
say it again and again. This is not complicated. I served in the 
Wisconsin State legislature for 10 years. That legislature has operated 
under strict rules on the issue of gifts for over 20 years now. It is 
an even tougher rule in Wisconsin than contained in S. 101. The 
Wisconsin Legislature is simply prohibited from accepting anything of 
value from a lobbyist or an organization that employs a lobbyist. You 
cannot even get a cup of coffee from a lobbyist.
  Mr. President, we are very proud that the Wisconsin legislators, is 
known as one of the most ethical in the country. Contrary to some of 
the notions put forth by opponents of the gift ban last year, we do not 
have Wisconsin legislators starving to death. No restaurants in our 
capital city have closed because of our gift ban. Our State ethics 
board has not had to hire an army of bureaucrats to interpret the gift 
rules.
  Mr. President, it works just fine under Republican leadership, under 
Democrat leadership, Republican Governors, Democrat Governors, it does 
not matter; it has worked just fine. It is a simple rule that is easy 
to understand and operate under. There is not a single valid argument 
for not applying a similar gift prohibition to Congress.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
an editorial from today's Wisconsin State Journal entitled ``Ban Gifts 
and Boost Credibility.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    Ban Gifts and Boost Credibility

       Would a member of the U.S. Senate trade his or her vote for 
     a fruit basket? Of course not. How about a bottle of cognac 
     and dinner in a fancy Washington restaurant? The answer is 
     still no.
       But what if the shower of gifts includes free ski trips, 
     golf outings and other vacation packages from special-
     interest groups--as well as other perks and meals that fall 
     under a $100 per-gift limit? Again, few members of the Senate 
     would be tempted to swap their integrity for freebies--after 
     all, many of them are millionaires who don't need the help.
       But at what point does the public perception of gift-giving 
     practices on Capitol Hill begin to erode the credibility of 
     Congress? That is the question being pushed by U.S. Sen. Russ 
     Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who is leading the fight to 
     dramatically restrict the kinds of gifts members of the 
     Senate can legally accept.
       Feingold isn't accusing his fellow senators of being on the 
     take. He knows better. He's simply pointing out that so long 
     as the American public believes Washington is a den of 
     special-interest perks, the credibility of Congress will 
     suffer.
       Feingold is a product of the Wisconsin Legislature, where a 
     ban on legislators accepting anything of value from lobbyists 
     has served that institution well. Wisconsin has not been 
     immune from lobbyist scandals--but those instances have been 
     few in number and relatively minor compared to what happens 
     in some states. People can and will disagree with the 
     Legislature's actions but at least they need not worry that 
     the fate of public policy in Madison hangs on who bought what 
     senator the most expensive dinner at the Blue Marlin.
       Since he took federal office in 1993, Feingold has been 
     offered 1,072 gifts. With very few exceptions, he's returned 
     them or donated them to charity.
       Maybe he gets all these gifts because he's a nice guy. More 
     likely, he gets them because various interest groups want to 
     catch his eye or get his ear. What's amazing is that after 
     2\1/2\ years in office, the gifts keep coming, even though 
     Feingold has made clear his policy from the beginning.
       Some senators believe Feingold's push to embrace the 
     Wisconsin model is overkill born of beachfront news footage 
     of cavorting congressmen, or an attempt to score political 
     points by beating up on the institution. U.S. Sen. Mitch 
     O'Connell, R-Ky., says the Feingold bill is ``lined with 
     legalistic punji sticks'' and would ``make a lot of honest, 
     highly ethical people into crooks.''
       There's nothing all that complicated about a ban on 
     accepting gifts, free meals and trips from lobbyists. This is 
     not a case of O'Connell and friends being unable to 
     understand the language in S.101, Feingold's bill. It's a 
     case of them not wanting to adopt it.
       Congress has brought much of today's public cynicism upon 
     itself. Passage of the Feingold bill would be a welcome step 
     toward undoing that damage and bolstering faith in the 
     Senate.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. I will read one portion:

       There's nothing all that complicated about a ban on 
     accepting gifts, free meals and trips from lobbyists. This is 
     not a case of McConnell and friends being unable to 
     understand the language in S. 101, Feingold's bill. It's a 
     case of them not wanting to adopt it.

  Mr. President, I have said before, for most constituents back home, 
the Washington beltway has become more than a simple road, a boundary 
of sorts, that seems to separate Washington and the special interest 
community from the rest of America. The perception is that the beltway 
represents a safe haven for lobbyists and legislators where most of 
their interaction goes unreported and unbeknownst to the voters back 
home. The lobbying needs to be disclosed and the gift giving needs to 
be discontinued.
  I am afraid the McConnell proposal, if enacted in its current form, 
is nothing more than a sham. It is counterfeit reform. It allows 
unlimited gifts from lobbyists. It allows recreational travel. It 
changes virtually nothing from the status quo. It sends a very clear 
message to the American people that the 

[[Page S 10591]]
U.S. Senate is as chained to the special interests as ever.
  The Washington lobbyists, Mr. President, are on a roll. Here we are, 
7 months into the new Congress, and this body has not passed or even 
considered a single piece of legislation to address the influence of 
special interests here in Washington.
  Mr. President, the lobbyists asked for telecommunications reform and 
they get it. They ask for regulatory reform, and they may very well get 
it. They ask for tax breaks, and it looks like they will get them.
  When the American people ask for campaign finance reform, the 
Congress ducks. When the American people ask for lobbying reform, the 
Congress dodges. When the American people ask for a tough gift ban, the 
Congress plays tricks and tries to offer a paper tiger.
  Acting on a tough gift ban will fundamentally reform the way Congress 
deals with thousands of benefits and other perks offered to Members 
each year. It would, Mr. President, be more than a cosmetic change. I 
believe now, even though I may have thought it was more minor when I 
got here, I believe this marks a major change in the way Washington, 
DC, does business.
  I thank my colleagues from Minnesota and New Jersey for their 
persistence on the issue, and also the Senator from Michigan, Senator 
Levin, for his overall dedication to reform issues and his leadership 
in crafting the provisions of S. 101. I urge my colleagues to take a 
very hard look at this. This is an opportunity to put this issue behind 
Members so we do not have to keep coming out here and talking about it. 
It is unpleasant, and it really does not befit the dignity of this 
body.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I do not think there is any question 
that we need reform, and campaign finance gift ban, et cetera, are 
appropriate for this body to resolve, but I suggest that there are a 
few statements that do need some enlightenment.
  I will refer briefly to a reference made by the Senator from 
Wisconsin with regard to the perception that Members get free hair 
cuts. Mr. President, as I stated, when I asked my friend from Wisconsin 
if he had any knowledge just where a person gets a free hair cut--I 
have been in this body 15 years, I have read it, that somehow Members 
are perceived to get free hair cuts--I know of no free hair cuts in 
existence during the 15 years I have been here.
  I think this is part of the perception that is out there, that 
Members do get free hair cuts. We get clipped, we get shaved, but we do 
not get free hair cuts, Mr. President. It is a misnomer.
  I think there are other extended examples where it is assumed that 
because there is a gym, that we get free services. We corrected that 
some time ago. Those Members that want to pay and receive the services 
of the gym pay an amount each year equivalent to the cost of those 
services. That is appropriate.
  To suggest that somehow this is something that is extreme, that is 
not accepted in the private sector--if you are with a corporation, 
oftentimes you have the use of a gym or work-out facility, and anyone 
that looked at the facility here would come to the conclusion that it 
is pretty antiquated, I think about early 1910 or 1915, thereabouts.
  But in any event, I want to put that issue aside, because the reality 
that somehow this is a gravy train, that there are benefits associated 
with this, are not applicable in the private sector, I think, bears 
further examination.
  As we look at the merits of this legislation before the Senate, the 
Levin-Wellstone legislation, private entities would not be able to 
reimburse Members for the cost of transportation and lodging, for 
participation in charitable events.
  If we think about this, Mr. President, there is an inconsistency 
here. Why is there not a ban on reimbursement for political events? 
What is a political event? A political event is something, perhaps, 
that occurs in Los Angeles, perhaps it occurs in the Bahamas, perhaps 
it occurs in Florida, and a Member can go down and participate and 
receive reimbursement for travel, reimbursement for transportation.
  Now, under the bill before the Congress, the Levin-Wellstone 
legislation, Members would still be permitted to be privately 
reimbursed if they travel to a fundraising event for another Member, in 
other words, a political fundraiser.
  Now, under the Senate Ethics Committee rules, the interpreted rule 
No. 193, it is my understanding that a Senator may accept travel 
expenses from an official of a district's political party organization 
in return for his or her appearance at a rally sponsored by that 
organization.
  In other words, Mr. President, we are mandating that we will still 
allow reimbursement, private reimbursement, for political events. We 
can get our travel paid, we can get our hotel room paid.
  Mr. President, every Member of this body, because we are all in the 
business of politics, has at one time or another made a campaign 
appearance for his party, or a candidate of his party, and often that 
means flying to another Member's home State, attending a party 
function, maybe making a speech, sharing a meal, maybe attending an 
entertainment or sports function. The entire cost is covered by 
lobbyists and other political contributors.
  As we look at the merits of this legislation, we should recognize the 
inconsistency associated with the hypocritical posture that we are 
putting ourselves in. We are saying, in the gift ban/campaign finance 
reform, we are eliminating the reimbursement for participation in 
charities, and we are still allowing full reimbursement for political 
events for travel, and for lodging. Who pays for it? Political 
contributors--lobbyists. Why does this proposed campaign finance 
reform, gift ban and so forth not address political events?
  Mr. President, we know why. Several Members do not want to talk about 
that. They are hoping that nobody will bring up the inconsistency and 
the hypocrisy associated with this bill in the manner it is currently 
structured. I fail to understand why the sponsors of the legislation 
would not simply go through and say, ``Let's clean the whole slate. 
Let's prohibit the other part of this, the unmentionable, the political 
events.'' It is rather curious, Mr. President, for convenience and 
other reasons, this has been left out.
  We have a situation, again, where a Senator can travel all over the 
country, attending political fundraisers, have lodging, and 
transportation reimbursement, but a Senator cannot attend a charity 
event, and get reimbursed.
 A Senator cannot attend events that raise money for worthwhile causes 
and have the costs of travel and lodging reimbursed. Is that not an 
inconsistency? Does this really make sense?

  Why is it all right for a political action committee to host a $500-
a-plate political fundraiser or give a campaign check for $2,000 or 
$3,000 to an elected official but there can be no solicitation of 
corporations or other individuals to participate in a charitable event 
that only benefits a small community or State? I believe this whole 
notion of preventing Senators and corporations from sharing and raising 
money for a worthwhile cause outside the beltway, but allowing $5,000 
to $10,000 gifts, smacks of sheer hypocrisy.
  This Senator is prepared to pursue legislation that would address 
corrective measures to include in this broad campaign finance gift ban 
prohibition on reimbursement for political events for travel and 
lodging. Why is it that, in the structure of the proposed legislation, 
we have eliminated reimbursement for charitable travel? We have had 
spirited debate about the role and influence that lobbyists and 
corporations play in shaping the public's perception of the political 
process in Washington. We have heard a little bit about that public 
perception. We have heard mentioned, time and time again, the free 
haircuts. There are not any free haircuts. I have been here 15 years 
and I defy a Member to suggest where you could get a free haircut in 
the last 15 years.
  To get back to my point, much has been made of the fact that 
corporations have sponsored Senators' travel and lodging in connection 
with events designed to raise money for charity. But nobody is saying 
anything about the contributions from lobbyists and political 
contributors that will allow each of us to go off and attend a 
political fundraiser in the Bahamas or the Virgin Islands or Florida or 
Hawaii and get reimbursement for travel and lodging. Why do we not fix 
it all? 

[[Page S 10592]]

  Clearly, it is too sensitive. Politics is our business and we want to 
exclude, in the perception of things, those that we feel have some 
exposure, but not those that we feel are necessary--yet provide the 
same base of support, political contributors and lobbyists.
  When Senator McConnell submitted the Senate gift rule reform 
resolution, Senate Resolution 126, it provided that Senators would be 
permitted to be privately reimbursed for lodging and transportation in 
connection with charitable fundraising events only if the Senate Select 
Committee on Ethics determined, ``that participating in the charity 
event is in the interests of the Senate and the United States.''
  So, a Member of the Senate could be privately reimbursed for 
attending a charitable fundraiser only if the Ethics Committee makes a 
determination that the charitable function is in both the public 
interest as well as the interests of the Senate. I believe one of our 
responsibilities, as public officials, is to promote worthwhile charity 
causes. Most of us are inclined to associate ourselves with those, from 
time to time. Not everything that can be done for the public good 
derives from Government. We all know that. Private charities play a 
vital role in servicing many of the needs of our citizens.
  Last year, in my State of Alaska, we had a situation that occurred 
where the mammogram machine in Fairbanks, AK, which had been in 
operation for several years, was growing older and it was difficult to 
get certified. This was a service that had been provided for many 
women. My wife is associated with it. It was started in the mid-1970's. 
They offered free mammograms for women in the Fairbanks area and 
surrounding smaller communities.
  It became necessary to look at just how that group was going to 
continue to maintain that free service. We started a fundraiser to 
purchase a new mammogram machine for the Fairbanks Breast Cancer 
Detection Center in Fairbanks, AK. The idea was to hold a fishing 
event, a fishing tournament at a place called Waterfall, in 
southeastern Alaska. We held that event and raised $150,000, and were 
able to buy a new mammogram machine for the Fairbanks breast cancer 
clinic.
  It was cleared by the Ethics Committee, corporations contributed, 
their members came, they fished, and the breast cancer clinic got a new 
mammogram machine. As a consequence, the center was able to continue to 
provide free breast cancer examinations and mammograms for some 3,700 
women who came to the Fairbanks breast cancer clinic for screening. 
They came from 81 villages in my State of Alaska.
  This August, my wife, Nancy, and I are going to be hosting a second 
event for the center to raise money for a second mammography unit. This 
is going to be a mobile mammography unit. It will fit into a van. It 
can traverse the limited highways in Alaska. But more important, it 
will be able to go into the National Guard C-130 aircraft, which will 
go out on their training missions and fly into the various villages 
where there are no roads, and offer this free service to many of the 
Native women in the bush area of Alaska.
  This is an example of a function that would be banned under the 
current bill. We think we can raise, this year, another $150,000 to 
$175,000. This will allow us to buy a mobile unit. It alleviates a 
situation where many women will be covered who otherwise are unable to 
travel into Fairbanks and other areas for tests. They will be able to 
receive this free screening in their local communities. Otherwise, they 
would not be able to avail themselves to this technology. So, this kind 
of a contribution, this kind of charitable event, would be eliminated 
and, as a consequence, the opportunity to provide vital health services 
to many of Alaska's rural women would be lost.
  The State's cancer mortality rate, I might add, is the third highest 
in the Nation. One in eight Alaska women, I am told, will develop some 
type of breast cancer. And breast cancer screening can reduce these 
amounts, I am told, by better than 30 percent.
  I believe, without the money raised from these two fundraisers, the 
health of Alaska's women would be reduced to some extent. I am proud of 
the work my wife and other women, as well as members of the community, 
have done in providing volunteer efforts to operate these units. But 
the point is, if we change the rules on charitable events, why, these 
types of charities will have to find a new home. And if the rules had 
been changed prior to this, I am convinced that neither of these units 
would have become a reality.
  I know of several Members who participate in charity events. Senator 
Pryor has been running a golf tournament for some time in Texarkana to 
raise funds for children with development disabilities. Senator Jay 
Rockefeller has been a supporter of funds for children's health care 
projects and nonprofit organizations, that I understand operates mobile 
vans in New York City and rural West Virginia and other locations.
  Most of you know my colleague, former Senator Jake Garn of Utah, 
raised a great deal of money for the primary children's medical center 
in Salt Lake City. Many of us have been at those occasions to assist in 
the raising of those funds for those worthwhile causes. So, do we want 
to end our participation and the participation of corporations in these 
causes simply because there is a so-called perception problem?
  One of the other things that is even more important than perceptions 
is proximity, because if we eliminate the ability to participate in 
charitable events, from the standpoint of travel and reimbursement for 
lodging, it does not exclude charitable events in the beltway area. So, 
for those of us who live great distances, we have a problem. But for 
those who are close to Washington, DC, they can hold a charitable event 
right here in Washington where there is no need for reimbursement for 
travel--transportation. So my point, I think, is one of equity. It 
would basically eliminate charitable events in my State, in California, 
Oregon, Washington, the West--where, indeed, for a Member to come out, 
there is a transportation expense of some significance as well as 
lodging. But if you have it here, where you do not have a problem for 
reimbursement for transportation or for lodging, why, you can have it. 
That discriminates against those of us out West.
  If you eliminate the reimbursement for transportation and lodging 
then you are in a situation where the only alternative is to hold the 
event in Washington, DC, and perhaps if you are a large national 
charitable organization that has the clout to hold such an event in 
Washington, DC, why you can go ahead and have it successfully. But for 
those of us in the Western part of the United States, it is just not 
practical to expect we are going to be able to put on a charitable 
event here, in Washington, DC, and have the degree of success that we 
would have if we are able to hold it in our own State. Certainly, if 
you are a small organization like the Fairbanks Breast Cancer Detection 
Center, or some of the other charities that I have mentioned, you do 
not have the resources or the capability to hold your event in the 
Nation's capital. If Senators cannot receive transportation and lodging 
reimbursement, events like mine, and others, are going to disappear. 
They are going to disappear because it costs too much to get to Alaska 
or to get to other small States.
  So, Mr. President, in conclusion, I am very sensitive to the 
prohibition that is in this legislation which would disallow 
reimbursement for travel and lodging for participation in charitable 
events. Let us face it, Mr. President. In many of these cases, the 
presence of the Senators is significant in the ability to raise money 
for the charitable event itself. This would be eliminated. I hope there 
still will be some way that we can meet some kind of a compromise in 
this area. The legitimacy of the event, of course, is the fact that it 
would have to receive approval from the Ethics Committee.
  Those who say, ``Well, since the Ethics Committee is made of up 
Senators, how in the world could you have an unbiased evaluation of the 
merits?'' That is absolutely ridiculous thinking. If we cannot police 
ourselves within the Ethics Committee structure to set certain 
oversight and criteria for charitable events, why, probably none of us 
should be here.
  So I am quite confident that the Ethics Committee can set precedents 
to ensure that the perceptions associated with the worthiness of 
participation in these charitable events is handled in such a way as to 
provide a check and a 

[[Page S 10593]]
balance and a public disclosure. Let us ask the public what they think 
about the ability and the worthiness of some of these charitable 
contributions that have been made as a consequence of the presence of a 
Senator.
  Mr. President, I feel so strongly about this that I am seriously 
thinking of pursuing legislation on the Levin-Wellstone bill that would 
preclude reimbursement for the cost of transportation and lodging for 
political events--if, indeed, my colleagues feel that we must have 
sweeping legislation with regard to campaign reform and gift ban--
because of the inconsistency, because of the hypocrisy associated with 
addressing charitable functions and not addressing the other.
  The other is where Members receive payment from the political 
organization or the political function or political event which is made 
up of contributions of lobbyists and other political contributors so 
that we can travel for those events, and so that we can stay at the 
elegant hotels in Florida or Virginia, in the Bahamas, and Hawaii.
  So I think we had better examine a little more thoroughly the 
ramifications of just what we are doing and just what we are trying to 
sell to the American public. We are trying to sell to the American 
public gift ban, finance reform, and convince the American public that 
there are no free haircuts--and there have not been. But what we are 
not doing, very cleverly--we do not hear this mentioned--is that we are 
not banning reimbursement for political events, transportation and 
lodging, but we are reaching out in a prohibition against participation 
in charitable events.
  Well, I find that hypocritical, so hypocritical that this Senator is 
proposing at some point in time, if we do not get some balance in this 
process so we can continue a worthwhile contribution to charitable 
events under whatever set of rules is appropriate for the Ethics 
Committee to come down with, that I would propose that we also include 
a ban on reimbursement for transportation and lodging to those 
political events, because Members are still permitted to be reimbursed 
for travel to a fundraising event for another Member, or political 
organization. This is under the Senate Ethics Committee's 
interpretative rules that a Senator may accept travel expenses from an 
official of a district's political party organization in return for his 
appearance at a rally sponsored by that organization.
  And again, Mr. President, let us look at the makeup of those 
organizations. Those organizations are supported by lobbyists, 
political contributors, and that is where the funds come from for 
reimbursement for each Member who might attend as he or she seeks 
reimbursement for travel and lodging.
  So I guess my concluding question is, if we are going to cut out 
reimbursement for charitable events for travel and transportation after 
it has been cleared by our own Ethics Committee, why are we not doing 
the same thing, banning reimbursement for travel and lodging, for 
political events? It is hypocritical to do one and not the other.
  So I hope, as the day goes on and we debate this matter fully, that 
we examine a little bit more the inconsistency, and that the American 
public wakes up to what is attempting to be done here. It is a bit of 
window dressing. It is a bit of telling the American people that we 
have this grandiose scheme for campaign finance, gift ban, and no more 
free haircuts, as if we have ever had them. But what we are not telling 
the American public is we are going to still keep our ability to seek 
reimbursement for travel and lodging for political events.
  Well, I hope the American public and the media pick up and understand 
the difference. I hope that some balance remains in this body, and that 
we recognize the significance of what our contributions and corporate 
contributions mean to the charities in this country. If we are going to 
ban the charities and not ban the political events, why, indeed, 
hypocrisy is the note of the day.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining in the 
sponsorship of the legislation that is being considered, one that would 
prohibit the lobbyists from providing gifts and meals and travel for 
Members of Congress.
  Mr. President, it is quite apparent that the American people--and who 
knows it better than Members of this body as we have seen the onslaught 
of change take over--are unhappy with the political system and want 
change. The American people want Congress to respond first and foremost 
to the needs of ordinary Americans, not just the special interests, not 
just the wealthy, and not just to the lobbyists.
  When I first introduced the proposal for a gift ban in the last 
Congress, many here on Capitol Hill did not understand or appreciate 
the depth of the public's distaste for the status quo. Today, I hope we 
all do. It is way past time, frankly, to finally translate that rage 
into a positive action.
  Mr. President, this is a deeply emotional issue. It is an emotional 
issue for millions of ordinary citizens who feel that their Government 
has been taken away from them, who feel that they do not have the same 
voice as the powerhouses in Washington and State capitals around the 
country. But it is also an emotional issue here in the U.S. Senate. 
Just as our constituents are angry about being shut out of the process, 
many Senators are angry because they think somehow or other this bill 
implies that Members are corrupt. That is not the point at all. I do 
not think of any of my colleagues, no matter how much I may disagree 
with them, as being corrupt. I may be angry at their point of view. I 
may think that they are hardhearted. I may think that they are 
disengaged through the process. But corrupt? Not at all. So that is not 
the issue. And I think we ought to make that clear. We have all kinds 
of references, adjectives that describe how things are and what 
constitutes various conditions of honesty or hypocrisy.
  Mr. President, I do not think that Members of Congress, of the 
Senate, are selling their votes for a cup of coffee or a trip to the 
Caribbean or to some glamorous event. To the contrary. The Members of 
this body are dedicated public servants who make enormous sacrifices to 
serve the public. That is true across the board. Some of my colleagues 
may be asking themselves. ``Well, if that is true, then what do we need 
this piece of legislation for? Why the bill?''
  There are a couple of answers to that. The first answer is that the 
bill can begin the process of restoring public trust in the Congress. 
That does not solve the problem by itself. But it is a good place to 
start. This bill can make it happen. That is important because, until 
we restore public trust, Congress will never be able to have public 
confidence that we are, in fact, addressing the serious problems facing 
our Nation.
  But, Mr. President, the need for a gift ban goes well beyond the need 
to change public perception. There is also a substantive issue 
involved.
  The issue is not corruption. It is access. And perhaps more 
fundamentally it is an issue of fairness to ordinary Americans.
  When lobbyists take a Senator to dinner, they are not just buying a 
meal for a nice person. The meal involves time, and time means access. 
When a lobbyist buys a Senator a meal, they do not usually sit at 
separate tables. He does not say typically, ``Well, why don't you and 
your friends go out to dinner and I'll pay for it,'' because the dinner 
includes a tete-a-tete, face to face, a discussion. Nothing 
surreptitious, nothing immoral, nothing illegal, but access. It is a 
chance to get a Senator's ear, a Senator's eyes, a Senator's attention 
for an hour or two or three, and if the wine flows generously then it 
may even last longer.
  Mr. President, ordinary citizens do not have that access. They cannot 
just take their Senator to a quiet dinner at a fancy restaurant and 
explain what it is like to be unemployed, explain what it is like to be 
worried about a child's education, explain what it is like to worry 
about the loss of health care insurance, explain what it is like to be 
up against the wall and not know which way to turn. Those calls do not 
even get through, much less to have the ability to sit with the 
Senator. And there are millions of people who would like to do it, even 
if it was just to tell us off, millions of people who would love to sit 
there and say, ``Senator, do you know what it is like to lose your job, 
to come home to your family that 

[[Page S 10594]]
is dependent upon you for their food, shelter, clothing, and 
leadership, and to say I have been fired, my job is out?'' Let them 
have a chance to explain it to a Senator.
  I would ask anybody here how many times have they have sat down with 
an ordinary, hard-working citizen for an hour or a half-hour or for 2 
or 3 hours and let that person explain to them the real conditions of 
life, not what it is like to make sure that company A, company B, or 
company C has an appropriate tax deduction for their particular 
interest or that they can expand their power to communicate because 
they think it is good for the public.
  They certainly cannot take Members to a beach resort in the Caribbean 
to discuss a problem that they individually are having with the Tax 
Code or how far behind they have fallen on their mortgage payments.
  Lobbyists have lots of time under the present structure to do just 
those things. And it certainly gives them an edge over John Q. Public, 
whether a lobbyist goes on a trip with an individual and you sit on the 
deck of a boat fishing for 3 days, or you go to a tennis tournament 
where the pro fakes his inability to beat the Senator just to win a 
couple of points, or you are out on a golf trip where you get a golf 
bag as part of the trip, or you go to a ski tournament--and I have seen 
them first hand--where it is a uniform, a jacket that could be 
expensive, maybe a pair of skis, free lessons from one of the top pros 
in the ski business, sitting in a chair lift going up the side of the 
mountain that can be a 20 or 25 minute ride in some places, and the 
lobbyist is sitting alongside of you, and it is Joe and Harry and they 
talk 20 minutes at a clip riding up and down the mountain.
  What do you think the lobbyist talks about, horticulture or the 
latest way to make a healthy salad? He has a mission, a mission for 
which he or she is paid, and the mission is to try to develop an 
attitude within that Senator that has to be favorable to my company, my 
course of action, my industry, my association. The average citizen does 
not have a chance to do that. And when they see Members of Congress at 
the fanciest restaurants getting wined, getting dined, they resent it. 
They think the deck is stacked against them. They think it is wrong. 
And I agree. They do not respect a system that operates that way.
  Mr. President, I said it before. I do not stand before my colleagues 
to criticize anyone or to question anyone's motives. I am not claiming 
to be the holy one around here; I am not. But I do think we all need to 
change the way we do business. The public certainly thinks so, and it 
is about time we get it done.
  The bill before us is a strong piece of legislation, with tough new 
rules on gifts. It would ban all gifts--all gifts--from lobbyists. It 
would prohibit lobbyists from taking Members on recreational trips.
  Unfortunately, the purpose of this legislation is being either 
misunderstood or misrepresented because I, like the distinguished 
Senator from Alaska, who spoke just a few minutes ago, believe that 
wherever possible we ought to support voluntary groups that have a 
humanitarian or social mission. But if the organizations sponsoring the 
trip spend more on feeding and hosting Senators and their travel to get 
to an event than the ultimate beneficiary gets, there is something in 
that arithmetic that does not sound particularly honest. And as a 
consequence what we have said is any trip that is substantially 
recreational is prohibited. There is no prohibition to participating in 
charitable events as long as the focus is on the charity.
  So, Mr. President, we are at a point in time when we have to step up 
to the plate. Under the Republican proposal, Members of Congress would 
be able to accept an unlimited number of gifts so long as each gift is 
worth less than $100. That means it can be lunch; it can be theater 
tickets; it can be dinner the next day; it can be a tennis racket, if 
they still cost less than $100; it can be anything as often as a 
lobbyist likes as long as it costs less than $100. The $99.95 special 
is OK, and it can continue forever.
  Well, it does not take long for a few of those to convince someone 
that this lobbyist is more than a good friend who just wants to be a 
nice guy.
  Lobbyists under the proposal that our Republican friends are putting 
up could give Senators tickets to the opera one day, tickets to the 
Super Bowl the next day, tickets to a fancy restaurant the next day, as 
long as they are buying tickets that cost less than $100, and so on and 
so on. Mr. President, that is not reform. It is a sad joke, and it is 
just not going to wash with the American people.
  Before I conclude, I wish to express my appreciation to Senator Levin 
and Senator Wellstone and Senator Feingold, all of whom have played 
critical roles in the development of this legislation. We have been 
close allies in what has been a long and difficult battle. I appreciate 
their effort, their skill, and their cooperation.
  In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to 
reject the Republican alternative. Let us finally ban gifts from 
lobbyists. Let us try to win the confidence of the American people up 
front, and let us do it the right way.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have before us a bipartisan, very tough 
gift reform bill, and this bill will finally put an end to the 
situation where we get free tickets and free meals and we get 
recreational travel paid for courtesy of special interests. It is a 
tough bill, but cynicism is running deep in this country, and they want 
political reform. The worst thing we could do would be to pretend we 
are reforming gifts when we are not doing it.
  Now, the McConnell substitute represents business as usual. We are 
pretending to be tough in the McConnell substitute, but basically we 
are continuing the current rules--pretending to be tough but basically 
maintaining the status quo. It is what I would call a sheep in wolf's 
clothing. It is pretend reform. If you can give an unlimited number of 
$99 gifts without disclosure, without accumulating them, that is sham 
reform. This recreational travel where we can get fancy resorts, fancy 
meals paid for by special interests, a vacation because it is billed as 
a charitable event, because part of the money which the special 
interest pays into the charity goes to the charity, what is left over 
after they pay for our recreational travel, that has to stop. That has 
helped to bring this body into disrepute. We must change it. I hope we 
will change it and do real reform today or tomorrow or when we finally 
resolve the gift issue.

                          ____________________