[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 162 (Friday, December 16, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13791-S13793]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Burns):
  S. 2128. A bill to provide greater transparency with respect to 
lobbying activities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to provide 
greater transparency into the process of influencing our Government and 
ensure greater accountability among public officials.
  The legislation does a number of things. It provides for faster 
reporting and greater public access to reports filed by lobbyists and 
their employers under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.
  It requires greater disclosure of the activities of lobbyists, 
including for the first time grassroots lobbying firms.
  The bill also requires greater disclosure from both lobbyists and 
Members and employees of Congress about travel that is arranged or 
financed by a lobbyist or his client.
  To understand more thoroughly the actions lobbyists take to influence 
elected officials, the bill requires lobbying firms, lobbyists, and 
their political action committees to disclose their campaign 
contributions to Federal candidates and officeholders, their political 
action committees and political party committees. It further mandates 
disclosure of fundraisers hosted, cohosted, or otherwise sponsored by 
these entities, and disclosure of contributions for other events 
involving legislative and executive branch officials.
  To get behind anonymous coalitions and associations and discover who 
actually is seeking to influence Government, the bill requires 
registrants to list as clients those entities that contribute $10,000 
or more to a coalition or association. The bill expressly keeps intact, 
however, existing law governing the disclosure of the identities of 
members and donors to organizations designated as 501(c) groups under 
the Internal Revenue Code.
  To address the problem of the revolving door between Government and 
the private sector, the bill lengthens the period during which senior 
members of the executive, Members of Congress, and senior congressional 
staff are restricted from lobbying.
  The bill also modifies the provision in current law that exempts from 
the revolving door laws former employees who go to work for Indian 
tribes by applying these laws to those employees retained by tribes as 
outside lobbyists and agents.
  To ensure compliance with congressional restrictions on accepting 
gifts, the bill requires registrants under the Lobbying Disclosure Act 
to report gifts worth $20 or more. I repeat that: The person who gives 
the gift is now responsible for reporting a gift of $20 or more.
  To accurately reflect the true value of benefits received, the bill 
also requires Members of Congress and staff to pay the fair market 
value for travel on private planes and the value of sports and 
entertainment tickets and skyboxes at the cost of the highest priced 
ticket in the arena. The legislation increases the penalty for 
violating the reporting requirements, and it contains other provisions 
on enforcement and oversight.
  This bill is regrettably necessary. Over the past year and a half, 
the Committee on Indian affairs has unearthed a story of excess and 
abuse by former lobbyists of a few Indian tribes. The story is alarming 
in its depth and breadth of potential wrongdoing. It has spanned across 
the United States, sweeping up tribes throughout Indian country. It has 
taken us from tribal reservations across America to luxury skyboxes in 
town, from a sham international think tank in Rehoboth Beach, DE, to a 
sniper workshop in Israel and beyond. It involves tens of millions of 
dollars that we know about and likely more that we do not.
  Much of what the committee learned was extraordinary. Yet much of 
what we uncovered in the investigation was, unfortunately, the ordinary 
way of doing business in this town.
  The bill I am introducing today seeks to address business as usual in 
the Nation's Capital. How these lobbyists sought to influence policy 
and opinionmakers is a case study in the ways lobbyists seek to curry 
favor with legislators and their aides. For example, they sought to 
ingratiate themselves with public servants with tickets to plush 
skyboxes at the MCI Center, FedEx Field, and Camden Yards for sports 
and entertainment events. They

[[Page S13792]]

arranged extravagant getaways to tropical islands, the famed golfing 
links of St. Andrews and elsewhere. They regularly treated people to 
meals and drinks. Fundraisers and contributions abounded. The bill 
casts some disinfectant on those practices by simply requiring greater 
disclosure. If there is nothing inherently wrong with such activities, 
then there is no good reason to hide them from public scrutiny. The 
American people deserve no less.
  During its investigation, the committee also learned about 
unscrupulous tactics employed to lobby Members and to shape public 
opinion. We found a sham international think tank in Rehoboth Beach, 
DE, established in part to disguise the true identity of clients. We 
saw phony Christian grassroots organizations consisting of a box of 
cell phones and a desk drawer.
  I submit that in the great marketplace of ideas we call public 
discourse, truth is a premium that we cannot sacrifice. Through these 
practices, the lobbyists distorted the truth not only with false 
messages but also with fake messengers.
  I hope by having for the first time disclosure of grassroots 
activities in the financial interests beyond misleading front groups 
that such a fraud on Members and voters can be avoided. Many cast blame 
only on the lobbying industry. But we should not forget that we as 
Members owe it to the American people to conduct ourselves in a way 
that reinforces rather than diminishes the public's faith and 
confidence in Congress.
  The bill thus requires more accurate accounting of the benefits and 
privileges that sometimes come with public office. Requiring lobbyists 
to disclose all gifts over $20 will cause not only the lobbyist but 
also the recipient to more scrupulously adhere to existing gift limits. 
Fair evaluation of tickets to sporting and entertainment events and for 
air travel aboard private planes is another way of giving real effect 
to the gift rules of Congress.
  I have read news reports that the Department of Justice is 
investigating job negotiations that some public officials may have had 
with lobbying firms while still in Government, negotiations that may 
have compromised their job performance. I have long been concerned with 
the revolving door between public service and the private sector, how 
that door is spun to personal gain, and the corrupting influences that 
can creep through that door into Government decisionmaking. To address 
the problem, I am proposing to expand the cooling off period to 2 years 
for Members of Congress and senior staff and certain executive branch 
officials. And to ensure a level playing field, I am seeking to close a 
loophole that has existed in Federal conflict-of-interest laws for 
those who represent Indian tribes.
  Informed citizenry is essential to a thriving democracy. A democratic 
government operates best in the disinfecting light of the public eye. 
The approach on this bill is thus one of greater disclosure of and 
transparency into the interactions of lobbyists with our public 
officials.
  The bill is intended to balance the right of the public to know with 
its right to petition Government, the ability of lobbyists to advocate 
their clients' cause with a need for truthful public discourse, and the 
ability of Members to legislate with the imperative that our Government 
must be free from corrupting influences, both real and perceived.
  We must act now to ensure that the erosion we see today in the 
public's confidence in Congress does not become a collapse of 
confidence. That is why I would hope my colleagues would carefully 
examine this measure. I have had conversations with numerous other 
Members of this body, and I hope that both Republican and Democrat can 
join together on this issue.
  I noted in today's--Friday, December 16--Congress Daily, there is a 
little chart in the corner, and it says: ``2005 Congressional Approval 
Ratings.'' I notice a very interesting trend. On February 1 of this 
year, approximately 40-some percent--about 44 percent--of the people 
approved, and about 43 percent disapproved. Those numbers have changed 
somewhat dramatically to a disapproval rating, in the last couple of 
days, of 64 percent, with a 26-percent approval rating. I repeat: 64 
percent disapprove, 26 percent approve.
  Now, I am not sure that is divided up between Democrats and 
Republicans. From my travels--and I have been traveling a lot lately in 
the last few weeks around the country--I find that disapproval is 
nonpartisan in nature. I think there are a number of reasons for that 
disapproval, and many of them I will not chronicle here. But one of 
them is that there is a deep perception that we do not act on the 
priorities of the American people, that special interests set our 
agenda here rather than the people's interest.
  Now, I do not pretend that a lobbying reform bill will be the panacea 
for all the ills that I think beset this Capitol of ours, but I do 
believe it is part of an effort we all need to make--and seriously 
make--in order to try to turn these kinds of numbers around, not only 
for our individual well-being but for the well-being of the people of 
the United States because it will be more difficult to act effectively 
if we do not have at least a significant amount of support from the 
people whom we purport to represent.
  I would like to say another word about lobbyists. Lobbying is an 
honorable profession. I have no problem with it. I have no problem with 
people working in order to bring the people's interests and agenda and 
priorities to the attention of Congress. Almost all of us who I know of 
rely on their input on various issues. Many supply us with policy 
papers, with data, et cetera.
  But, Mr. President--Mr. President--when we have the behavior that we 
highlighted, what actually was brought to our attention during our 
Indian Affairs Committee hearings, it is not believable: luxury sports 
boxes, a sham international think tank in Rehoboth Beach, a sniper 
workshop in Israel, the list goes on and on. And, of course, the way 
the Native Americans were treated was especially insulting.
  Congress, according to the Constitution, has a special obligation in 
regard to Indian affairs. But I will tell you what, I greatly fear that 
these practices we have uncovered concerning Native Americans are far 
more widespread than just lobbying efforts on behalf of Native 
Americans--or exploitation of Native Americans is probably the better 
description.
  I do not think there is any doubt that one of the reasons the 
American people mistrust us is they think there is wrongdoing, if not 
corruption, in this town. We have an obligation to fix this system as 
well as we can, and I believe that one of the measures that needs to be 
taken is to have a lobbying transparency and accountability that can 
give us confidence.
  I note the presence of my friend from Connecticut on the floor whom I 
have had discussions with on this issue. I have had them with my 
colleague, Senator Feingold, and many others. I hope we can, over the 
recess, think about this issue and be prepared to address it as early 
as possible. We have a long way to go to restore accountability, 
transparency, and the confidence of the American people.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I came to the floor to thank my friend from Arizona 
not just for the legislation he has just introduced but for his 
characteristically courageous investigation of the events surrounding a 
particular lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, and the way in which they 
demonstrate the extent to which the system has gone out of control.
  The direct victims here, of course, are those whose money was 
essentially taken without cause, who were cheated. But the indirect, 
yet very real, victims of these abuses are the Members of Congress, and 
the extent to which there has been abuse of a classic and very critical 
function of our Government--lobbying--the extent to which there has 
been abuse of that role breaks the public trust in Congress itself.
  Disclosures, investigations such as Senator McCain and his committee 
have been involved in, fearlessly, are critically important, but these 
disclosures and revelations and abuses cry out to us now to take some 
legislative action. I have not had the opportunity yet to review fully 
the provisions of the legislation Senator McCain has introduced. I look 
forward to doing that

[[Page S13793]]

over the recess. I hope that will put me in a position to join him as a 
sponsor of this legislation. It would be an honor and a privilege to 
work with him on this matter, as it has been to work on so many other 
matters.
  For today, I did not want this moment to go by without thanking him 
for coming forward with this legislation. It makes the point we are 
due--perhaps, in fact, overdue--for a review of our lobbying and 
disclosure laws. They need strengthening, and they need strengthening 
because it is right to do so and it is necessary to do so to restore 
the public trust in our Government.
  Mr. President, I am privileged to serve as the ranking member on the 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. In the normal 
course of the Senate rules, I believe this legislation would be 
referred to our committee, and there I look forward, along with the 
chairman, Senator Collins, to reviewing it. But in a personal sense, I 
want to work with Senator McCain and his staff and mine over the recess 
and hope that I can join him as a cosponsor of this legislation after 
the first of the year.
  I thank my friend, Senator Durbin, for yielding me these few moments. 
I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I join in echoing the comments of the 
Senator from Connecticut about what we just heard from the Senator from 
Arizona. He has really touched an important issue. There is no doubt in 
my mind there is a crisis in confidence in terms of the integrity of 
Congress. Unless and until we deal with that directly, little else we 
might do will be noticed or believed. I believe he is on the right 
track.
  But I would suggest to him there is something more to the story. It 
is not just a question of lobbyists larding Members of Congress with 
gifts, trips to Scotland for golf outings or lavish meals or whatever 
it happens to be. There is more to the story, and it really goes to the 
heart of the issue about how we get to Congress and how we get to the 
Senate.
  It is no longer ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' if it ever was. It 
is no longer a matter of putting your candidacy before the people of 
the State and asking that they consider you and wait for the 
consequence. It is a money chase. It is a huge money chase. And unless 
you happen to be one of the fortunate few and independently wealthy, 
you have to spend an awful lot of time chasing it, an awful lot of time 
raising money.
  If you come from a State, as I do, like Illinois, you know an 
ordinary Senate campaign in my State is going to cost anywhere from $5 
million to $20 million to $40 million. Now, imagine, if you will, for a 
moment that you had to raise that sum of money, and the largest 
contribution was in the range of $4,000. It takes a lot of time, and it 
takes a lot of contacts, and it takes a lot of commitment. So what you 
find is that as people of the Senate are running for reelection, for 
example, they are spending more and more and more time on the road 
raising money. They are finding precious little time to dedicate to 
their constituents or to the work of Congress because they are out 
raising huge sums of money.
  That is part of the reality of the relationship between Members of 
Congress and lobbyists. Many of these lobbyists also are fundraisers, 
so to have them on your side is to guarantee they will not only buy you 
diner, if that is what you are looking for, but also help you in this 
fundraising effort. I think real, ethical reform, which gets to the 
heart of the issue, has to get to the issue of how we finance these 
campaigns.
  Unless and until we bring campaigns for election and reelection to 
the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives to a level where they 
are affordable for common people, I am afraid we are going to continue 
to be enslaved by the current system, which requires us to raise so 
much money from so many people.
  I can recall when the Republican leader Tom DeLay announced he was 
starting something called the K Street project. He was a House leader, 
and he said he was going to set out to make sure that the lobbyists who 
came to see him were all loyal Republicans, loyal contributors. He 
didn't want to see Democratic lobbyists. He prevailed on major 
associations and organizations not to hire anybody other than a 
Republican who had met with his approval.
  For those of us who have been around this Hill for a while, it was 
pretty clear what he was creating. He was creating a very generous 
network of people, who would lobby him on legislation, whom he would 
possibly reward and then find their support in his campaign. It had 
built into it some very perilous opportunities. I won't talk about his 
situation in Texas. Let that be decided in Texas. But unless and until 
we get to the heart of the issue, the financing of campaigns, I am 
afraid we are not going to be able to deal forthrightly with the 
charges of corruption against Congress.
  Let me add why campaigns cost so much money. Certainly in Illinois 
and most other States, it is all about television. It is all about 
millions of dollars which I have to raise to then give to television 
stations in my State. It troubles me because what those television 
stations are selling to me is something I own, something all Americans 
own--the airwaves. So we are paying premium dollars to television 
stations to run our ads for election and reelection. We are raising 
millions of dollars to make sure that we transfer this money as if it 
were a trust fund from our contributors directly to TV stations. It is 
about time we change the fundamentals in America. In changing the 
fundamentals, we can bring real reform.
  I supported McCain-Feingold. Senators McCain and Feingold talked 
about limiting soft money. That is the tip of the iceberg. It is 
insidious, the soft money that came into campaigns, but the real 
problem is the cost of campaigns and the millions you have to raise to 
pay for television. If we said basically that in our country incumbents 
and challengers will have access to a certain amount of television to 
deliver their message at an affordable rate, we would dramatically drop 
the cost of campaigns, dramatically reduce the need to fund raise, and 
dramatically reduce our dependence on the sources of funds, whether 
they are generous individuals, special interest groups, or lobbyists.
  We have to get to the heart of the issue. It isn't an appetite for 
golfing in Scotland; it is an appetite for money you need to run your 
campaign.
                                 ______