Statement of Senator Feingold On the Ethics and Lobby Reform Bill As Prepared for Delivery From the Senate Floor March 29, 2006 Listen to Senator Feingold's Statement Mr. President, first of all, I commend my friend from Connecticut and also the Senator from Pennsylvania for their amendment on meals that was offered before the recess, and also the Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for accepting it. If we are going to have a lobbyist gift ban, it clearly has to include meals. The provision in the underlying bill that allowed for Senators and staff to continue dining at the expense of lobbyists as long as those meals are disclosed on the Senator's Web site would have been an administrative nightmare and also created a subculture of lawbreaking just as, unfortunately, the $50 limit has done. The way we avoid that is just to ban meals from lobbyists, as we have banned gifts in the underlying bill. I am obviously not going to stand here and say that any Senator's vote can be purchased for a free meal or a ticket to a football game. But I do not think anyone can say that all lobbyists are buying these meals out of the goodness of their heart. At this point, no reform bill is going to be credible that does not contain a strict lobbyist gift ban. And no one has ever explained to me why Members of Congress need to be allowed to accept free meals, tickets, or any other gift from a lobbyist. If you really want to have dinner with a lobbyist, no one is saying that you cannot. Just take out your wallet and pay your own way. I can tell my colleagues from personal experience that you will survive just fine under a no-gifts policy. The Wisconsin Legislature has had such a policy for some 30 years and I brought it here with me to Washington. And I certainly have not gone hungry. We ought to just stop the practice of eating out at the expense of others. It is not necessary. It looks bad. It leads to abuses. So I support the Dodd-Santorum amendment on meals and I am glad that it was adopted. Here is the problem that I seek to address in my amendment. We have just said that we want to ban all gifts from lobbyists--tickets, meals, presents, everything. But it is a little known fact that the Ethics Committee already has in place an interpretation of the term “registered lobbyist” that narrows it somewhat. That interpretation might make some sense for the prohibitions on lobbyists that are currently in our rules. But that same interpretation, if it is applied to this gifts and meals ban, will create a huge loophole. Here is how it works. As my colleagues know, the Lobbying Disclosure Act requires organizations, trade associations, and companies that employ in-house lobbyists to file a single registration. The registrant is the organization, and it lists its individual lobbyists on its registration form. For purposes of the gift rules now, the Ethics Committee treats the actual listed lobbyists as registered lobbyists, but not the organization. If you do not believe me, look on page 43 of the Ethics Manual. Here is the language: For purposes of applying the special restrictions on lobbyists in the Gifts Rule, an organization employing lobbyists (outside or in-house) to represent solely the interests of the organization or its members will not be considered to be a ``lobbyist.'' If that interpretation is applied to the gift and meals ban, that means that the organization can continue to offer gifts and meals to Senators and staff. So, for example, a company can give a Senator free tickets to a show or a baseball game, as long as a lobbyist doesn't actually offer or handle them. If the lobbyist's secretary makes the call or the organization's CEO president, that would be permitted, or a lobbyist can invite a Senator or staffer to dinner, as long as he brings along someone else from the organization to pick up the tab with the company credit card. Let me read some of the companies and organizations that have registered under the LDA because they have in-house lobbyists. All of the organizations I am about to list, and hundreds more, will be able to continue to give gifts unless my amendment is adopted: Chamber of Commerce for the U.S.A.; Association of Trial Lawyers of America; General Electric Co.; American Medical Association; Northrop Grumman Corp.; Edison Electric Institute; AFL-CIO; Verizon Communications Inc.; Business Roundtable; Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America; National Association of Realtors; ExxonMobil Corp.; SBC Communications Inc.; Boeing Co.; Lockheed Martin; AT&T Corp.; General Motors Corp.; American Association of Retired Persons (AARP); Sprint Corp.; Microsoft Corp; American Council of Life Insurance; Pfizer Inc.; National Association of Broadcasters; Citigroup; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; Securities Industry Association; American Bankers Association; The Seniors Coalition; Ford Motor Co.; Merck & Co.; American Bankers Association; American Farm Bureau Federation; IBM Corp.; National Cable and Telecommunications; Association and state affiliates; Eli Lilly and Co.; Brown & Williamson Tobacco; American International Group Inc.; General Dynamics Corp.; Motorola Inc.; Southern Co.; BellSouth Corp.; ChevronTexaco; Investment Company Institute; Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.; GlaxoSmithKline; DaimlerChrysler Corp.; Textron Inc.; Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.; United States Telecom Association; Intel Corp.; National Association of Manufacturers; Health Insurance Association of America; Time Warner; Marathon Oil Corp.; American Association of Health Plans; Abbott Laboratories; Union Pacific Corp.; American Chemistry Council; BP Amoco; Shell Oil Co.; United Technologies Corp.; Mortgage Insurance Companies of America; Honeywell, Inc.; Qwest Communications International Inc.; Property Casualty Insurers Association of America; Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; Wyeth; Walt Disney Co.; Biotechnology Industry Organization; Prudential Financial Cos.; Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.; Monsanto Co.; CTIA--The Wireless Association TM (formerly the Cellular Telecom Industry Association); The Bond Market Association; Asbestos Study Group; Johnson & Johnson, Inc.; Schering-Plough Corp.; Procter & Gamble Co.; American Forest & Paper Association; National Federation of Independent Business; American Institute of CPAs; Raytheon Co.; Visa USA Inc.; American Airlines; and International Paper Co. These are all companies that have registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act because they have inhouse lobbyists. So let me repeat. All of the organizations I just listed, and hundreds more, will be able to continue to give gifts, tickets, and meals unless my amendment is adopted. By the way, each of the organizations I just listed has reported spending between $15 and $200 million on lobbying activities between 1998 and 2004. So let me make this very clear. If these companies can still give gifts, we won't have a real lobbyist gift ban. We won't be able to look the American people in the eye and say, “we just banned gifts from lobbyists,” because we didn't. We ought to just stop the practice of eating out at the expense of others. But we need to make sure it's a real ban. My amendment will do that. It simply says that for purposes of the gift ban only, the term ``registered lobbyist'' means any person or entity who is registered under the LDA and any employee of that entity. Very simple, and very fair. Now let me point out one other thing before people get all worried. All of the exceptions in the current gift rule continue to apply to the meals and gift ban. That means it does not impact our colleagues, relatives, personal friendship, widely attended events, food and drink of nominal value, etc. So that means that employees of these organizations can still have their friends who work on the Hill over for dinner, they can still go out on dates, they can still exchange Christmas gifts, they can still get a housewarming gift from a neighbor. Organizations can still host receptions and Members and staff can attend and have a bit to eat. My amendment simply makes sure that organizations that are registered under the LDA can't get around the gift ban by having people other than their lobbyists offer tickets or meals or other gifts. I say this with great respect for the Senators who have worked so hard in putting this bill together. If we are serious about changing the rule on gifts and meals, we have to take the interpretation seriously. My amendment makes it clear that we mean what we say. The era of the free lunch will be over. For real. As it should be. If it is not adopted, there is no conclusion to be drawn but that we are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people. I don't want that to be the story coming out of this debate. I hope the managers will accept this amendment and, if not, I urge my colleagues to support it.