Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. My purpose in rising is to indicate how pleased I am in how the bipartisan process has worked its way. I merely want to be clear, because there were some representations made about our proposal about an hour ago that were just plain wrong. I want to make sure the Record is clear. We have now reached agreement in this body on aggregation, that there should be an aggregated total of $100. I would have preferred $50. In fact, I would have preferred zero, as we have in Wisconsin. The key change now achieved, the only real exception to that, is the amount under $10 is not counted. That is a huge difference between not counting everything under $50, at least back in my home State. It would be nearly impossible for someone to gain in this system, to have to run around and get a gift for under $10. Let me say, I do not believe anybody in this body would ever do anything like that or has done anything like that. I just think the American people want to see a set of rules that they can look at and say on their face, guaranteed, this will not happen. I am very pleased. I want to thank the Senator from Mississippi, and others, as well as, of course, Senator Wellstone for coming to this conclusion. I believe it does bring us at least 90 percent of the way toward the ultimate reform that ought to occur.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes, I will yield.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I am not new to the legislative process. I am new to the Senate. I have been a legislative officer for 13 years. I have gotten used to the ups and downs. I never thought I would experience a situation where we lost and then realize we actually won. I just went through that. I was very disappointed in the last vote because of the reasons I stated. The original McConnell suggested amendment would have allowed up to $100 a day from the same source. So we came up with a figure potential of $36,500. Senator McConnell did reverse his position on that and cosponsored the McCain amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, a very serious mistake of fact has been made on the floor about the bill. The last two speakers said under our bill you could take up to $7,000 a year. That is absolutely false. Under our bill, the most you could take from one individual is $50, the executive rule. Under the amendment here, it would be at least $18,500 for, obviously, a wrongdoer. That is a fact. The difference is that the current McCain provision has an aggregate limit and the provision provided by the other side on this has no aggregate. So one person, several times a day, could give up to $50 a day and that does not count. And there is no aggregation. That is a fact. That is exactly the difference between the two, and any other suggestion means somebody has not read the difference between the amendments. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona. Let me also now extend my appreciation as well to the staff of all the Senators who have put in an enormous amount of time on this over the last year and a half. I want to take a couple moments to single out and congratulate the senior Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, for what I see is a tremendous effort in bridging the differences of those of us on both sides of the aisle who do favor strong and meaningful gift reform legislation. I think it has been really an extraordinary display of bipartisan leadership. I am grateful for it and hope it will bear fruit in the next few hours. I am pleased this legislation has the support of not only my good friend from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, and Senator Levin from Michigan and Senator Lautenberg from New Jersey, but also the support of several Members on the other side, including some of the freshman Members who clearly came to town in 1994, just as many of us did in 1992, with a mandate to clean up business as usual and put an end to the outrageous practice of providing literally thousands of free gifts and meals and trips to Members of Congress. As the Senator from Arizona has pointed out, this compromise proposal really makes only a few changes to the original Levin-Wellstone legislation, and he has outlined it well. But let me just reiterate a couple of the points. First, Members can no longer accept a gift, whether it is a meal, concert tickets or gift certificate, that is valued at more than $20. Gifts valued below this amount will be aggregated so that Members cannot accept more than $50 from any one source in a calendar year. This is patterned almost word for word after the rule that has been applied for many years to the executive branch of our Government. There was a concern expressed that the notion of aggregation, having this overall limit, would mean that Senators might be forced to keep overly detailed or meticulous records of virtually every gift they receive, whether it is a $15 meal or a hot dog or baseball cap. I question how hard that is. I think it is better just to say no, but I think we have solved this problem, to the extent it exists, by requiring Senators to make a good-faith effort to comply with the provisions of the bill. This also solves the ``gotcha'' problem. That is, if a Senator accidentally crosses over the $50 threshold or somehow accidentally undervalues a gift by a dollar or two, that Senator would not be in strict violation of the new Senate rules. By relying on the good faith of Senators to comply with this new rule, we have addressed the concerns of those who may object to strict recordkeeping requirements and the concerns also of those who believe we should do all we can to ensure that Senators do not accept from now on more than $50 in gifts from any one source in a calendar year. In addition, the new compromise will make it clear that if a Member elects to attend a charitable event and pays all the travel and lodging expenses out of his or her own pocket, the Member will be able to participate in a meal for free as part of that charitable event. I do not think it is necessary, but, obviously, why would anyone pay for all the travel and lodging in order to simply get a free meal? I think it will [[Page S 10799]] certainly take care of that. We believe it was allowed under our original legislation, but we have clarified it to take care of concerns of some of the Members. It takes care of the lion's share of this issue. The bipartisan coalition that has thrown its support behind the proposal takes the view that although they favor the tough gift limitations consistent with the Levin-Wellstone legislation, they believe that the Senate will be better served by a gift rule applied simply and equally, whether you are talking about lobbyists or nonlobbyists, or whether you are talking about something that happens in Washington or in a Senator's home State. We have met this concern with this compromise. I tend to agree with my colleagues on the importance of simplicity in terms of such a rule. I came from a legislative body in the State of Wisconsin that practically does not allow anything of value from anyone, not even a cup of coffee. That simple but strict rule has been enormously successful for over 20 years and has not led to the bureaucratic complications and starving-legislator scenarios that a few people have suggested could come out of reform. I adopted a zero-tolerance policy in my office. We simply keep a log of the gifts the office receives, and it has been contained--there are over 1,000 entries--in this red binder in the last 2\1/2\ years. Most of the items we either donate to charity or to the State of Wisconsin. Other items we discard. As I said, the rule has been incredibly successful for one simple reason: It is easy to understand. I certainly understand where my colleagues on the other side are coming from on this issue. I believe we have made progress on this compromise in terms of getting a straightforward and easy-to-understand gift rule. Many of those involved in this bipartisan compromise believe the Senate should have the same gift rules as the executive branch. Again, this argument has a lot of appeal to it. After all, a Cabinet Secretary certainly receives as many gifts and is invited to as many speaking engagements as a Member of Congress. If the Cabinet Secretary can live under the $20 and $50 thresholds, I do not see why a Member of Congress cannot do the same. Again, many of the parties involved in these negotiations raised a valid concern, and we have appropriately addressed that concern in this compromise. But Senators should know one thing about the compromise. Though it does allow some gifts from the lobbying community that the underlying legislation did not allow, the bipartisan substitute we put forth is a significant departure from current Senate rules and will have a profound and historic impact on how this body interacts with the lobbying community. It will change the way business is conducted in Washington in a significant way. The $20 de minimis rule may not be what I prefer. I made it clear that I think the zero Wisconsin rule is the best reform, and I hope we move to it one of these days. But this substitute, offered by the Senator from Arizona and others, will end the possibility of one special interest group putting forward steak dinners and fine wine and cart loads of gifts that can now be showered on people elected to the Senate. That is a very important step forward, and I am pleased to join in supporting this proposal. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Michigan. I want to be sure that we remember why these provisions are in the bill. It has to do with the fact that if you had to pick one aspect of this whole issue of gifts that seem to have brought more perception problems for the Senate than any other, it is the problem with the so-called charitable events. This is not to say that they do not have any merit--some of them. But the portrayals, particularly on some of the national television shows, have shown Members of this body and of the other body participating in events that were obviously dominantly recreational, that had to do with golf or tennis or whatever it might be. It was pretty obvious by the end of any one of these segments that the event was an opportunity for a Member of Congress to have an awfully good time on the ticket of whatever the organization that was promoting the event or the charity, whatever it was. Yes, this may have some negative impact in terms of what the Senator from Alaska is trying to talk about. I think in his case the fact that he is referring primarily to what he wants to do in his home State suggests to me it probably would not be a problem. The problem would occur more in the more publicized events--ski events in Utah, the golfing events in Idaho--that have nothing to do with our own home State. These are the ones that have caused a very serious problem. I believe it is very appropriate that this bill sets forth that in the case of an event that is a charitable event and is not specifically within the person's role as a representation of the Senate, then those cases--the travel and the lodging--are really too much. It has been abused. There are Members--I am not thinking of a Member of this body, but I am thinking of a case of a Member of the other body--who made a practice of going every week to these so-called charitable golfing events. I remember the Member got a $200 sweater at each event. The meals and everything went back to his district afterwards. It was a way of life. This is what we are trying to get at. I think it has been reasonably crafted. I do think it addresses the concern of the Senator from Alaska, which obviously has to do more with his own home State. Whether or not he is going to be able to attract Members of this body to Alaska, given the fact that there is a problem with lodging and the travel--it may be difficult. I do not want to suggest it will not be, possibly, a problem. But I think the greater concern here is that we eliminate this overall practice. I think this is reasonably drafted to achieve that. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Members of the Senate, this is not a minor adjustment. The Lott amendment in my view is the most important amendment we will be dealing with here. As the Senator from Arizona just pointed out, do not let anyone kid you about this one. It is not just moving up the executive standard from $50 in aggregate a year to $100 a year, it allows a person to take up to $50 a day from the same person at least every day of the year, I would say several times every day in the year, all year. How do you quantify that? It means one lobbyist or other individual could give every Member of the Senate $18,250 worth of stuff. And it would not even count. It would not even count toward the aggregation of the total of $100. This is a very major change from what I think is an excellent compromise. I regret having to even say it, because the Senator from Mississippi has negotiated in good faith. But this amendment would be a major mistake. The Senator from Mississippi calls for a rule of reason. I think his amendment is just the opposite. First of all, this is very different from the rule that the executive operates under very successfully. How different is a Cabinet Member in terms of the requests and entreaties they get from a Member of the Senate? I do not think that they are that different in that regard. And they live by this rule. And if one tries to argue that it is different for a legislative body, we in the Wisconsin legislature have lived with an even tighter rule than this for the last 20 years, Republicans and Democrats alike.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I understand. And they count every penny. There is no de minimis. The de minimis notion is usually under $1 or $2. This proposal suggests up to $50 is de minimis. You should not even count it. So this does present a very different situation.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield.

Mr. FEINGOLD. That it is. Let me say, for example, if a lobbyist wanted to send one Senator a dozen roses every day all year, I think it would be legal. Certainly anything up to $50 in terms of roses. Every day, all year. Let me give just a different kind of example. The Senator from Mississippi says it gets ridiculous to have these kinds of rules at this level. Well, I will tell you what is ridiculous. What is ridiculous is what would be allowed under this amendment. I will use an example from my office of one staff member's invitations that he has received if the same entity gave these. This is how his week would look. I think the average citizen would find this ridiculous. On Monday, he could have accepted an invitation that was given on July 6 to take part in an event that has captured the imagination of the Washington region's tennis enthusiasts. This year's Washington Tennis Classic includes Andre Agassi and Stefan Edberg. A ticket to a tennis event, probably under 50 bucks. Tuesday, from the same entity, he can attend a music event, Hootie and the Blowfish, a terrific group of artists recording on Atlantic Records, at the Merriweather Post Pavilion. That would be allowed from the same entity. Then on Wednesday, my staff member could go to the special screening of ``Don Juan DeMarco'' which includes a cocktail reception and dinner at 7 and then seeing the movie before everyone else in the country got to see it. That was April 11, 1995. If he is not tired at this point of all the entertainment, the same lobbyist or individual on Thursday could then treat him to the Cubs versus the Phillies, including a special train departing from Union Station for Philadelphia and presumably back. And then on Friday, winding down for the weekend, the same lobbyist then invites the staff member or the Senator to the ``Russian Roulette Vodka Tasting'' to kick off the weekend. Mr. President, this is what the Lott amendment will allow, and I believe in almost every one of these instances, it could be up to $50 and not a dime or a shot of the vodka will count toward the $100 aggregate. Even though this is not quite as bad, certainly, as the original McConnell substitute, it still provides an enormous loophole that will preserve, in large part, this lifestyle we are trying to eliminate. I suggest the body soundly--soundly--reject this amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. The amount was under $100. There was no aggregate under the original version.

Mr. FEINGOLD. No, that did not have to be counted.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to quickly respond to the statement of the Senator from Kentucky that the Ethics Committee certainly would take action against somebody who took a prime rib and a martini every day from the same individual. I do not understand that. This rule would simply say that that is fine. This rule would say that it does not come as a gift under the Senate rules if you took that for under $50 a day. I cannot believe that there would be a very strong case before the Ethics Committee if that Senator were able to say: You voted and passed a rule that explicitly permits this. It is very unlikely that I or any member of the public is going to believe that that is sufficient. It is going to be legal under the Senate rules to have a very nice dinner, or at least a pretty nice dinner, and very nice lunch every single day of the year from the same lobbyist--actually, several times a day. This is completely unacceptable, in terms of what we can call reform. It is not sufficient to say the Ethics Committee is going to be able to slam the hammer down when all the Senator has to do is say the Senate expressly permitted it under this rule.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. That is my understanding.

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. 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.''

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have the floor.

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. 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. 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. FEINGOLD. $36,500.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of the Dole- Lieberman legislation, and have spoken on a number of occasions about the moral and strategic imperative to lift unilaterally the arms embargo on Bosnia-Herzegovina. I am confident that the legislation will pass, and am pleased that the 104th Senate will finally go on record to do the right thing in this intractable situation. My only regret is that the Dole-Lieberman legislation does not include a mandate to [[Page S 10647]] lift the embargo on the Republic of Croatia as well. Today we are all focused on the unspeakable horrors perpetrated by Bosnian Serb rebels against the Bosnians. But the same patron, President Milosevic of Serbia, is complicitly supporting the Croatian Serbs' campaign of terror against Croatia as well. Though we expect to aid the Bosnians with our legislation today, we can only effectively address the entire Bosnian crisis if we seek a regional solution. That means including Croatia in the equation, and in this case, it means lifting the embargo against Croatia as well. One of the successes the Clinton administration has had in this conflict has been the March 1994 Washington Accords which secured American support for the Moslem-Croat Federation and the Bosnia-Croat confederacies. The Federation recognizes the need for a regional solution, an alliance where Serb forces are confronted by the united forces of the Bosnian and Croatian militaries. It also acknowledges that both states would be more viable if they can be united. Indeed, in order to receive the arms we are supporting tonight, they will have to be shipped through Croatia. Why would we want to pit these countries against each other when together they have a better chance of defeating the Serb aggressors? I am a proponent of lifting the embargo, Mr. President, because I believe that it is the only way to enable the Bosnians to effect the balance of power on the ground against the Serb aggressors, and thus negotiate in seriousness. Lifting the embargo on Croatia would help achieve the same goal by strengthening the credibility of the military threat against the Serbs, and expedite the transport of weaponry to Bosnia. Since we will not be voting on the embargo against Croatia tonight, I hope that as the Administration begins to think about implementing our legislation, it will take the practical path and lift the embargo against Croatia as well.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me take just a few brief moments to commend the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, and the Senator from Maine, Senator Cohen, for their tireless work on trying to plug the gaping holes that exist in our current lobbying disclosure laws. Like the gift ban legislation that the Senate will soon be turning to, the Lobbying Disclosure Act has traveled a long and winding road. S. 349, the original lobbying disclosure bill, passed the Senate in 1993 by a margin of 95 to 2. Unfortunately, that legislation fell victim to a filibuster near the end of the 103d Congress when some last-minute concerns were raised that the bill might infringe on the lobbying activities of grassroots and religious organizations. Though the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, has made clear that that bill would have had no such effects, I think it is to his credit that he has addressed those concerns in the underlying legislation, and made perfectly clear that it is neither the intent nor the practical effect of the bill to restrict such grassroots lobbying in any way. The effort of the Levin-Cohen legislation to shed some much-needed light on the activities of Washington's paid lobbyists is long overdue, and together with a strong gift ban bill will make dramatic progress toward lessening the degree of influence that the special interests have here in Washington. The Levin-Cohen bill, which I am an original cosponsor of, does not ban lobbying or restrict the rights of individuals to petition their Government in any way. It is simply a disclosure bill. It states that if you spend a certain percentage of time lobbying or spend x number of dollars on lobbying activities, you must disclose certain types of information about what legislators you are lobbying and the issues raised. The bill would require paid, professional lobbyists to disclose essential information, such as who they are lobbying, who they are representing and what issues they are lobbying on. The Levin-Cohen bill would also simplify and streamline the reporting process by allowing a single registration by each organization that employs professional lobbyists. This will dramatically cut down on the unnecessary and burdensome paperwork that has become associated with our current inadequate registration laws. As I said, Mr. President, this legislation is long overdue. Our constituents are entitled to know who is lobbying us, who they represent, how much they are spending to lobby us, and what issues they are trying to influence us on. The Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, has probably illustrated how the current lobbying disclosure laws are riddled with holes and inefficiencies, and have resulted in only a fraction of the Washington lobbyists actually registering under the current laws. In short, the public is essentially in the dark as to the kinds of back room lobbying and deal cutting that has unfortunately become a large part of the legislative process. I am pleased that this body is apparently going to overwhelmingly approve this bill. I have said before that many of these reform issues can be done and should be done on a bipartisan basis. I have joined with the senior Senator from Arizona on a number of issues, ranging from campaign finance reform to revolving door lobbying reform to gift reform, and I hope that the bipartisan cooperation that was so effective in producing this strong lobbying disclosure bill can be extended to make progress and the many other areas of our legislative process that have cried out for reform in recent years. Again, I compliment the two sides for their willingness to get together, compromise and produce a bipartisan bill that preserves the tough disclosure requirements in the original Levin-Cohen bill while ensuring that the reporting provisions in this bill are not overly burdensome to those who are going to be complying with the new requirements. I look forward to a resounding vote on this legislation and I yield the floor. Amendment No. 1847 (Purpose: To make technical corrections to lobby reform bill)