Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Lautenberg and Wellstone, in once again introducing legislation that will fundamentally reform the way Congress deals with the thousands and thousands of gifts and other perks that are offered by Members each year from individuals, lobbyists and associations that seek special access and influence on Capitol Hill. Last year, this body approved a strong gift ban bill by a resounding vote of 95 to 4. The provisions of that bill, which would have strictly prohibited the acceptance of gifts from lobbyists and which provided only a few exceptions for nonlobbylists, were retained in a conference report that not only would have clamped down on this outrageous perk, but would have closed the gaping loopholes that riddle our current lobbying disclosure laws. That conference report failed to pass in the closing days of the 103d Congress, but we are introducing this bill today because we are unwilling to allow such an important and fundamental issue to be forgotten merely because we were unable to obtain final passage in the waning moments of the last Congress. This legislation is needed to help restore the lost faith of people in their Government, and to reverse the strong negative view of the American people harbor for this institutions. We have to recognize that the American people want their representatives to fundamentally change the way they do business, and passing meaningful gift ban legislation would represent an important first step towards extinguishing the firestorm of cynicism and distrust that has swept across the political landscape. It would send a strong message to our constituents that we are prepared to take foreceful steps to allay any perceived conflicts of interests between the acceptance of such gifts and our responsibilities as elected representatives. Let me illustrate this point by referring to a TIME/CNN poll taken late last year. Like many polls before it, this poll showed that public approval of the performance of Congress as an institution is embarrassingly low. This poll also found that 84 percent, 84 percent of the American people believe that officials in Washington are heavily influenced by special interests and out of touch with the average person. The issue here, is not whether Members of Congress are indeed for sale or susceptible to pressure from special interests. We know that this is largely invalid. But it is the perception of impropriety that must be changed. We must identify what has fueled this perception, and pass reforms that will regain the lost trust and faith the American people have in their Government. The number and types of gifts delivered to congressional offices each and every day is astonishing, and frankly, we should be thankful that most of our constituents are spared the imagery that has become a frequent sight on Capitol Hill of flatbed carts moving through the hallways of Congress, stacked with gifts. Though I have adopted a strict policy for myself and my staff that prohibits the acceptance of virtually anything of value, my office has received--and declined-- close to 800 gifts since I joined the U.S. Senate 2 years ago. I have had some unusual gifts come into my office, including, for the second consecutive year, a Christmas tree. It may strike some of our constituents as odd that there is a lobbying firm out there that is committed to leveling a small forest every year to provide Christmas trees to Members of Congress. But it is not only the gifts themselves that anger the American people, it is also the source of these gifts that sparks the greatest resentment among our constituents, and this is reflected in the same TIME/CNN poll I referred to earlier. In this poll, the following question was posed: ``Which one of these groups do you think have too much influence in government?''. A list of choices were provided, and which groups did respondents believe have too much influence in public policy decisions? The wealthy, large corporations, foreign governments and special interest groups. The gifts that we receive--and, again, that I personally decline--range from fruit baskets to artwork to fine wine--you name it. The sources of these gifts? The wealthy, large corporations, foreign governments and special interest groups. In other words, the exact same groups cited by a majority of poll respondents as having special influence and access with the Federal Government are the exact same groups that provide most of the free gifts and meals to Members of Congress. The connection is clear, and I am convinced that if we eliminate such unnecessary gifts we can convince the American people that we are not beholden to any special interests and we can begin to break down the walls of distrust between the American people and their Government. The bill we are introducing today will strictly prohibit the lobbying community from providing free meals, travel and entertainment to Members of Congress and their staffs. Most of these stringent rules will apply to non-lobbyists as well. The legislation also includes exceptions to these tight restrictions that will allow legislators and staff to carry out the day to day official responsibilities of a Member of Congress. For example, these exceptions do allow Members to be reimbursed for certain expenses incurred in the attendance of programs, seminars and conferences related to official business. Those exceptions aside, the gift ban provisions contained in this legislation will take a hard line against those offered items that are completely unrelated to official business and serve only to fuel the negative perceptions of Congress that have permeated our society. The current gift rules, which allow Members of Congress and their staff to accept gifts worth up to $250 from any one source during a year and does not include toward that limit any gifts under $100, are simply unacceptable. When the U.S. Senate first debated this issue last year, differing objections were raised to our effort to prohibit the acceptance of these gifts. Some argued that the gifts provided to Members and staff do not translate into special access for anyone, nor do they have any influence on the legislative process. Maybe, maybe not. But it is the mere appearance of impropriety that has so sharply turned the American people against this institution. For our constituents who may view a television news report of some special interest group picking up the tab for a lawmaker's trip to Florida, it appears to be a clear quid pro quo arrangement. But there was another interesting argument raised during last year's debate on this issue-- the argument that strict gift rules were unworkable and would hinder the work of Members and their staffs. I would ask my colleagues who genuinely believe this to look at the experience of my home State, Wisconsin. I served for 10 years in the Wisconsin State Legislature as a State senator. under rules that prohibit the acceptance of anything of value, even a cup of coffee, from a lobbyist or a lobbying organization. These rules, which have had virtually no impact on that legislative body's ability to perform, have earned the State of Wisconsin a well-deserved reputation for clean government, a term that few people, unfortunately, would apply to the U.S. Congress. My experience in the Wisconsin Legislature led me 2 years ago to adopt a strict ethics policy for my U.S. Senate office that combines the most restrictive elements of the existing ethics policy for the U.S. Senate and the ethics rules of the Wisconsin State Legislature. Specifically, I and the individuals employed in my office cannot accept food, drink, lodging, transportation, or any item or service from a lobbyist or any item of more than a nominal value from any person offered because of public position. Like the Wisconsin rules, there are exceptions provided that allow me and my staff to fulfill our legislative responsibilities. For example, these restrictions do not apply to the offering of educational or information materials; lodging, food, or beverage offered coincidentally with the presentation of a talk or participation in a meeting, program, or conference related to official business. The restrictions also do not apply to functions sponsored by, or items provided by, Federal agencies or Federal officials or diplomatic functions sponsored by foreign governments where attendance at such events is part of the individual's official responsibilities. In short, the strict rules governing the acceptance of gifts that have been adopted by both my office and the Wisconsin Legislature have worked while allowing those abiding by them to fulfill their official obligations and responsibilities. Acting on this legislation that will fundamentally reform the way Congress deals with the many gifts and other perks that are offered to Members each year would mark a significant change in the way Washington, DC, does business, as well as a strong first step toward restoring the voters' confidence in their elected representatives. But we need to do more than simply pass tough gift ban legislation. We need to strengthen our current lobbying disclosure laws that are riddled with gaping loopholes. We need to pass comprehensive campaign finance reform that will level the playing field between incumbents and challengers, and diminish the role of special interest money that has dominated our election system. It is my sincere hope that this body will begin this process of reform by acting on this measure at the earliest possibility. Once again, I thank my colleagues from Minnesota and New Jersey for their persistence on this issue, and I yield the floor.