Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this month people around the world are joining together to remember and honor the men, women, and children who perished in the Armenian genocide. One and a half million Armenians were systematically massacred at the hands of the Ottoman Empire, and over 500,000 more were forced to flee their homeland of 3,000 years. It is important that we note this terrible tragedy. When the Armenian genocide occurred, from 1915 to 1923, the international community lacked a name for such atrocities. In January 1951, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide entered into force to affirm the international commitment to prevent genocide and protect basic human decency. Today, we have the words to describe this evil, and we have an obligation to prevent it. But we must also have the will to act. The Armenian genocide may have been the first instance of what Winston Churchill referred to as ``the crime without a name,'' but it was certainly not the last. During the Holocaust, and later in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the world has seen the crimes of ethnic cleansing and genocide recur again and again. Too often, the international will to stop atrocities has been lacking, or far too late in coming. Today, as the genocide in Darfur, Sudan, continues to unfold, we have to muster the will and the sense of urgency required to save innocent lives. The international community has made the first steps, but it has a long way to go in punishing and, particularly, preventing genocide. As we move forward, we must learn the lessons of Armenia's genocide. We cannot be misled by the rhetoric of scapegoating, denial, and obfuscation used by murderous leaders to disguise their agenda. And we cannot respond to evidence of methodical, brutal violence by wringing our hands and waiting for some definitive proof that these events qualify as genocide. Enforcing a collective, international commitment to prevent and stop genocides from occurring is imperative. We owe the victims of the Armenian genocide this commitment. This is why we must remember the Armenian genocide. To forget it is to enable more genocides and ethnic cleansing to occur. We must honor its victims by reaffirming our resolve to not let it happen again.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I voted in favor of cloture on the Hagel-Martinez compromise on the immigration bill. I did not like the changes that this compromise made to the Senate Judiciary Committee bill, and I would vastly prefer that the Senate pass the committee bill intact. But we lost the cloture vote on the committee bill yesterday, and I saw this as the only way to move forward with comprehensive immigration reform this year. I remain hopeful that after this coming recess, we will be able to come to some agreement on meaningful, comprehensive reform. This issue is too significant to put off--too important to our national security, to our economy, and most importantly to the millions of people whose lives will be affected. Like so many of my colleagues, I am willing to work on a bipartisan basis to address the critical problems facing our Nation with regard to immigration, just as the Judiciary Committee was able to do. I do want to lay out some of my concerns about the Hagel-Martinez substitute. But first, I should note that this compromise leaves intact most of the committee bill, including very important provisions like the guest worker program for foreign workers who want to enter the country in the future for jobs that Americans are not filling, the family reunification provisions, the AgJOBS title to help agricultural workers, and the DREAM Act to provide higher education opportunities for children who are long-term U.S. residents and came to this country illegally through no fault of their own. Nonetheless, the compromise makes some troubling revisions to how we would deal with undocumented individuals who are currently in the country. I appreciate that Senator Kennedy was able to secure some important changes to the original Hagel-Martinez proposal that help protect workers, such as stronger wage protections. Those were important concessions. But I am concerned about the core modification that the compromise makes to the committee bill; that is, treating differently those people who have been here for more than 5 years and those who entered the country illegally in the last 2 to 5 years. This approach is overly complicated and difficult to administer, and it is unfair to treat these two categories of people differently. Mr. President, we must enact realistic, comprehensive reform, and I will continue to work with my colleagues toward a solution. I hope that we can accomplish that this year.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wish to express my regret that the administration has decided to decline the opportunity for candidacy on the newly formed U.N. Human Rights Council. I supported the creation of the Human Rights Council because I believe that we need to create a system where human rights abusers are held accountable for the atrocities they commit. It was for that same reason that there was overwhelming international support for the creation of the Human Rights Council. In choosing not to join the council, the U.S. Government has signaled its intention to address worldwide human rights abuses unilaterally. This decision will damage U.S. credibility when weighing in on the human rights debates of the future and further isolate the United States from multilateral decisions. Human rights abuses should be addressed through an international strategy to ensure that there are internationally agreed-upon standards to protect all members of society. I am deeply concerned that the administration's decision will undermine our human rights agenda, rather than advance it. I have repeatedly expressed my concern about the approach to the U.N. taken by this administration and am further disappointed by this most recent decision. The U.N. is by no means perfect, but a world without a global human rights body would be a more dangerous one for people everywhere and would serve to undermine fundamental U.S. interests. I urge the administration to reconsider its decision.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I will vote in favor of cloture on the Judiciary Committee substitute to S. 2454, the immigration bill that is pending. This substitute is not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it. This is a defining moment for America. Our immigration system is broken, and it is up to us to fix it. Congress can choose from several paths. We can build a wall around our country and make felons of millions of people who are undocumented or who have provided humanitarian assistance to the undocumented. That is the path the House bill would take, and I believe it is a path that is fundamentally inconsistent with our Nation's history and values. But we have another option, a better option. We can recognize that we need a comprehensive, pragmatic approach that strengthens border security but also brings people out of the shadows and ensures that our Government knows who is entering this country for legitimate reasons, so we can focus our efforts on finding those who want to do us harm. That is the Judiciary Committee substitute, and that is the path I believe we must choose. First of all, we can and must bolster our efforts at the borders and prevent terrorists from entering our country. We absolutely must work to curb illegal immigration, and I am pleased that the Judiciary Committee substitute contains strong provisions in this area. But it would be fiscally irresponsible to devote more and more Federal dollars to border security without also creating a realistic immigration system to allow people who legitimately want to come to this country to go through legal channels to do so. Right now, there are roughly 11 million to 12 million individuals here illegally. The United States issues only 5,000 employment-based immigrant visas each year for nonseasonal, low-skilled jobs. This is nowhere near the number of jobs that are available but not filled by American workers. More than anything else, this lack of available visas explains why we face such an influx of undocumented workers. These are the facts, and our immigration policy must deal with them. Improving our border security alone will not stem the tide of people who are willing to risk everything, even their lives, in order to enter this country. According to a recent Cato Institute report, the probability of catching an illegal immigrant has fallen over the past two decades from 33 percent to 5 percent, despite the fact that we have tripled the number of border agents and increased the enforcement budget tenfold. If we focus exclusively on enforcement, our immigration system will remain broken, and I fear we will have wasted Federal dollars. We need a new solution. We need to improve security at our borders and create a system that allows law-abiding noncitizens to enter the country legally to work when there is truly a need for their labor and that deals with the ``shadow population'' of illegal immigrants who are already here. And that is why business groups, labor unions and immigrant's rights groups have all come together to demand comprehensive immigration reform. There has been a lot of talk in this debate about ``amnesty.'' Let's be perfectly clear: Not one Senator who supports this committee substitute has suggested giving undocumented aliens blanket amnesty. The committee substitute would require undocumented aliens to show work history, satisfy background checks, pay fines, fulfill English language and civics requirements, and wait at the back of the line in order to obtain permanent status. In other words, people who come forward and play by the rules would be able to earn--not automatically receive but earn--a path to permanent status. It is easy to argue that those who came here illegally should be sent back to their home countries and that to do otherwise would be an affront to the rule of law. But even Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff acknowledged to the Judiciary Committee last fall that it is impractical, not to mention astronomically expensive, to suggest that we just deport 11 million or 12 million people. We have to grapple with the complex reality in which we find ourselves, and it is not realistic or productive to suggest that mass deportations are a solution. Another provision of this substitute creates a guest worker program that allows employers in the future to turn to foreign labor but only when they cannot find American workers to do the job. This will help avoid a future flow of undocumented workers. Our laws must acknowledge the reality that American businesses need access to foreign workers for jobs they cannot fill with American workers. In my home State, I have heard from many business owners, including a number whose businesses go back for generations, about the need for Congress to fix our broken immigration system because they cannot find American workers. These hard-working American business owners desperately want to follow the rules and cannot fathom why Congress has dragged its feet on this issue for so long. Whether it is tourism or farming or landscaping, our businesses will continue to suffer if we fail to enact meaningful, comprehensive, long-term immigration reform. But once we do, we also need to do a better job of enforcing our immigration laws in the workplace. While the committee substitute recognizes the need for foreign workers, the new guest worker program also includes strong labor protections to ensure that foreign labor does not adversely affect wages and working conditions for U.S. workers. We must not create a second class of workers subject to lower wages and fewer workplace protections. That would hurt all workers because it drives down wages for everyone. Foreign workers who have paid their dues should be treated fairly and deserve the protections of all working Americans. For all of these reasons, I support the core immigration reform provisions of the committee substitute. I also want to mention two pieces of legislation included in the committee substitute that I strongly support. The first is the DREAM Act. Regardless of what you might think about other aspects of immigration reform, we have to recognize that there are people affected by this debate with little say in the decisions that affect their lives--undocumented children. Many of these children have lived in this country for most of their lives and have worked hard in school. Yet due to their undocumented status, their long-term options are greatly limited. These children live with the threat of deportation and without access to crucial financial resources, making it virtually impossible to pursue the college education that would enable them to contribute more fully to our society. We should not punish children for their parent's actions, and we should not deny children who have worked hard the opportunity to live up to their potential. That is why I am a longtime supporter of the DREAM Act and why I am so pleased it was accepted as an amendment during the Judiciary Committee proceedings on this bill. This provision will allow children who are long-term U.S. residents, who have graduated high school, who have good moral character, and who simply want to further their contribution to our society, to pursue a higher education or enlist in the military. Under this provision, States could grant instate tuition to such students, and it would also establish an earned adjustment mechanism by which these young people could adjust to a legal status. I am also pleased that the AgJOBS legislation is included in this substitute. It is a tribute to Senator Craig, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Kennedy that we were able to reach a compromise on AgJOBS that the committee voted to include. This crucial legislation will enable undocumented agricultural workers to legalize their status and would reform the H2-A agricultural worker visa program so that in the future, growers and workers will not continue to rely on illegal channels. I wish to mention that I was pleased the Judiciary Committee accepted an amendment that I offered, to ensure that people whose naturalization petitions are denied by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services can seek judicial review. Citizenship decisions have historically been a judicial function, and it would have been a real disservice to our Nation's traditions to prevent individuals who have worked hard to become U.S. citizens to be denied that most central privilege without a judge's review of the decision. Of course, this bill is not perfect. It contains some very troubling provisions. I do not think that the National Crime Information Center database, which is the central criminal database used by local, State and Federal agencies around the country, should include civil immigration violations, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police has also expressed concerns about this. I also have concerns about other provisions in title II of the bill that require excessive deference to executive agency decisionmaking in immigration cases and that expand the categories of individuals subject to the most draconian immigration consequences. But overall, this is a good bill. I believe that if the Senate invokes cloture on, and ultimately passes, the Judiciary Committee substitute or something similar to it, we will be well on our way to fixing our broken immigration system. We will have chosen the right path.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and honor the city of Madison as it celebrates its 150th year. As a Wisconsinite, I take great pride in our State's Capital, which is well known for a unique mix of culture, education and natural beauty, as well as a vibrant civic and political life. In the first part of the 19th century, James Duane Doty, who would later serve as Wisconsin's territorial governor, became enamored with a piece of land in south central Wisconsin that was nestled on an isthmus between two lakes. Doty purchased the land and named it after the fourth President, James Madison. It was this land that would become home to Wisconsin's capitol, its university, and one of the State's thriving cultural centers. Doty had the territorial capital moved from Belmont to Madison in 1837. By the time the Village of Madison was incorporated as a city in 1856 there were nearly 7,000 residents. Madison boasts a strong tradition of diversity. Yankees from the Eastern States came first, followed soon by German, Irish and Norwegian immigrants. After the turn of the century, Madison also became home to a growing number Italian, Greek, African-American, and Jewish residents. The State constitution called for a university to be situated near the seat of government. In many ways, this provision could be credited with paving the way for ``the Wisconsin Idea'' that has made Wisconsin such a center for innovative public policy. Putting the capital and the university together has encouraged educators and researchers to play a central role in addressing social problems, and it has revolutionized the way that Wisconsin, and the nation, approach public policy issues. The University of Wisconsin-Madison is also a cornerstone of Madison's rich cultural life, offering a tremendous array of concerts, plays, lectures and other activities. And UW's students bring an energy to life in the city that is one of Madison's hallmarks. The State capitol is another defining Madison landmark, both the building itself, and how it has contributed to the city's character. Politics and public service have been a part of Madison from the very beginning, and they have made Madison home to some of the State's greatest moments, including the passage of historic progressive legislation at the turn of the last century under the leadership of then-Governor Robert M. La Follette. Madison has also achieved a wonderful system of parks and architectural beauty in its public spaces, which complement the natural beauty of the lakes' shorelines. These areas also serve as host to outdoor concerts and countless other activities during summer months. Having graduated from UW-Madison and served in the State senate, and as a resident of nearby Middleton, I am not only proud to represent the people of Madison, I am privileged to be a part of this community. I know Madison residents will continue to draw on their city's rich history and continue to enjoy the beautiful land that captivated James Doty so many years ago. I hope that my colleagues will join me in congratulating the city of Madison as it celebrates its sesquicentennial.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is holding a conference to delve into some of the policy questions that have delayed efforts to move forward with legislation addressing global warming. As many Americans have realized--even in the face of an absolute void of leadership from this current administration--one of the greatest challenges currently facing us is how to reduce our contributions to global climate change before it is too late for changes to matter. In fact, the majority of the American public believes that they have an individual role to play in being a part of the solution. And the public is looking to us, their elected leaders, to provide the framework for change. As many people know, Senators Lieberman and McCain have been the longtime champions of raising awareness of global warming. Today's conference, under the leadership of Senators Domenici and Bingaman, demonstrates that more and more elected officials are willing to take a stand in recognizing the imminent need for action. Along with my constituents, I hope that the time will soon come when a majority of the U.S. Congress is willing to follow their lead. On the heels of today's conference, another Senate committee is scheduled to consider the issue of global warming. Tomorrow, the Commerce Committee's Global Climate Change and Impacts Subcommittee will hear about the administration's approach to the issue. While the administration favors developing and sharing new zero and low-carbon technologies with developing nations, I submit that our citizens are looking for bold action that addresses more than how we will help developing countries--they want to know what we plan to do domestically. Mr. President, if there ever was a time when it was all right to ignore global warming, that time has long passed. We have got to get real about this issue--and getting real will require a commitment to reducing our dependence on oil instead of continually talking about opening up a wildlife refuge for oil drilling. For, if we continue turning our backs on the reality of climate change, we might as well be turning our backs on our grandchildren--and this is why I am optimistic that the Senate's treatment of global warming is nearing its own tipping point, a point after which we will provide the leadership that our constituents are increasingly expecting from us.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I want to express my concerns about the recent presidential election in Belarus. I have previously noted the tremendous hardships Belarus has endured throughout its history. For centuries, Belarus has been fought over, occupied and carved up. But Belarus' declaration of independence from the Soviet Union in 1991 held great promise for a better future. As it broke from communist rule, it had the opportunity to build a free nation and become part of a peaceful, more secure Europe. The country began to embrace economic and political reforms and democratic principles. It established a constitution and held its first Presidential election in 1994. Unfortunately, the prospect of democratic change in Belarus was quickly frozen as its first President, Alexander Lukashenka, adopted increasingly authoritarian policies, including amending the constitution in a flawed referendum to extend his term and broaden his powers. Lukashenka's regime has been marked by a terrible human rights record that is progressively getting worse, with little respect for freedom of expression, assembly or an independent media. A pattern of disturbing disappearances of opposition leaders fails to be seriously investigated by authorities. The living conditions in Belarus are declining and Lukashenka's refusal to institute economic reforms has only aggravated the situation. The 2005 State Department Human Rights report states that ``the government's human rights record remained very poor and worsened in some areas with the government continuing to commit numerous serious abuses.'' The report goes on to acknowledge that Lukashenka ``systematically undermined the country's democratic institutions and concentrated power in the executive branch through flawed referenda, manipulated elections, and undemocratic laws and regulations.'' Mr. President, the litany of human rights abuses documented in this report show that Lukashenka has only used the last 12 years to increase the reign of tyranny and oppression in Belarus. The elections of March 19, 2006 continued Lukashenka's repressive tactics and total disregard for democratic principles. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, which observed the elections, stated in its report that ``the arbitrary abuse of state power, obviously designed to protect the incumbent President, went far beyond acceptable practice. The incumbent President permitted State authority to be used in a manner which did not allow citizens to freely and fairly express their will at the ballot box.'' The report cited a ``climate of intimidation and insecurity'' and a ``highly problematic'' vote count during and after the election. The recent so-called ``color revolutions'' in Georgia, the Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan, showed what can happen when a country's people become fed up with the oppression of tyrants and call for democratic, representative government. Let us hope that the fledgling democracy movement in Belarus has a similar chance to flower. A number of courageous Belarusians braved intimidation and took serious risks to denounce the election results in peaceful public demonstrations; unfortunately, these risks were made imminently clear when Belarusian security forces marched into the public square where they were rallying and forcibly detained a number of them in the early morning hours of March 24. I add my voice to the chorus of those calling for the Belarusian authorities to respect the rights of their citizens, hold valid elections, and immediately release those who were detained simply for peacefully expressing their views.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. On this point--obviously, it may not be a secretary or a CEO of a company; it could be some other employee--would the Senator at least consider whether we should take the step of prohibiting the use of company resources or company credit cards? In other words, I think it should be broader. You have raised some concerns about that. What about allowing personal resources to be used but not company resources?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I do not know if I will use the whole time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I express my gratitude not only for the Senator's kind remarks to the Senator from Connecticut but I am pretty sure the McCain-Feingold effort that we fought for, for 8 years, would not have succeeded if not for the brilliant leadership of the Senator as manager on the floor, for which I am always grateful and also for his friendship. I pursue the example that the Senator raised in a constructive way. In the scenario the Senator raised where the secretary would come with lobbyists, what is the Senator's thought about how she would be paying for that? Would she be paying for that with the company credit card, for example?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Or with a personal?

Mr. FEINGOLD. And does the Senator agree, under your current amendment, that the secretary would be able to use the company credit card to pay for it under the amendment we have agreed to?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. FEINGOLD. 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 AssociationTM (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.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I enjoyed listening to the remarks of the Senator from Mississippi. This reminds me of the experience in 1994 when there was stiff resistance to the idea of having a gift ban in the Senate. We achieved a significant victory by having at least a $50 limit which has been, unfortunately, abused to this day. I would like, at this time, to get this done in a way that does not cause us to have to come back. The point I make to my friend from Mississippi is that this is a real loophole. I am not trying to find some esoterical problem. It is a real loophole if employees of large companies, where the companies are registered as lobbyists, if they are able to buy meals. It undercuts the whole idea that we are prohibiting meals by lobbyists and their employees. I make two responses. First, this does not apply to companies that are not registered as lobbyists. For example, if the Senator from Mississippi were to have lunch with, say, a banker in Jackson, MS, whose company bank does not have a lobbyist, this does not affect that situation. Let's not exaggerate how far it goes. What is more important, I don't understand the premise. The Senator said he would not be able to have lunch or have dinner with a CEO. Why not? All you have to do is split the bill. It is that simple. Maybe it is a different cultural tradition, but in Wisconsin if you go to lunch with someone, or dinner, more times than not, you split the bill. It seems to me that Senators know how to do that. It is not about the person trying to buy you a meal. It is just a good thing for us to do. Whether this is practical or impractical, I say this again, we have had this rule in Wisconsin for over 30 years for our State legislature. It has worked just fine. Sometimes we kid around about it, the cup of coffee situation, but it is a good, clean rule. And people understand, when you are a legislator in Wisconsin, you pay your own way. That is all there is to it. It is that simple. I don't want to prohibit the Senator from Mississippi or anyone else from socializing with whomever he wants, and I certainly enjoy sharing dinner with friends. Sometimes, they are lobbyists. There is no problem, though, with paying your own way. If we don't do this, if we do not adopt this amendment, we are stuck with a big loophole. I think the fears about this being difficult to administer are exaggerated. I retain the balance of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I think the Senator sees where I am going with this. I think the Ethics Committee and others will have to be very reasonable interpreters.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I will have him respond on my time. The situation is that you are raising situations with personal friends, and in those situations I don't disagree, I don't think there would be a problem. I think the exception would be properly interpreted. I am asking the Senator to at least perhaps consider whether we really want the kind of scenario that the Senator posits, where a company basically lines up people to come in and act as the person that uses the company credit card. It seems to me we have an opportunity to fix something here, not go as far as I want to go but at least prevent the use of company resources and at the same time avoid the possibility of the true personal friendship situation from being affected.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, obviously, not only do I respect what the Senator from Connecticut is doing, but I know his intentions are absolutely to have the strongest possible bill we can have. What I am trying to do, as strongly as I feel about this issue-- because, again, Wisconsin has had this system, and it has worked just fine. So based on my own personal experience, this is not some kind of a crazy system. Nonetheless, what I am trying to get at is a way that we could have a rule, that even if somebody is technically considered a lobbyist--or we could do it some other way--they just could not use company resources to purchase the meal. That seems to me to be a very reasonable step. When somebody goes out to lunch or dinner with somebody, it is one thing if they buy a friend or even someone they just met a meal, it is another thing when they are using that company credit card. So obviously I am interested in the amendment I have offered, but I would ask the Senator to think about whether what I am saying is an attempt to come to some kind of a reasonable agreement that actually addresses the hypothetical that he has raised. Mr. President, I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have such regard for the Senator from Maine that I would consider an exception for any lobster in Maine because she and I have shared lobster in Maine, and that is a very special thing I think everyone would accept. My admiration for this Senator from Maine on these issues is truly boundless. She is the one who, somehow, we convinced to join us very early on McCain-Feingold. And just like I said about Senator Dodd, if not for Senator Collins, there is no way this major reform would have ever passed. So I am talking to some of the people who truly have been reformers in Congress over the years, some of them much longer than I have been. And I say all of this with respect. Let me say this. We know, because some of us have been working on this for some time, that these opportunities for reform do not come up every year. They tend to come up when something bad happens, whether it be the concerns about the 1996 campaign finance violations or the Abramoff scandal. It is not like we are going to have a chance to do this next year because that is not the way this place works. And, frankly, there are weightier matters that face this country. But I am warning my colleagues, this is a chance to not have another embarrassing loophole. If we do not do what I am suggesting here, we are going to be embarrassed. There are going to be meals arranged--not the kind of scenario Senator Dodd suggested: an innocent situation but a gaming of this meal ban to allow expensive meals to be bought by people who work for some of the companies I have listed. I do not think people are going to feel good about that. I think it could raise some of the very things we talked about in terms of the whole Abramoff scandal that led to this. I think we are missing an important opportunity to make sure this bill passes the test with the American people. So again, with respect, I offer this amendment to make sure this amendment works. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am grateful to the Senator from Delaware for his support and his ideas on this issue because he obviously knows what he is talking about, having been a Member of this body for a very long time. I think, obviously, I will try to find some other way to do this. But he has stated the key point. This is not hard to do. This is what we have done in Wisconsin for decades. It is very simple to pay your own way. I do not know what it is, but I cannot understand what the problem is with having that kind of a clear prohibition. I think we will all be better off. Mr. President, has the other side yielded their time? Has their time expired?